Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Note: this page is purely an aggregation page of transclusions and not in the same format as other Deletion Sorting pages. "Generic biographies" should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People, which is transcluded directly below.

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

John Pringle (British Army officer)

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

The article as it stands does not demonstrate that this individual was notable. It lacks reliable sources. This article fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lived, got married and died, I'm not seeing notability for this person. The house is a listed building, could perhaps be a brief mention there, but there is no article for the residence. There was a physician with the same name, born about 100 yrs earlier, that comes up in sources. Nothing for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Mohamed

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

This article barely meets WP:GNG it only has 1-2 reliable sources, which isn't enough to prove the subject's importance. The topic doesn't seem to have played any major role, and many of the links are dead. Without more reliable, third-party coverage, this article may not belong on Wikipedia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Lists of people, News media, Politics, and Maldives. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPOL. --hroest 18:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Anthony Chaffee

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

This article only has two sources that might good for notability, but that doesn't automatically make the subject notable for Wikipedia and writing tone sounds like advertising, so there might be a conflict of interest. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Rugby league. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable, and has somewhat fringe views anyway. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Cammarata

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

WP:ONEEVENT, from what I can find, he has not done anything more notable than be the lawyer for Rudy Giuliani Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pammi Baweja

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

No coverage in reliable publications. Afstromen (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article clearly fails WP:NBASIC. Chronos.Zx (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narinder Batth

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

His work might seem notable, but the lack of coverage in reliable sources indicates that he is not notable Afstromen (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Music, Asia, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; did you look for punjabi language sources? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R. Arun Kumar

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

Unable to find any significant coverage that can satisfy WP:NPOL. The references are about his appointment as a member of a political party. I would be more happy if you provide any in-depth coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Odisha. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG; with the exception of this source, all sources in the article are about the new members of the party being elected, so indepth sources cannot be guaranteed. Nothing other than the sources in the article showed up on Google. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Draftify : This article has more citations than many biography articles in Wikipedia. There are atleast three sources having significant coverage on the subject. (https://www.deshabhimani.com/deshabhimani-english-/cpim-24th-party-congress-54751/new-members-to-cpim-polit-bureau-98849) (https://www.deccanchronicle.com/southern-states/telangana/cpm-elects-arun-kumar-to-politburo-1871349) (https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AD2Cs3QrY/) More sources can be added with time. So deletion is not the curation option. The article can be draftified if most editors think that this article needs improvement.
XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found three articles written by the subject on NewsClick. (https://www.newsclick.in/author/r-arun-kumar) I think these can be added as his political views. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Heschmeyer

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only example of third-party coverage is this 2020 interview in a Catholic magazine. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kansas. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are also a handful of, often brief, book reviews, but it doesn't look hopeful[1][2][3] Jahaza (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jima Francis

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

This South Sudanese journalist does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in the article (or found in BEFORE search) are all his own writing ([4]) or sources affiliated with him and thus not independent ([5], [6], [7], [8]). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Sudan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Berwal

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

Fails WP:BIO. A search for sources largely turned up passing mentions which only note his position as the bodyguard unit commandant, without providing any WP:SIGCOV about him. At most we have this Indian Express piece on the unit in which Berwal provides details on the unit - but again, no sigcov about the person himself. Java Hurricane 11:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, India, and Delhi. Java Hurricane 11:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is too early to create an article about him. Agletarang (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Cheever

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

Hi there. I came across this article via Special:Random and am quite alarmed by the fact it has (almost) no references. At first, I presumed it was just because of poor referencing and a classic case of deletion is not cleanup, but after scouring the internet I cannot find any significant coverage of him anywhere; all sources are either about his brother Eddie Cheever (who is reasonably notable), or are just entries in various racing driver sites (which is what the two refs are). I accidentally proposed deletion rather than sending to AfD so I'll fix that in a second. Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC) JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Finding online SIGCOV of late 80s/early 90s drivers is often very difficult – this article needs more references – but as a multi race winner and title contender in Japanese F3000 (the pinnacle of single-seater racing in Asia, quite lucrative at the time) Ross' own notability shouldn't be in question. MSport1005 (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per MSport1005's rationale. Finding web articles pre-early 2000s about motorsport, especially Japanese F3000 is really hard but to say that all sources are either entries or about his brother Eddie is a complete lie. [9], [10] are just two examples of sources I found, but I'd also argue that a 2-time grand prix winner and a Japanese F3 champion shouldn't even be nominated for deletion. [11],[12], [13].

Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 11:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many hits in Gnewspapers, this one [14][ talks about him. Was mentioned in an accident, coverage in Brazil [15], [16]. Mentioned in a retrospective here [17], showing lasting notabilty. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Competed in some of the highest levels of racing -Drdisque (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources presented above. Svartner (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mizell

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

Non-notable WP:ROTM American pastor/businessman. Promotional page (WP:PEACOCK) that appears like an advertorial CV (WP:NOT). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have PROD'ed this, utterly non-notable person. Reads like a CV/resume. I'm not sure this is appropriate for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BASIC. This reads like a press release. Six of the seven sources appear to be his own publications. The seventh is from his church, so he likely wrote that also. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and reads like a promotional resume. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Ellenby

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

Not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surprising amount of coverage of bridge in newspapers, [18], [19], [20], [21]. Seems to have been active in the 1950s and was still being talked about in newspaper columns in the 1990s. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Adil Hussain Shah

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

The article fails WP:Notability requirements, especially WP:1E and WP:BLP1E. Article subect was not consequential to the attack, and there is almost no extended relevance or notability of the subject. It is unlikely that the subject will receive continued significant coverage that could have potentially fulfilled the notability requirements. Perevious PROD discussion is here. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: failed WP:Notability. Not notable for a wikipedia article just because 'he try to defend shooting and got killed in a terror attack'.

雄奇 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

It was deleted a year ago, and not much has changed since then. There’s been the same routine coverage of events, interviews, and mentions. Since he’s an advertising executive, some routine media coverage is to be expected, but direct, in‑depth, quality coverage is still lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Turkey, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Politics, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is easily satisfied through both the GNG and the SNG about creative artists. The sources are not routine coverage. His advertising work is covered in depth in two academic papers. He was in charge of Turkey's second largest and oldest political party's advertising campaign. The nominator did an AfC review for this article but did not mention at all any concern about "notability" in their review comments, all their concern was about the non-encyclopedic style and NPOV violations. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If there is a notability concern, they should have mentioned in their AfC review. The subject is also the producer of various notable productions, which received coverage in sources like The Hollywood Reporter, which is considered a reliable source. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended, with non-policy-based !votes. RE: "not much has changed since then", please compare the two versions. Also, please see @Fram's comment in the first deletion discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was declined by Article for Creation on May 3 for being too promotional in tone. Article was then moved to main space by the creator with the comment The article waited too long in the AfC queue, and I disagree with the feedback it received. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if there are any concerns. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but not exactly... I'm not the article's creator. It was created in 2007, and I wasn't active on Wikipedia at the time, and I have no connection to the user who created it. The AfC reviewer and the nominator of this AfD are the same user, and for some reason, they believe not much has changed between this version of the article and this earlier version. Also, they didn't say it was promotional; they said the style violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was too promotional or too defamatory, as there are paragraphs that could be interpreted either way, and all based on reliable sources. Note that the sources that I used are not tabloids, but mainstream Turkish newspapers, columnists, commentators and academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two versions that need to be compared are the one declined at AFC 12:03, 3 May 2025 edit and the draft moved to main space 20:07, 3 May 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alinur_Velidedeo%C4%9Flu&diff=1288613775&oldid=1288553988 You are correct that the article was declined as not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone. I misspoke in my previous post when I stated the article was declined as being too promotional in tone. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement of this AfD incorrectly states that not much has changed since the prior nomination, that's the reason I asked those two versions to be compared. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I declined the speedy deletion, because the current article is substantially different from the one deleted, which consisted of only two of the current paragraphs. The opinion of a AfC reviewer does not constitute a deletion discussion, there is no need to have any improvement after that. No opinion on the notability, but given that it is harder to assert notability for people outside the english language world (and english references) and the efforts of TheJoyfulTentmaker in improving it, I suggest, that it is draftified/userfied if not kept - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I clarified in the 2nd nomination. I do not think that the sources is adequate for passing GNG.--Kadı Message 10:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Rimheden

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

This article was formerly completely unreferenced but I was able to find one ref and add it. However, I think it still does not pass GNG. Aside from the article I found, there does not appear to be any significant coverage of her anywhere. Other news sources are passing mentions in articles about other musicians and the only Google Book results appear to be listings in a directory of musicians. Pinguinn 🐧 10:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Sweden. Pinguinn 🐧 10:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. The EBSCO database and ProQuest also doesn't yield any results. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per below sources. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, I have found some stuff in Google News. I have not much time left to do translations.

* Norra Skåne, 19 juni 2008 - Skånska Sophie Rimheden får del av miljonbidrag
* Gaffa, 11.04.2012 - Efter en lång väntan släpper nu electrodrottningen sitt femte album. By Sofia Anderson
* GP, 29 May, 2012 - Sophie Rimheden | Haj
* Sydsvenskan, 1 juni 2012 - Rimheden fångar mörkt Skåne By Emma Thörnkvist
* Kristianstadsbladet, 3 januari 2006 - Sophie Rimheden spelar på hemmaplan
* Release Music Magazine - SOPHIE RIMHEDEN MISS ALBUM SVEDJEBRUK RELEASE: AUGUST 30, 2004 REVIEW: SEPTEMBER 6, 2004
* Release Music Magazine, - SOPHIE RIMHEDEN TRAVELLER ALBUM NONS RELEASE: APRIL16, 2008 REVIEW: JUNE 10, 2008

I can find more but I am due to do other things. Anyway, plenty to satisfy me.
Karl Twist (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the page just needs referencing. She's very popular and well-known in Scandanavia. Here's the problem, a lot of the usable and good references are not in English. There's a great potential to make a very good page about her. It will take time though. Some Wikipedia folks from Sweden would be a big help. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources by Karl Twist, there is clearly enough to pass the threshold for notability. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what Karl Twist posted above, I find plenty of reviews and articles in a Swedish media archive, a sustained interest over time. I've added a couple of them to the article so far. /Julle (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Rokas

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

it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. The content is minimal and promotional in nature, offering little encyclopedic value. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Michalis Rokas meets Wikipedia’s WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL criteria. He is a senior career diplomat within the European External Action Service, having held multiple head-of-mission roles representing the EU in Malaysia, New Zealand (as Chargé d’Affaires), and currently in North Macedonia. His appointments were publicly announced by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, indicating high-level political relevance. He has been regularly cited in independent and reliable media sources across Europe and Asia (e.g. Bernama, Free Malaysia Today, MIA, European Newsroom), and his role has direct bearing on EU enlargement and trade negotiations (e.g. EU–Malaysia FTA). Furthermore, the article is well-sourced with references from EEAS and major news outlets. The subject is notable as a top-ranking EU official shaping external relations. InfoWanderer (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial, not deepening, nothing notable. Α diplomat just doing his job. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nomination and your assessment were based on a very early draft of the article, created just hours before substantial improvements were made. Since then, the article has been significantly expanded with independent, reliable sources and verifiable content. I would appreciate it if you could revisit the current version before drawing a final conclusion.InfoWanderer (talk) InfoWanderer (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Islam Bulbul

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. No significant coverage found in reliable, independent sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 08:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anzhelika Bielova

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

it does not demonstrate notability through independent, reliable sources, offering only trivial or self-published coverage. It also reads like a promotional biography and lacks the depth, neutrality, and verifiability required by Wikipedia standards. Oia-pop (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given that only 1 minute passed between your previous AFD and this one, did you do any check WP:BEFORE? MarioGom (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the significance of the persona is confirmed by independent sources. There is a suspicion that the nominator is a sock of an experienced editor, given the number of edits and indiscriminate nominations for deletion by me alone. Greenhalle (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moein Jalali

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT. Can't find any sources giving him significant coverage. The main claim I see is winning the 2A Continental Architectural Awards, though as far as I can tell, it was second place. Unfortunately I was unable search in Persian, so if sources are found, please ping me. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete the awards [22] may indicate notability since he / his team seems to have come in first but these awards only exist since 2016 so I doubt that they are relevant for WP:ARCHITECT. Also he is listed as one of multiple people on a design team for the award, so overall I dont think winning a non-notable award as part of a team can count towards notability. Also, the page reads like a CV and needs some WP:TNT. --hroest 13:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and recognition

Moein Jalali has received individual recognition in international architecture awards:
2A Continental Architectural Awards
- 2016 - Won for Parsin Dental Clinic ^[1]
- 2018 - Won for Palemos Villa 2^[2]
Organizer listings confirm these were individual awards, not team achievements. Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 2A Asia Architectural Awards' significance:

The 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:

^ "Parsin Dental Clinic - 2016 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2016. Awarded to Moein Jalali for innovative dental space design {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)
^ "Palemos Villa 2 - 2018 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2018. Recognizing Jalali's residential design integrating traditional Persian elements {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)

^[1]

Françoise Fromonot, Nasrin Seraji, Wolfgang Tschapeller, Murat Tabanlıoğlu, Hiromi Hosoya

Also the 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:^[2]

Carme Pinós, Yoko Okuyama, Willy Müller, Ali Basbous.

Moein Jalali has been selected as a jury member for several prestigious international architecture awards, reflecting his standing in the architectural community:

Jury appointments

Inspireli Awards (2024) - Considered the world's largest student architecture competition^[3]
FRAME Awards (June 2024) - International interior design awards^[4]

Selection for such judging panels typically requires:^[5]

Recognized professional achievements
Specialized expertise
International perspective

Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "A Report of 2A Asia Architecture Award 2016". 2A Magazine. 2016. Archived from the original on 2024-06-01.
^ "Overview of 2A Continental Architectural Awards 2018". 2A Magazine. 2018. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: flag (help)
^ "Inspireli Awards 2024 Jury Members". Inspireli Awards. 2024. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: save command (help)
^ "June's FRAME Awards Jury Is Here: Meet the 20 Design Professionals". FRAME Magazine. 2024-06-01.
^ Jean-Pierre Chupin (2020). The Culture of Architectural Competitions. Potential Architecture Books. ISBN 978-1-988923-15-7. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

Delete - Per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. 2A Magazine looks minor. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ingemar Lindh

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

Orphaned article with little amount of sources available regardless of medium to demonstrate enough notability to pass WP:GNG. Was deleted via PROD in the past only to be recreated by a single-purpose account. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Sweden. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Called the "father of collective improvisation in the dramatic arts" [23], and described here [24]. Is also indexed in the VIAF as having publications in Sweden I'd imagine there are more in the native language. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a Swedish scholarly source here, as well as the sources found by Oaktree b. With this I think he meets WP:GNG. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Also, if anyone got access there's an article in Svenska Dagbladet from 10 July 1997 which seems interesting, one in Göteborgs-Posten 5 July 1997 and potentially one in Arbetet (Västsvenska editionen) 7 February 1970, to mention a few, but I can only see some snippets from home. /Julle (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Kruger

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 05:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 05:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I'm curious to know on what grounds you think this page is worthy of deletion - this is someone who has decades of relevant experience ARealWorm (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm curious to know why you don't think this person is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia- they have decades worth of relevant experience and engagement in the Australian industry and are now head of the Media Diversity Australia ARealWorm (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not meeting notability due to a lack of independent sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 5 is the only independent sourcing about this person. I don't find any other articles that could be used for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think it's close. I agree that source 5 is the best source, and it's an article largely focused on the subject that was published in one of Australia's newspapers of record. But source 4 is also independent, significant coverage in a very reputable newspaper. I think you could easily make the case that those two sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. But both are very similar routine staffing announcements (one says she is joining ABC Radio Canberra, the other says she is now leaving), and feature a very high volume of quotes. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I don't think I really see the necessary depth in those two sources to demonstrate notability. MCE89 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Siu Kwan

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

Sources for this article seem to refer back to this article (i.e. an aggregated google book) – might make more sense to merge to one of the team pages if doesn't seem worth a delete. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Hong Kong. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is one source to support this article and it is a dead link. This one is a no-brainer. This does not meet the WP:GNG and should be removed unless more RSes can be provided.

Ranald Leask

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

We're not Linkedin and I can't find sigcov. Jay Cubby 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Scotland. Jay Cubby 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Television. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE search finds close to no sources on him, all just brief mentions from over a decade ago. Fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 06:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing except sources where he was being cited as a spokesperson. Seems very unlikely to be notable. MCE89 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like Wikipedia shouldnt have a article on it as fails the criteria WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient sources to be included. If more sources can be found that support notability, I am open to the possibility of changing my vote. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soun Takeda

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

Note tag placed. I think its non-notable. References are extremly poor, some promo. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please do a WP:JAPANBEFORE before nominating. JP wiki has such this source: Oricon, JP name seach yield this NHK, Mainichi Shimbun and many more on JP GNews. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro even got a PBS source lol Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Miminity - Could you please list below which are the three best citations that are: verifiable secondary reliable sources that provide in-depth significant coverage, and are fully-independent from the subject himself? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: sorry for the late reply: It passes GNG, Despite the (1) PBS source being about a local event, it is still not a WP:MILL news, it is still has a significant coverage about who the author is. (2) This Sankei Sports review. (3) This Nihonbashi Keizai Article

Additionally:

(4) This Sports Hochi source. I exclude paywalled sources. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I also found (3.5) this Journal by OpenEdition Journals , though in french might have a significant coverage about him Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miminity, Thank you for getting back to me. We differ in our analyses of the sources. I’ve already expressed what I thought about the PBS source (so I won't repeat myself here); the Sankai Sports piece is in a sports publication rather than an art or art history publication – it’s PR for a show at a department store and seems to be a press release not in any way a serious art review of a show at a museum or notable gallery or national gallery. The is promo for a calligraphy performance event, not an art review of his work. The Sports Hochi has the same problem in that it is not a serious art reference in an art publication, it’s about his performance of calligraphy as a kind of sport performed in a store. It’s human interest story, content created for the sports public not serious art criticism or art history. He does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Don’t get me wrong, he seems like a great guy and an interesting calligrapher. I just don’t think the sourcing is what is usually present for a notable artist. Maybe in a few more years but now it is WP:TOOSOON.

This citation is pretty good: Cipango is a peer reviewed publication. I’d count that towards GNG, but not the others. If you can find two more like this I might change my mind. Netherzone (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Miminity, and the subject seems to be a prolific author. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Winning a 2019 "Best Father Award" from Japan Men's Fashion Association (MFU) is not notable. The PBS reference noted above is a review of a local exhibition at the Porch Gallery Ojai. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added an image to the article. See RIKEN Advance Institute for Computational Science (AICS-RIKEN) photo gallery for more pictures. Thanks. Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of the article fails WP:NARTIST due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources in the article seem to be PR or promotional puff pieces. What are needed are serious critical analysis of his work within an art historical framework. It doesn't matter that he's written a lot of books, if his books have not received critical attention he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. WomanArtistUpdates rationale is very clear, as is their point that PBS is local coverage for a hyper-local event. Netherzone (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prolific author. Popular calligraphy artist. In practical terms, his work can be seen on the K computer (article available in several languages); image found in Commons. Originally, the article "Soun Takeda" (jp: 武田双雲) was translated from Wikipedia in Japanese. Thanks Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Get a commissioned work doesn't make you notable. scope_creep^Talk 04:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll go through the references today. scope_creep^Talk 04:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serretta Wilson

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

Lacks independent SIGCOV. I searched EBSCO database, archive.org, and Google News. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, United Kingdom, and United States of America. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've searched several times, and I can't find any reliable sources to support notability. There may be sources offline, but unless they can be located, this article is not viable.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, she has had quite a few roles, and some people might remember her as Sergeant Wilson's daughter in Dad's Army. PatGallacher (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found a couple more sources. PatGallacher (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this Gloucestershire Echo piece is substantial enough. I have added that and another source to the article. More sources do exist. BD2412 T 18:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Barry (New Zealand paediatrician)

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

Seems like a great person, but does not appear to satisfy notability criteria WP:BIO with multiple significant coverage from independent RS. I’m no expert on WP:NACADEMIC but I don’t think the 2 reasonably cited articles are enough. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and New Zealand. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Point 1 of ANYBIO is receiving a significant honour. I'd say that his QSO meets that mark; there are only 226 recipients. If we're invoking WP:NACADEMIC (which seems reasonable) he satisfies point 3 as fellow of the RCP and RACP, and seems clearly more notable than the average professor. As for GNG, this [25] is one source; can anyone do better? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu Salimkumar

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. Only four films, the first of which is about himself. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a non-notable actor, who only has Four Films Destinyokhiria (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. actor may not have an extensive body of work, but he played a prominent role in his debut film Manjummel Boys, as noted in a review Pinkvilla review. According to Mathrubhumi, he also had a main role in the film Painkili. I need to research more before I can say anything for sure.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this personality may have done notable work but lacks proper news sources to establish work. Improvement could be done on the page.Almandavi (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR. Played notable characters in multiple noted films.

Afstromen (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Beard

AfDs for this article:

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

In this entry's third AfD nomination, the intuitive votes would appear to be Keep or Delete, rather than Merge/redirect. The first nomination in December 2007 — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard, with three votes — resulted in deletion. It was recreated in 2012 and nominated — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard (2nd nomination) — in November 2018. There were three Delete votes, one Delete/redirect vote and three Merge/redirect votes, resulting in Mathew Beard redirecting to either List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest known Americans or List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men (currently redirecting to the latter). However, his name does not appear on either list, nor anywhere else in English Wikipedia, thus making the Mathew Beard redirect that appears among similarly-named men on the Mat Beard disambiguation page completely unhelpful. If the Mathew Beard page is deleted, Talk:Mathew Beard, which has a number of postings as well as links to the two deletion discussions should be probably deleted as well. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous nominations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom there is no notability as he wasn't even the oldest living person https://longeviquest.com/2023/03/mathew-beard-status-reclassification/ Scooby453w (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with any redirects that point to this guy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little confused though thus article had alreahd been deleted years ago only for the nominater to engage in an edit war by removing the re direct only to nominate the page for afd. What is the point? Scooby453w (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mathew Beard entry was not actually deleted but merely unhelpfully redirected, with the article itself still fully accessible via its history. As for the purported "edit war", this simple edit, which only served to append the AfD template, was mistakenly assumed to represent aggressive editing. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But then you could've just nominated the re direct for deletion then? Scooby453w (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon entering the link Mathew Beard via its history, users are able to determine that it is not a standalone redirect that could be handled at WP:RfD, but a still-existing, albeit redirected, article, with an active Talk:Mathew Beard, that needed to be treated as an article, via submission to WP:AfD. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JT Pettigrew

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

Contested WP:PROD by Sophisticatedevening - subject does not seem to be notable per WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Basketball, United States of America, and Illinois. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just gonna paste my orginal PROD rationale since there were no changes (or edit summary) given after it was contested: Subject has never participated in any professional or collegiate sports, not enough WP:SIGCOV from independent sources to satisfy WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcrab5000: Please don't draftify (or move to draftspace) this article while it is in AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article of which this discussion relates appears to have been deleted? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Maile66 just forgot to close. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. I have un-deleted it. I think my deletion was an error on my part. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:TOOSOON given he has not even started playing in the NCAA yet. No evidence he meets WP:GNG. --Mpen320 (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability is present under WP:YOUNGATH. Let'srun (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable child basketball player. GNG fail. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a good chance Pettigrew never meets notability standards. He is not ranked as a recruit at all and is committed to a school that competes in what is considered a low-major conference. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pujniya Raseshwari Devi

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

Her only notable work is "involvement in the idol installation ceremonies" of some temples. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails wp:GNG / wp:ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, India, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balvinder Singh Suri

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

No significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Badly sourced. Possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - it depends on whether you consider his role in Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah significant enough to make him pass WP:NACTOR or have significant coverage of the same. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; noted roles in notable projects. I have attached three new news sources, and more are available on Google.

Afstromen (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Kumar

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

Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in secondary sources. Zuck28 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, Maharashtra, and Punjab. Zuck28 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Best I can find is this. And, that is more of him giving his opinion as opposed to a journalist writing about him. There is also a claim on the page that Tara (2013 film) is "considered one of the leading shows in Indian television history" except it has no Wikipedia page and I cannot find a source to support.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not see any reliable source to meet subject's notability. Film's roles are also not big. Almandavi (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not sufficiently notable. The RSes seem to be sparse and it fails WP:SIGCOV Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a basic verification problem here. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination Falls WP:SIGCOV. Sync! (talk)

Akash Singh Rajput

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

The subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Acting roles are minor—brief appearances in Toilet: Ek Prem Katha, Mirzapur, and Aashram and do not meet WP:NACTOR. The "world record" lacks notability, and relation to a politician is irrelevant. Most sources, like ANI press releases and Nai Dunia, are unreliable or do not mention the subject. The article also shows WP:COI issues and feels like WP:TOOSOON.

The article's credibility is further undermined by the page creator uploading an image with false copyright claims, which was deleted twice for violations despite being claimed as their own work. Zuck28 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Politicians, Music, India, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page meets the both criteria.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject's acting roles are minor and insignificant.

The claimed "world record" for a book is not a notable award, and being the son of a politician does not confer notability, as it is not inherited per Wikipedia standards.

The article relies heavily on unreliable or inadequate sources:

- Source #2 (ANI press release) is self-published.

- Source #3 (Nai Dunia) is non-reliable.

- Source #5 is a forum, not a credible source.

- Source #7 is non-reliable.

- Source #8 does not mention the subject.

- Source #9 is a duplicate.

- Source #10 and Source #11 do not mention the subject.

Most remaining sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which typically lack the depth required for significant coverage.

Zuck28 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Significant sources are available.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page meet the criteria under both WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. The article is supported by many significant coverage.
Delete As per nominator, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Filmibeat, Naidunia, IndiaForums, OneIndia, MPBreaking are not reliable. Almandavi (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to be more careful when editing Wikipedia. It’s unacceptable that you fail to recognize one of the top media portals like OneIndia. Your edits seem really suspicious to me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OneIndia is listed as unreliable here per WP:ICTFSOURCES Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! kindly review more listed sources, as there are many reliable available including TOI, NDTV, and The Print etc. Additionally, his father Govind Singh Rajput is also a Cabinet Minister. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S-Aura Being someone's son doesn't makes the personality notable for wikipedia. Almandavi (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Almandavi, The context was different. I hope you will understand as you start editing. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Miminity for clearing it. @S-Aura Better to research and fix rather than pointing other editors. Almandavi (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Almandavi, Thanks for your advice! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG, as multiple reliable sources have been found.Sync! (talk)

Joshua Cheruiyot Kirui

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

I'd suggest deletion in its current state - article isn't written properly according to wikipedia policy, I just removed a ton of advertiser-like language from it, it isn't properly sourced at all. It needs a ton of work, if it meets notability guidelines at all. Romeowth (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Romeowth (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete feels like a WP:BIO1E. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability; one event cannot help here. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The legacy section is both unsourced and written in the passive voice, red flags that indicate his death sadly has not had any legacy. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Mojica

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

WP:ROTM entrepreneur. No clearly reliable sources-- all are either non-substantive, from suspicious sources, and/or interviews. Promotional. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What do you mean unreliable? Philippine Entertainment Portal source #3, SunStar #6, Inquirer.net #10 is enough for WP:THREE.

source assesments:

1 - Facebook page of the person, seems like a WP:ABOUTSELF use.
2 - Reliable, PhilStar is one of the largest publication in the Philippines but WP:INTERVIEW
3 - per above, reliable own by GMA New Media, Inc. not an interview.
4 - reliable, owned by GMA Network. seems like a WP:INTERVIEW
5 - Reliable Owned by Esquire (magazine), seems like a WP:INTERVIEW
6 - Reliable, SunStar is one of the largest newspaper in the Philippines and per above.
7 - Reliable, Politiko (website), a news website owned by Prage Management Corporation, maybe a significant coverage but only talks about Ping Lacson
8 - Ditto
9 - again PEP per above
10 - Philippine Daily Inquirer - regards as a newspaper of records and per above.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per analysis by Miminity, with the caveat that the Facebook sourcing to the subject's alleged date of birth must be removed. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a few more sources that could vouch for him: [26], [27], and [28]. HueMan1 (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Aminpour

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

Non-notable US attorney. No reliable sources, and would seem unlikely any exist. Clearly promotional. WP:NOT. Fails WP:GNG. WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, 'nuff said. Newspapers.com has no results, never a good sign. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Lack of sufficient press coverage. Promotional tone. It should be speedy deleted, because of no sign of notability. Zuck28 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination speaks for itself, but I will also pitch in to say that at least half of the citations are not independent of the subject. --Mpen320 (talk)
Delete There seems to be no RSes that support notability here. If that changes, please let me know. If we allow for promotional sources to be included, there is no reason every attorney should not have their own promotional page on here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. There's literally no allegation of notability, and he also fails my standards for attorneys. He's about as run of the mill as lawyers get. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Kočik

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search. I've found two potential secondary sources (1 & 2) referenced in the current state of the article, but the first thing that struck out to me is that they do not seem to be WP:SIGCOV, so there is no real reason to presume that the subject is notable as of right now. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Slovakia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the two sources above, I'm able to find quite a bit of material in Slovak sources (1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6) indicating he's at least regionally notable in Slovakia for his darting abilities. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – He is a young athlete who just started his career. Can anyone analyze whether or not the sources found by Ser! count towards WP:GNG?⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wajdi al-Hajj Ali

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

Per WP:BIO1E, this figure has only received coverage due to one event which he didn't have a significant role in, and likely wouldn't have been deemed notable enough to warrant a separate article (which is reflected in the article's rather small size and detail). Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am the creator, I am aware that it was only highlighted by conflicts. Farcazo (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a instance of WP:BLP1E, as nom said. There is no secondary coverage aside from this event about the subject, which means that there is no real reason to believe that this subject is notable enough to have their own separate article. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

- RamiPat (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a case of WP:BIO1E. Neither the person nor the event is notable. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there do seem to be some RSes to support inclusion, this is a textbook instance of WP:BIO1E. Therefore, I think its best to delete unless we have other things that can bolster notability outside of the one thing he is known for. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Lindesay Watson Wemyss

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

Subject appears not to meet WP:BIO. The article text says only that he was a Scottish physician. I read through the first cited source [29], an obituary that gives a fairly complete picture of his life, and I don't see anything in there that would meet WP:BIO. —Bkell (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only pull up the obituary as well [30]. Published some papers, but this was before h-factors were a thing, so I don't think we can prove academic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: his work on polycythemia vera and remodelling of bone in chronic kidney disease is notable. He also has two obituaries: one in the Endinburgh Medial Journal and another in the British Medical Journal. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obituaries in the BMJ and EMJ are enough with other the sources to show nobility. Also as a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. KylieTastic (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Despite some disagreement, I see a consensus to keep this article, including by pointing out sources that demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 22:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Ariatti

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond profiles from databases and short mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He played for Atalanta, Fiorentina, Lecce and Chievo in the Serie A and has over 150 appearances in his career [31] - There's some sources on the Italian wiki too. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he played many times does not make him notable. Also, 80% of the sources about him on the Italian wiki do not open for me for some reason, so i dont know what to say about them WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Are you too lazy to look at his Italian wiki? it:Luca Ariatti, there are sources about. Govvy (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Italian wiki sources, but article needs improvement. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per @RossEvans19, is a professional footballer who has played significantly in the Italian top flight. Yes, this is a poorly sourced article, but do a WP:BEFORE search. I guarantee that there are sources. Also -- clear pass of Wikipedia:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. This article definitely needs to be improved, but deletion is completely unwarranted. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE. Notably, he was profiled in La Repubblica: "Giuseppe Calabrese, Ariatti, il normale incredibile dalla C agli stadi delle big, 9 November 2004, page 6". Also received a lot of coverage because of the recent Juventus scandal, eg. from Il Resto del Carlino [32]. Another example of significant coverage in reliable sources is this article from L'Arena, [33]. Cavarrone 11:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Really poor nomination with no evidence of BEFORE. Giant Snowman 13:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Analysis of the references on Italian Wikipedia would be helpful. The admins can't speedy keep this AfD as other participants may still prefer deletion. Following WP:NSPORTS2022, notability should be judged by references provided. Number of career appearances are irrelevant. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dabzee discography

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

Does not meet GNG and the one reference provided in the article does not cover the subject in depth https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/malayalam/thallumaala-song-manavaalan-thug/amp_videoshow/93500395.cms Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should seem obvious, but just in case, if consensus is reached that this article shouldn't be kept, merge into Dabzee#Discography instead of deletion. it's lio! | talk | work 10:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott Robinson

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

Violates WP:BLP1E. Should be redirected to List of longest prison sentences. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would very strongly oppose redirecting it there, that is not the kind of list we should be redirecting BLPs.

If there is better sourcing getting the longest prison sentence of all time is notable enough that it IMO invalidates the second prong of BLP1E. So then WP:NCRIMINAL is also a consideration. The sourcing I can find is not great so honestly he probably just fails the WP:GNG. But he does have an extremely generic name so I may be missing stuff. But unless there is more sourcing I failed to find, delete (Not redirect). PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or smerge is as appropriate as the sentence. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Guha (anthropologist)

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

The article is filled with Self published links, Nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and West Bengal. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then Protect - I consider that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews - in the Selected publications section, the references are to reviews of his books. It is certainly true that the article is frequently subject to less well sourced additions from IP editors - who probably have a conflict of interest - which are reverted from time to time. I won't revert them during this AfD (and some of the additions may merit a place in Selected publications) but will once it's finished. If the article is kept, I suggest that it be placed under extended confirmed protection to help prevent these kind of additions from happening. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunloungerFrog, Let's talk about the references. Please provide significant coverage about the subject. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is obvious because this is a biographical article.But these links can be verified whether they are genuine or not. See for example this biographical article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kewal_Krishan_(forensic_anthropologist)#cite_note-4

What's wrong in it? The point is whether the papers are genuine or not. 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments from the other editor, if you have not seen it already.

Keep then Protect - I consider that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews - in the Selected publications section, the references are to reviews of his books. It is certainly true that the article is frequently subject to less well sourced additions from IP editors - who probably have a conflict of interest - which are reverted from time to time. I won't revert them during this AfD (and some of the additions may merit a place in Selected publications) but will once it's finished. If the article is kept, I suggest that it be placed under extended confirmed protection to help prevent these kind of additions from happening. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC) 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please come forward after log-in your account then provide your factual statement. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3. Looking only at the books in the "selected publications" section, there are reviews of Land, Law, and the Left: The Saga of Disempowerment of the Peasantry in the Era of Globalization in the journal International Sociology [34] and in The Statesman [35]; reviews of Tarak Chandra Das: The Unsung Hero of Indian Anthropology in The Eastern Anthropologist and Anthropological Forum [36]; reviews of Nation-building in Indian Anthropology: Beyond the Colonial Encounter in South Asian Anthropologist, Antrocom Journal of Anthropology and Man in India [37]; and reviews of Encountering Land Grab: An Ethnographic Journey in Indian Anthropologist and the Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society (many of which are already cited in the article). MCE89 (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the above references provided by MCE89 are self published. We need in-depth coverage in reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If you have such citations please provide, i would be more happy to withdrawn my nomination. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? They’re clearly not self-published. All of the sources I linked above are book reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals (and one in a newspaper). Which is exactly what is required to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Can you explain what you mean by these sources being self-published? MCE89 (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above analysis. Andre🚐 03:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bakhtar40, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. To add to MCE89's comment, and to expand on my keep rationale, I do not think that the subject can be considered notable under WP:GNG, for which at least three decent sources are necessary, as you say. However, I do think that the subject can be considered notable under the subject-specific notability guidelines for authors, which says Such a person is notable if:... The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.... In this case, the four books in Selected publications are the significant...body of work, and the references against each are the independent peridiodical articles or reviews; MCE89 has also provided some additional reviews. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodel Jayme

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

The person representing in this article gained attention only due to the Bikoy videos. I cannot find other significant events related to this person outside the Bikoy videos which will make him notable to have an article. The sources in this article do not deep dive into who the person is, only his involvement to the controversy. Outside the controversy section of the article, other sections detailing his background are unsourced (I cannot even find reliable sources to support those info). Centcom08 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Centcom08 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found past 2019, this doesn't appear to have much of an impact. I don't see lasting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: falls notability.𝒮𝓎𝓃𝒸-!⃝

Paul Alan Levy

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Internet, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS that discuss this person are used for sourcing. Source 15 is a RS but doesn't mention this person. I don't see any either, some primary sourcing only. The was at AfD over a decade ago, and still no RS have turned up. I don't think this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current article is in need of a clean-up and better sourcing, but I think some alternatives to deletion per Wikipedia:ATD are appropriate and I think this nomination is premature. This profile in the Washingtonian demonstrates, at least to me, there is a chance that the subject can meet WP:GNG based on a 40-year legal career at a large public advocacy group that includes arguing in front of SCOTUS. A search on Google Scholar indicates he is published in legal journals at least more than a regular attorney. Google Scholar is the floor, not the ceiling based on his writing in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. In addition, he is mentioned in a number of books at the Internet Archive including books independent of him and Public Citizen. I would also recommend, should we not keep, to !redirect to Public Citizen where the guy has worked for over 40 years. The preface of "weak" is that I am in a space of quantity vs quality at this point with Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. I am very open to the possibility he is not the subject in enough of these or that the work is not so atypical as to warrant an individual article as a non-attorney.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not coverage. That short article are the real thing that mention him in any detail. There is no other WP:SECONDARY coverage that I can find that is specifically about him. And its nothing like enough. scope_creep^Talk 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will go through the reference and look at them in detail in the next couple of days to see what is what. scope_creep^Talk 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have seen a few articles about him from reliable sources that prove notability. One of them in my quick look was the Washingtonian February 3 article "Paul Levy, the Web Bully’s Worst Enemy", which also made me laugh out loud. Collectively regular coverage in Reason and New York Times, it satisfies me. He sounds like an interesting man. He's also got my interest too. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inclined to say that he is on this side of GNG. Andre🚐 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence free !voting there I see. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references:

Ref 1 [38] That is self-written profile. Not independent.
Ref 2 [39] Secondary source.
Ref 3 [40] Not about him. Its a passing mention.
Ref 4 [41] CV. Not independent.
Ref 5 Non-rs
Ref 6 [42] That is a spam and will need to be removed.
Ref 7 [43] Another passing mention.
Ref 8 [44] Passing mention.
Ref 9 [45] Passing mention.
Ref 10 [46] Not independent.
Ref 11 404
Ref 12 [47] The docket. Non-rs
Ref 13 [48] Not independent.
Ref 14 [49] A short quote from him. Not independent.

The first two blocks of references, 2 non-rs, 5 not-independent, 4 passing mentions, a 404, a spam link and 1 secondary source that reads like a puff piece. This is a WP:BLP. Its states in that policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources The sources are atrocious. They are crap. There is no other way to desribe them. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Banks

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

Non-notable subject with one RS, couldn't find others during BEFORE. Previous AfD led to article being deleted (in 2008) and I don't believe he passes GNG now. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Psychology, New Jersey, and New York. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphan, not really a biography, little in the way of google scholar Czarking0 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further to this coverage cited in the article, the subject appears to have many hits on the newspaperarchive. See, for example, Box Elder Journal, 1963, and Daily Texan, 1953, and Chester Times, 1954. ResonantDis_tortion 22:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Johnson (conspiracy theorist)

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

Coverage is simple fact-check sources and routine coverage. No lasting notability that I can find Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United States of America. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Conspiracy theories, and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching is tough due to his common name, but a targeted search in conjunction with some of his theories reveals that he is only present in his own online manifestos and occasionally mentioned by similarly-inclined kooks. I suggest that he formulate a new theory on how he does not qualify for a Wikipedia article because the lamestream media conspired to never report on his theories because they can't handle the truth. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States presidential election#Campaign issues – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a viable ATD if he is mentioned at the target article, and he isn't. Just one of thousands who contributed to that tomfoolery, and even less notable than most. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources. Not notable enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Sikora

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

Contested prod without improvement. Currently sourcing does not show they pass WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up with enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to show they meet GNG. And they do not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep - has a German-speaker done WP:BEFORE? Most/all sources will be in German. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the history of this article, it appears to be a translation of the poorly sourced German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernd_Sikora. No sources there to help sustain the biographical information and claims made in the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have revisited this article several times. I've made some edits, but am unable to find RS to show notability. Sikora designed an observation tower and a footbridge. The sourcing for this information is miriquidimedia.de (Miriquidi Media), which looks to be a site about Sikora that promotes his books, project and tours. I don't think it can be considered an independent source. The citation for the biographical information is a dead link. The listing for books have citations that don't link anywhere, just hyperlink for ISBN and hyperlink to the Wikipedia pages of the German region the book covers. I have not found anything on the internet to show notability. The fact that there might be something somewhere in German needs to survive WP:BURDEN --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahnus

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:COMPOSER, and WP:BANDMEMBER with no significant coverage from WP:BEFORE other than passing mentions — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if something here could be rescued by rewriting this into an article about the music group or the scandal itself? This Korean source, cited in the article, states that "the plagiarism suspicions surrounding singer Lee Hyo-ri's album, which had been causing a stir in the music industry for a month, have been partially confirmed to be true, causing a huge backlash. The expression 'the greatest plagiarism fraud case' is also appearing." This suggests that there are other sources out there - and also, that the article focus should be on the scandal, not the individual (who seems not very notable - we don't even have their birth date or pretty much anything about their life outside this scandal). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha

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

Article is primarily about his parents and grandfather and very little about Hubertus himself beyond genealogical information. I see no reason for notability independent of his ancestry. WP:NOTINHERITED WP:NOTGENEOLOGY D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ernst Leopold Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (his father). The contents of this entire article can be transferred to and summed up in the "Marriage and family" section of the other article I mentioned. Vida0007 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per User:Vida0007. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The present prospective petitioner to be restored as Duke of Albany should have his own article and Wikipedia's genealogical content is not a drawback in any sense and there is no reason to thin it just because it's not marked for extension.72.80.84.163 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a form WP:CRYSTALBALL argument you are making. The Duke of Albany title was ended in the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 a whole 44 years before Hubertus was born. You seem to think there's some inherit notability in being "in line" for a title that fundamentally no longer exists and your basis is that it could potentially be restored but there's no sources to support that. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Family article in Debrett's Peerage includes the deprived titles as "suspended" and tracks the heirs and we should do likewise...the law makes provision for heirs to petition to be restored. 72.80.84.163 (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beeing a potential petitoner does not bring relevance. Beeing a petitoner would change that, but this is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Keeping track of who reliabable sources think could be a potential petioner is already covered in the article Duke of Albany, which is the appropriate place. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The terms of the Act make clear who the one person at any time entitled to petition is but the deletion of this article might be seen as an excuse to omit mention of it from the Duke of Albany article.72.80.84.163 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Sugden

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find anything about this woman other than the expected nude pictures and tabloid "journalism" detailing incredibly minor events. Does not meet WP:BIO. Previously changed to a redirect for the exact same reason, and nothing has changed since to make her more notable. Nomination for deletion since I simply do not think she's even notable enough for the redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Hard to find non-tabloid coverage, this [50] and this [51] helps. The multitude of Daily Mail or Sun coverage shows public knowledge of who she is. should at least be enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this one as well [52] Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- there is some decent coverage per @Oaktree b, but it only seems to be about a picture of her at a holocaust memorial, and a random scandal. Searching myself I can find many stories, but only about relatively minor details of her life, because she's a celebrity. She does seem to meet the general notability guideline of having coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if most of it is relatively pointless coverage of random details of her life. And she doesn't fall under "notable for only one event" because while 2 of the stories above not in tabloids are about the holocaust memorial incident, other articles are not about that. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, she doesn't really need a WP article any more than she needs the random newspaper articles on tiny details of her life. But if Wikipedia is a repository of all human knowledge, some of it is going to be kind of pointless knowledge, I guess. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She was on a TV show in the UK, that likely ads to the notability. Details here [53], here [54], here [55]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Ireland here [56]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Holocaust memorial "thing" is mentioned here [57], [58], these certainly all about her, but the event gained enough traction to show scholarly notice. That's something. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning delete as the article appears to fail GNG since sources only cover that the subject exchanged questionable texts with a married man and took a selfie at a Holocaust memorial which doesn't seem like significant coverage. I found a few small articles in her hometown newspaper including [59] but I still think it fails WP:BASIC, unless notability is via WP:ENTERTAINER but I don't see a case for this in the sources. I'm wondering if these same sources had different content if I'd see things differently which is why I'm not officially !voting yet. Nnev66 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dug up a few more [60], [61], [62]. That should be more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions here, Oaktree b. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
This was technically relisted several hours ago, but I'm noting this now as a procedural matter. Some comments above this line may actually have been added before the relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Liversidge

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

No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. The TV show he was on, Round the Twist is notable, but his role in it for two seasons is not. Checked Google and ProQuest which yielded 4 hits (cast lists and passing mentions, plus "contributes a wicked March Hare and terrific Humpty Dumpty" in a 2009 review in The Age). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considered redirecting to Round the Twist but that article does not mention the actor or his role. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention his role, Anthony, in Round the Twist#Characters#Other. That section doesn't name any actors, though - but maybe more characters and actors could be added to the Round the Twist#Casting table. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaryn Gries

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

Only claim to notability is that she made bigoted comments on a reality TV show. WP:BLP1E and possibly other BLP concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this a redirect to prevent it becoming an article back in 2013, with the edit summary, No article for you, racist. In spite of this, an article was created a couple of months later. Given that the controversy was in 2013, how does the nominator explain the 373,650 pageviews the article has received since July 1, 2015, which is as far back as the Pageviews Analysis tool goes? Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not the same as notability: see WP:POPULARPAGE — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That essay uses deeply flawed examples and no reasoning whatsoever. Abductive (reasoning) 23:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Internet, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep admittedly this is my first time seeing this argument so I don't know if my interpretation of it was correct but one of the criteria for it seems to be " if the subjects role in the event isn't documented" and judging by the sourcing that doesn't seem to be the case multiple sources cover the controversy and some of them are years after it which seems to be lasting coverage. That said I'm new to this standard so if my analysis is wrong I'll change my vote Scooby453w (talk)
Delete as this article per nom meets the WP:BLP1E definition. All of the coverage is about the subject's appearance on the reality show Big Brother and racist comments she made. All sources with WP:SIGCOV are within a narrow time period in 2013. Sources that mention the subject since that time are only in passing. I searched and cannot find any additional sources for the subject other than the ones for this one event. Note page views are not a measure of Wikipedia notability. Nnev66 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree i believe the subject does not meet 2 of the requirements for Wikipedia:BLP1E first she is not "low profile" https://www.instagram.com/aaryn_williams?igsh=MXNkY3g0MThhMHAxYQ== as she has a big following on social media secondley I concede that the sources are all about the racism however I believe it qualifys as "a significant event where the subjects role is well documented" there are dozens of reliable sources covering the bb15 controversy which was a one of the most massive controversies in bb historh and it goes well into detail about her involvement in it Scooby453w (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia "low profile" means the subject doesn't have independent secondary coverage in reliable sources over time. Instagram followers don't count as high profile for Wikipedia notability although in a more general sense one could make a case for it. I see your point around a "significant event" and different people will see any event's significance differently, which is why the consensus process is used here. Nonetheless, the main basis for my !vote was lack of significant coverage other than in the summer of 2013. I recently stumbled across WP:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? which discusses why a very popular YouTube series with billions of views that doesn't have a Wikipedia article - you may find this helpful for understanding policy. Nnev66 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note i will still keep my vote the same (as i view the racism controversy as a significant event) but i wont site social media as a notability thing again Scooby453w (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I've spent about a year participating in AfD discussions and trying to figure out the policies. I'm glad you're here to weigh in and learn about them. Nnev66 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant event" usually means major historical events. The example at BLP1E is the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. I don't think being a controversial reality TV star is quite at that level. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with nom that this is WP:BIO1E and the subject is not lastingly notable beyond the one not-notable event. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother 15 (American season). I agree that WP:BLP1E applies to this article. Significant portions of the "Pageantry and modeling career" and "Personal life" are sourced to Gries's LinkedIn (!) or Big Brother, which still comes up in those sections. A lot of the public reaction to the season has ended up in this article and should be merged into there. hinnk (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect. Clear BLP1E case, no lasting notability. Astaire (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mortensen

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

Fails WP:BLP. Multiple redlinks, relies on a single source. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Literature. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep you know its bad when the subject is "best known" for a book that isn't notable enough for its own page that combined with the lack of sources makes me have to vote delete UPDATE: i have changed my vote to keep as sources have now been presented Scooby453w (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of of WP:SIGCOV, it needs more sources covering him. LemonberryPie (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A page cannot rely on one source and expect to survive. If more sources can be found to support notability and bolster the article, that is a different conversation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I am usually very suspicious of articles about this kind of business/self-help author, the reviews for his books are well past the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of Maximum Influence in the Journal of Consumer Marketing, the Roanoke Times, the Globe and Mail and the Miami Herald. Reviews of Persuasion IQ in Publishers Weekly (and [63] for the audiobook), the Agent's Sales Journal, Career Planning and Adult Development, AORN Journal and the Journal of School Public Relations. Reviews of The Laws of Charisma in Publishers Weekly, Life Insurance Selling and the Journal of School Public Relations. MCE89 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources essentially encourage separate articles for his books, As PARAKANYAA said, his books are notable, although I disagree that business-type books are better served by an author page. Especially with the amount of sources about the books rather than the author, Kurt.
I'd encourage the creation of articles for their books, but continue with the deletion of this page as it isn't notable on its own despite WP:NAUTHOR, since the article fails WP:BLP more significantly than NAUTHOR. It doesn't seem to have been written responsibly. It relies on a source from a decade & a half ago and is a relatively unknown person, among other reasoning. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you mean by "fails WP:BLP"? BLP isn't a notability guideline — the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NAUTHOR, which says that a person who has created a a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple reviews is themselves notable, even if that person hasn't been the subject of secondary biographical coverage. It is very common for articles about authors to be based on reviews of their books. And I'm happy to add the above reviews to the article as sources whenever I get a chance. MCE89 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concede there. But the above points still stand, and until those sources are added & attributed properly and the article expanded (if those sources are secondary and verifiable, which may not be the case) I believe deletion is still viable. By "fails WP:BLP", I meant it did not meet the content policy for having high quality articles, as stated in its summary it is necessary to take "particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" NikolaiVektovich (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify, you do agree that this person meets NAUTHOR and are arguing for deletion based on the following reasons at this point:
The article is poorly written.

The sources in AfD have not been placed in the article.

The article is of start/stub class length.

Offhand only one of those is a valid reason for deletion. Being a short article isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion. An article can be an eternal stub and still be considered worthy of an article - it only has to pass notability requirements. Now a very short article can sometimes be merged into another, if there is an appropriate parent article, but this isn't the case here. As far as the sourcing issue goes, sourcing does not have to be present in the article to establish notability. It should absolutely be added, yes, but the sourcing only has to exist and be of suitable quality and type to establish notability.

Now the quality argument can be used as an argument for deletion, but this is only meant to be used in very extreme cases, where the article has so many issues that it would be easier to just delete it all and start fresh. These issues are typically things like promotional content and copyright violation, as well as a history of sockpuppetry. This article does need editing, but I wouldn't say that it's so problematic that it needs to be wiped clean from Wikipedia. It just needs some pruning. I also don't see an issue with copyvio and the article doesn't seem to have any issues with sockpuppetry either.

I get where you're coming from with this, but this is one where the author meets notability guidelines and cleaning up the article isn't a hugely gargantuan task. He's probably always going to be a stub article since he's not overwhelmingly notable, but like I said above, being an eternal stub or start class article doesn't mean that something can't also be notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you all for the insight, I'll have to rethink it the next time I mark something for deletion. Seeing that new sources have been attributed and the article largely improved to stub status, Seeing the consensus shift, I request for this discussion to close early as per WP:SNOW & Wikipedia:Deletion_process#SNOW, unless we include the vague delete votes that don't contribute to consensus significantly. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i haven't changed my vote yet. I was engaging in other afd discussions Scooby453w (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89... that his books don't have articles yet does not mean they aren't notable. Business type books especially are better served by an author page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly agree with that. Articles for those are often kind of undersourced (even if they pass NBOOK) and are particularly prone to puffery. Honestly, a lot of times authors in this realm of things tend to kind of write about the same topics, but from different angles, so sometimes all that is needed is a general overview of what the author writes about. I also think that having an author page often discourages people from writing the individual book pages (and same for series pages and individual entries). People are sometimes just looking to see if it's on here and when it's not, that's when we sometimes get people coming on to create articles - sometimes with good intent, sometimes to promote. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author passes notability guidelines as his works have been covered in multiple, independent, and secondary reliable sources. He'll never be anyone super mainstream, but he's received enough attention to pass NAUTHOR. Also, as stated above I think that having a page for him would be best here, as opposed to ones for his books. We can have a general overview and cover it all well enough there, as opposed to 2-3 individual and lackluster (but still passing NBOOK) entries. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per ROTP and MCE, meets NAUTHOR Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I'm not a fan of these self-help types of books, but if the subject's books are reviewed in reliable sources, then he's probably notable. The article has been improved two ways: deletion of BLP violations and trivia, and by added sources. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Laugs

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

This article fails notabillity guidelines for musicians, and also violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It does not cite any sources and is very short. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support agree with reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it hard to believe he's not notable... Indexed in SIX national libraries, the VIAF. Gnewspapers brings up many hits, Gbooks has hits on his name from the 1930s to the present. The VIAF link has two biographical links in German. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Album review here [64] Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the German wikipedia article has some book references that look reliable here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is very likely that he is notable, but it is not going to be easy to find reviews of his concert performances or recordings (although Oaktree b has already found one on jstor). Some do come up on a Google Books search, eg Fanfare (14/1-2:263) and The Gramophone (52/613-618:536), but they have only snippet views, so can't be used as sources. Finding hard copies from that era would probably need access to a very large library. Apart from reviews, Discogs shows multiple albums released by the Musical Heritage Society and by a German label called Da Camera Magna. I realise that Discogs is not reliable, but it gives album names and label numbers which can be searched for elsewhere - and does suggest that he meets WP:MUSICBIO#5. I have added some sources to the article, and removed the unsourced tag. I'll see what else I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Godfrey

AfDs for this article:

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

Everything is related to his claims of once seeing a UFO. A standard WP:BEFORE fails to find any other point of notability. Fails WP:BLP1E. Chetsford (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this should have been speedily deleted. For transparency and to avoid bookkeeping chaos, I'll defer to someone else to close this. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Paranormal, Police, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of unused sources available to support notability, including [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. It just needs a {{more citations needed}} template at top, per WP:ATD. I'd say it passes WP:BLP1E. 5Q5|^✉ 12:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Sky History (the first linked source) the same as the History Channel? If so It might not be reliable, as explained at WP:RSPHISTORY. Bonus Person (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear how it passes BLP1E if every piece of the scattered coverage relates to his supposed abduction? Indeed, this was the point raised by User:Grim23 and User:LuckyLouie in the first AfD (which closed as delete and which this article seems to be a carbon copy recreation of). Chetsford (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments of 5Q5 Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Boudreaux

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

I've nominated this individual's nonprofit organization for AfD as well, however I think that the subject of this article itself is not notable either. I've searched the subject up - and it seems that a majority of the sources available are interviews (primary sources) or instances of WP:BLP1E (for their work with the Miracle Foundation, the nonprofit they started). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG: 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4. Other profiles that I'm not as sure about: [72], [73]. These all offer significant coverage in reliable sources. A career is not one event. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources tell the same "origin story" so we are lacking enough beyond that to for this to be about her. I understand why NOM is calling this blp1e, although I don't think that's quite correct. It's as if the article for Zuckerberg only had sources that talked about the invention of FB in his college dorm, and nothing after that. The potentially significant UBS source fails - the link is to a general page and I find nothing under her name. Lamona (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with WP:BLP1E, and it seems that Caroline Boudreaux meets WP:NBASIC. What guideline are you referring to when you say the sources tell the same origin story? Hmr (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBASIC asks for "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" ... I read that as saying that if they all have the same content, they are not intellectually independent. Also, none that I can find give much basic biographical information, nor information that covers the years that follow the founding of the organization (except two talks that aren't usable sources). I don't see that there is enough info for a stand-alone article. It may be possible to cover her in the article on the organization, if it meets basic. Lamona (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources provided by Eddie891 give WP:SIGCOV of the subject in reliable sources from different years (2007, 2015-16). They provide biographical details about the subject as well as information of the founding of the Miracle Foundation as well as details of how she advocates for orphans internationally. Nnev66 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and Lamona. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lamona as all the sources tell the same origin story but little else. That happened in 2000, so there should have been other coverage over the past 25 years. This source shouldn't even be in the article now, as it is mislabeled (it is written by subject, not by someone else) and it is a Forbes contributor site which is not considered WP:RS. All but one of the sources listed by Eddie891 are profiles which are insufficient to establish WP:GNG.--FeralOink (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate how profiles ‘are insufficient to establish GNG’? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eddie891, in my opinion those profiles are puff pieces and hardly good examples of in-depth journalism. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree the coverage of the subject is from a human interest vantage and there are flourishes in the language (i.e. not Woodward and Bernstein journalism), I don't see why these articles are "puff pieces" that don't count towards WP:BASIC. Also, where does it say in Wikipedia policy that coverage in city newspapers where the subject lives doesn't count towards notability? There is quite a bit of information in these articles about the subject herself as well as her organization that evolves over time. There is also coverage that lists the subject's awards in Dataquest, 2019 and Decclan Chronicle, 2018, which include the UBS Global Visionary award and United Nations Humanitarian Award which the subject received in 2017. PS. I removed the Forbes ref from the article as it didn't add anything. Nnev66 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with the gist of what Nnev is saying here- these clearly profiles in well-regarded, prominent newspapers over a range of years (exactly what we look for when establishing notability), and from them it would totally be possible to write a substantive article (if not the longest OOT). not too much else matters. I don't think it fair to dismiss them out of hand as puffery, even if they aren't the best possible. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To illustrate what I (above) called "the same story" I ran 3 of the online, textual articles through a plagiarism program. I'm not saying there was plagiarism going on, but such a program detects when the exact same sentence or paragraph is found in multiple sources online. The three came out as 37%, 41% and 48% "alike" with rather large chunks being identical. I assume that we need at least 2 sources with mostly unique content, and I'm not seeing that. I also note that someone has added a youtube video of a ted talk to the article. This is not an independent source. I will move it to the "external links" area. (Giving a TEDx talk is not itself notable - TEDx is described as "TEDx events, which are "essentially, do-it-yourself TED conferences"). I also think that we would get closer to reliability if we can find listing for the awards. I will research that. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you didn't run through the Austin American-Statesman references from 2007 and 2010 as linked from newspapers.com. These differ more significantly from the CS Monitor, People, and other references from around 2015. Also, I had looked for links to the UBS Global Visionary and United Nations web sites for direct confirmation of awards but their web sites unfortunately don't seem to keep an archive of past awardees. Nnev66 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case one should consider winnowing down the ones that read like copies and getting the majority of the article from the ones that appear to have more journalistic merit. Lamona (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the Austin American-Statesman articles is that Austin, Texas is her hometown and is or was her residence. Coverage, 18 years ago, in her hometown newspaper, doesn't help much for establishing WP:GNG.--FeralOink (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UN does have a humanitarian award, but Boudreaux is not listed on the UN news site where others are listed. Of course, the UN web site could be lacking - the online entries may not cover the year she was awarded. I searched on her last name. For the "Hope award" - this one is tricky because the only award with that name addresses cancer research. I found the Robert F. Kennedy Ripple of Hope Award but again I don't find her listed. So the awards remain a mystery. Perhaps others will have better results. Lamona (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~I am leaning towards K*eep for this person~~, however redirecting or merging it into Miracle Foundation would be an excellent alternative to deletion. I understand that that article has also been nominated for deletion, however it seems quite clear it's notable per GNG and NCORP per these fully independent, secondary reliable sources found in Newspapers.com (access required) that provide significant coverage over a period of years (over ten years of coverage!): [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], and more. I've added my !vote to the other article, waiting for now on !voting here. ~~BTW, WP:BLP1E does not seem to apply here because there is sustained coverage of both Ms. Boudreaux and the foundation for many years.~~ I'd like to hear other editor's thoughts on redirecting/merging if the article on the foundation is kept. Netherzone (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine to merge if kept, since the foundation is the only notable thing she has done. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Her bio and her role should fit nicely into the article on the organization. That said, if the organization is not found to be notable, it would be difficult to find the founder notable if there aren't other projects she was responsible for.
Lamona (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Miracle Foundation is the only organization or project for which she is known.--FeralOink (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noted on the Miracle Foundation AfD that I'm OK with merging the founder into the foundation article. Actually, I've shifted to thinking that would make the most sense - originally my first choice was to keep both articles. I've summarized the best Miracle Foundation sources in reply to Lamona's comment about WP:WHYN and WP:SUSTAINED in that AfD. Nnev66 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content to Miracle Foundation, as the sourcing is not really so much about her, but about her role in the Miracle Foundation, which, as stated above by other editors, is the only notable thing she has done. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I agree with what Drmies said about these particular profiles not being examples of journalism; they are lightweight human interest stories. Next, I noticed (and removed) another source in the article, see talk page section. Author-published book from defunct CreateSpace ("they would publish anything" per Wiki), no page number(s) given. Also, be aware that the Miracle Foundation article is not in good shape. It needs a lot of editing due to really bad writing (sentence fragments, etc.) and was tagged accordingly in the past. And it was mostly written by a COI editor.--FeralOink (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Baker (entertainer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated by Badbluebus back in February, and was closed as a soft delete, with only one other editor !voting for delete. No oppose votes. There simply is not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see some room for improvement, maybe a few more better sources, so I am employing a weak version of WP:BASIC. Barr Theo (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in the Seattle Times, Oklahoman, Idaho State Journal, and Daily State News. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle article only briefly mentions him, the Olkahoman isn't much better. Idaho State is the only decent source. Last source talks with people after a state fair, saying how good he was. I'm not sure most of these help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a !delete, I don't see any new sources from the last month when this came up at AfD, that would change my mind. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Michaels (songwriter)

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

Promotional tone, failed verifications, more citations needed... in the end, may not meet the notability standards. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Bands and musicians. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Hi. Please note that Grant Michaels is listed as a writer on the Banners' song "Someone To You" on its entry, which chartered to no. 11 on Billboard's Adult Top 40 and Hot Rock & Alternative Songs charts and is credited in the Wikipedia entry for the song. He is also credited as a writer on Sia's "Dressed in Black" on her 1,000 Forms of Fear which charted to no. 1 the US Billboard 200. He is credited on the credits list in the entry. Among his other credits, he is again listed on the songs for Descendants 2 (Soundtrack). My understanding is that he meets the requirements of notability as a musical artist. I've also attempted to address the issue of promotional tone when it was returned to draft with a rewrite, but am open any help regarding addressing that issue.

JohnGuo1971 (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stokes

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Most cited sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT, a fact overlooked in the 2019 deletion discussion. Sources establishing notability consist of two articles from the Deseret News (Stokes sat on their editorial board, and one of the articles is announcing that fact), two human-interest stories from the Salt Lake Tribune (at the time they were written, party to a Joint Operating Agreement with the Deseret News [[81]] and operating out of the same building), and two interview transcripts on Mormon-themed blogs (possibly independent, but hardly WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV). Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to your bias assessment of independent sources. While it is true the Deseret News should not be considered independent for this subject, the Salt Lake Tribune is a separate legal entity and there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that maintain its independent status. "Mormon-themed blogs" are also not an exclusionary source just as "baseball-themed blogs" would not be exclusionary to create interviews independent of Major League Baseball. I agree completely in efforts to require independent sourcing, but for a pioneering woman of color this article meets the requirements--and has already been reviewed as such in the past. Fullrabb (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Illinois, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Deseret News. That is where Catherine M. Stokes redirects at present. Given that the original AfD did not note the lack of independence amongst the sources combined with the fact that a search of sources via the Chicago Public Library and at the State Archives revealed that contrary to one contributor's assertion, there is not in fact a substantial amount of content from her time in Illinois. The articles gave her the title of manager and assistant deputy director in the state's Office of Health Care Regulation. The lack of being listed in the Illinois Blue Book at any point makes me wonder if Deputy Director was her final title or if they rounded up in her editorial biography. There is a reason that Catherine M. Stokes redirects to the Deseret News. This should too.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen, did you find anything? -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been working on other articles at AfD, I did find some coverage in digitised newspapers from several states (ie not just LDS-owned publications and not just where she lived) - I'll add it and see if she meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added the sources and info I am able to access online (there are others, but I either don't have access or have reached my limit in those titles on Google Books). I believe that she at least meets WP:BASIC, with coverage in books published by Oxford University Press, University of Illinois Press, Brigham Young University Press, the Chicago Tribune and other newspapers and journals. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the Chicago Tribune sources you cite constitute in-depth coverage of the subject (as I stated I looked). The few articles are far closer to the three blind mice (quotes in her capacity as a mid-level IDPH employee, reaction to local LDS event) than the IBM book per example provided in "significant coverage" in WP:GNG. The other sources do make a strong case. Please note those were not in the article at the time of my vote. --Mpen320 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." The sources I found and added yesterday are not trivial, and although the secondary sources are not in-depth, they combine to meet WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources found by Rebecca which turns this poor article into a passable one Scooby453w (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I maintain my views on the Illinois sources and think her title needs to not be listed as Deputy Director, I think the sources found during this AfD get this over the hill to merit continued inclusion in Wikipedia.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ahmed (businessman)

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

the sources are dependent and only one has something similar to deep coverage, but the sources itself is not reliable and independent (this one Ethiopian birthday) other are WP:Trades and nothing similar to significant coverage OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual is known for the success of Africa's largest airlines. According to Fana Broadcasting Corporate "The late Captain Mohammed Ahmed, a pioneering force in the aviation industry and a cherished leader of Ethiopian Airlines" [82]Magherbin (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, lacking significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. If it relies on promotional content or self-published material, it would also fail to meet the site's neutrality and sourcing guidelines.--Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hka-34 Jyli: So does it contain promotional content or not? MarioGom (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI cannot find multiple reliable significant coverage to meet ANY BIO. One so-so source is not enough. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to get more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be quite clearly notable based on the sources already cited in the article. Even putting the others aside, the fact that an African CEO received coverage in the Washington Post and the New York Times during the 1980s strongly indicates notability (both are about the company, but in my view also contain SIGCOV of Ahmed's role in its rise as CEO). This BBC report doesn't provide SIGCOV of him, but it does refer to him as the renowned Ethiopian CEO (known for challenging the Dergue officials in defence of the independence of the management of the airline), which also strongly suggests to me that he is notable. He also has mentions in several books that I can't fully access, including these ones. And there's this obituary written by a university faculty member and this one by a staff writer. I think it's more than enough to pass WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources presented by MCE89. Svartner (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Broad coverage of his time as CEO of Ethiopian Airlines in many reliable sources, and also multiple with significant coverage per MCE89. jocelyn's dance ^talk 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89 Andre🚐 03:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person seems to have sufficient sources from RSes such as from the New York Times, The Washington Post, and others. He definitely seems to have done notable things worthy of inclusion on here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strictly Ballroom (band) (3rd nomination)

People proposed deletions

Academics and educators

Kat Milligan-McClellan

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

Assistant professor (microbiology) with an h-factor of 10 (GScholar), 930 total citations and no awards. She has made a good start, but she is 5-10 years from reaching any of the criteria for academics. WP:TOOSOON by a long way. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she is ok. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musfiq Mannan Choudhury

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

Mostly passing mentions in sources and he isn't a highly-cited researcher ([83]). It does note he is a vice-chancellor of a university, but this institution doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or reputable (although perhaps someone who knows more about the regulation of higher ed. in Bangladesh can correct me) Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehzeb Chowdhury

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

Other than the sheer obnoxiousness of this article (which is just one long advert about why the subject is the most awesome and interesting man in the world), I'm not totally convinced it meets the notability criteria. Reasons below:

Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [84]
As a researcher he has a low h-index [85]
An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do admit it needs some work and I'm willing to do them once able but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaafar Jotheri

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

This looks like a case of TOO SOON to me. Contrary to the article, he is now a full professor, but doesn't hold a distinguished chair and h-factor looks too low right now. Also an absence of any major awards.

He was awarded a 'Mesopotamian Fellowship' by the American Society of Overseas Research, which may be an encouraging sign of future notability potential, but at this moment I'm not convinced he meets the threshold. Leonstojka (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree, this is WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF and doesnt pass #1 or any of the other criteria. 500 citations in total, h-index of 11 is a long way from notability. --hroest 18:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Atzori

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

Former scholar (he appears to now be working in private sector) with low research impact. Has never held a senior academic post, and his books were not widely reviewed either.

The article was created in 2010, before the subject had even earned his PhD, and was presumably made in order to promote his first book. Leonstojka (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR, I could only find 5 entries in JSTOR and no review of his book at all. I found no indication of notability. --hroest 15:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Italy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James A. D. W. Anderson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James A. D. W. Anderson (3rd nomination)

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

Mathematical crackpot with no meaningful impact on the field per WP:ACADEMIC, and no coverage in popular press since initial 2006 spotlight. Academic discourse on "transreal arithmetic" is mostly WP:SELFPUB, barring a couple of papers published in non-mathematical journals. Fishsicles (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, he does appear to be a crackpot. That might not be sufficient reason for deletion if he had a significant influence on mathematics, but as far as I can see he doesn't. Athel cb (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other fields, mathematics is much more tolerant of what would normally be labelled "crackpots" - rejecting an established axiom or theory usually means building a contrasting theory, which can be mathematically interesting in its own right. (WP:CRACKPOT's term for this would be "alternative theoretical formulation".) That said, "transreal arithmetic" has absolutely not developed into a theory of any interest to mathematicians, which means I'm more than comfortable applying the label.

I think a particularly useful point of contrast is inter-universal Teichmüller theory, which also makes dramatic claims that are (in the opinion of many number theorists) not properly substantiated, but remains of significant academic interest for its potential applications. "Transreal arithmetic" has attracted no such attention, and the only one to claim applications is Anderson himself. Fishsicles (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is indeed the third nomination of this article, but it is the first under this exact title: the article was first sent to AfD in 2006 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) (which closed with no consensus), and the second nomination in 2008 was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (computer scientist) (which closed as keep). (While James Anderson (mathematician) ended up getting deleted in 2006, that was at RfD after the article was renamed shortly after the first AfD.) No opinion on the current nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Mathematics, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not worth a page and it is more about Transreal arithmetic than anything else. It is a transreal page, in a sense. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Assender

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

The subject has no proven notability outside of bios JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. hroest 04:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep tenured professor at Oxford, with an h-index of 30 and 6 publications with 100+ citations, she is close to the bar for WP:NPROF#1 and with some good will passes that bar. --hroest 04:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete per hroest's evidence that she's close to the bar, and the article makes zero claims of notability but instead sounds like trying to pump up the standard sorts of things every prof everywhere does. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I feel like she does meet WP:GNG. I won't say that this article is firmly in notable territory, but I wouldn't say this fails GNG either. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof. Is the nominator aware of this SNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. I think someone at this level in the US would very likely be an ASME Fellow and also pass #C3 but I don't see anything like that for her. On the other hand, full professor in England and in particular at Oxford is somewhat stricter than at US universities, maybe not enough for #C5 but a step towards it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My first thought was that weak keep was the right choice, but her publication record is reasonable, and, perhaps more important, her publications are well cited, with many cited more than 50 times, several more than 100, and at least two more than 300. Athel cb (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per the other keep voters I agree that the article has questions when it comes to how necessary the article is but the sources provided does have the article pass gng Scooby453w (talk)
Keep, not only well-cited, but a full professorship in Oxford definitely meets #C5 (older UK universities have few explicitly-named professorships, and we never call ourselves distinguished, it just feels wrong...). Elemimele (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lufkin

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

Does not appear to meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY the article just got accepted from afc a week and a half ago Scooby453w (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFC is not a notability guarantee. It means the accepter thinks the article has a 50% chance. Also that isn't what WP:HEY is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scooby453w, please explain how this would meet the Heyman Standard if there have not been any improvements to the article since it was nominated for deletion? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep where was the WP:BEFORE ? he is a full prof at a R1 University, he has a substantial number of high impact publications with 100+ citations (I count 21) which is usually passing the bar for a research-only professor, even more so for a physician-scientist. On top he has invented a useful tool (the needle). --hroest 01:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're all multi-author publications, no? And WP:NACADEMIC says distinguished professor, not every professor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he passes WP:NPROF#1 without much question, most contemporary research is multi-author and this is not exception. A subject only has to pass one of the 8 criteria, not all of them (are you referring to NPROF#5 with your comment?). --hroest 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1 says As demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Can you point to any? (and yes). PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: I have no particular opinion on Lufkin, but in the case of academics, publications in peer-reviewed journals are in themselves regarded as independent reliable sources because the peer reviewers are independent of the author. The citation count is an indicator that the research has made significant impact. Almost all scientific papers are multi-author, and Lufkin's place as last author on some of these indicates that he was the senior academic running the project (except in those disciplines that use alphabetical order, first and last authors are the priority spots, corresponding to the one who did the work, and the one who conceived, planned and scientifically-directed the work). Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning weak keep It does seem to be over the line of notability on the strength of his book e.g. [86], plus this [87], would seem to be >1 event, a pass on GNG even without considering in-depth the academic publications such as [88] and whether his standing is significant in his field. Assuming he is RB Lufkin, he has quite a lot of Google Scholar hits.Andre🚐 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can include the information in the second source because he is a BLP. The first one is an interview. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He would be a PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of his notability if we are saying he is a notable public intellectual and for purposes of his career. I agree the first one is an interview slash promotion for his book, but it's good enough for me when taken as a whole with everything else. There is an essay WP:INTERVIEW and I agree this one is a little on the fluffy side, but he has a bestselling book. I also did find at least one mention of the "Lufkin needle" he is credited with inventing. [89] Andre🚐 03:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, California, Rhode Island, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed A. Alrodhan

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

Page which has had several problems including prior COI/UPE editor, and a PROD supported by two editors. Prior promo has been removed, with the argument "as the person is not significantly less notable compared to other Saudi academics whose pages exist without question". That is not a valid criterion. Page fails WP:NPROF with an h-factor of 7, plus nothing to prove WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Saudi Arabia. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations not enough for this very highly cited field (quite apart from the general issue raised here[90]). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesnt pass WP:NPROF by a long shot. --hroest 01:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF. Some academic works are there but not enough to meet criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H Elovitz

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. An article referenced entirely by Elovitz's own publications. Did reach associate professor level at Temple University; a long publication history, but Scopus shows limited impact (H-index=3), although that seems to be missing his pre-1996 work. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I could only find 2 academic reviews of a book that he co-edited: [91] [92] which is not enough for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. However, he was the founder and editor in chief of Clio's Psyche which could contribute to WP:NPROF#8 but I dont know how "well established" that journal is. --hroest 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Lobenthal

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

Non-notable art historian/author. WP:ROTM 'cultural' critic. No RS establish notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see evidence for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. per nomination, none of the sources indicates notability. --hroest 15:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford R. Kettemborough

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

It looks like the sources are WP:PRIMARY or passing mentions. WP:Whoswho isn't reliable and doesn't count towards notability. It doesn't seem like this page meets any of the WP:NPROF. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No Gbooks or Scholar hits, I don't think this person would pass academic notability. Sourcing now in the article is mostly primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Also h-index and i10-index extremely low. Some listed sources only mention him or are unreliable. Published papers were he's cited are not RS. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidence of non-notability: zero Scholar hits and only one Book hit, compared to 8 book hits for me, not including 2 book reviews, and I'm not a notable scholar (yet). Bearian (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - like the above users, I see no evidence of research impact or prominence in general. Leonstojka (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benedetta Bonichi

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

The artist does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST, as a teacher they do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The sources consist of blogs (Weird Fiction, and Trend Hunter), press releases or primary sources with a simple name check. None of these are reliable sources that provide significant coverage. An online BEFORE did not find anything of value, just social media posts and eBay. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Visual arts, Photography, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I dont see any indication of notability, the claim that her work is in multiple permanent exhibitions is not supported by the source attached. If it were, this would change the picture. --hroest 13:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's one good source, about a 2006 exhibition, but it's a primary source, and does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Moses

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article has requested deletion as was suggested at the previous AfD. Those editors with VRT access can reference ticket:2025041610018915. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Biology, and Medicine. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see two articles with 1000+ citations and dozens of articles with 100+ citations which means she passes WP:NPROF#1. Secondly she holds a named chair at Harvard University which is another indication of notability per NPROF#5 and she has multiple elected fellowships (NPROF#3). Furthermore she received a prestigious award which would be relevant under NPROF#2. According to our standards, I would argue she is highly notable (although not a public persona) but not at all a case that is somewhere in the gray area. --hroest 15:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Both the subject and the creator of the article have requested deletion. According to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE: Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests.. Note it doesn't say GNG or NPROF. The subject may be a clear pass of NPROF, but GNG is less clear. I don't know why deletion was requested (multiple times now), but I also don't see a problem with honoring it in this case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement here with Rhododendrites. We don't know why this person has requested deletion, and they are not obligated to tell us about any conflicting personal or professional issues are behind the request. Could be very private personal issues behind this request. Could be nothing, or could be reaction to the article is taking up a lot of their time. They don't owe us an explanation. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment we are here to provide information about publicly-relevant people, for the benefit of our readers, not for the subjects of our article. Just as we don't allow vanity-publishing of those who'd like more publicity than they get, we have to be careful of modesty-deletion of those who shun publicity but about whom the public still have legitimate interest. We also need to be cautious of the occasional "my way or no way" deletion request from someone who wants an article written on their own terms, and those shunning publicity because there's some scandal looming (I'm not implying that either of these is the case here). My interpretation of request-delete is that the subject's wishes tip the balance if the balance is delicate. In this case she looks like a pretty solid pass, not a delicate balance. Do we actually know why she wishes to have the article deleted? I'm not sure AfD works for cases like this: you can't ask the jury to decide something, but tell them they're not allowed to see the evidence or know why they're being asked. Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Elemimele, you just saved me having to say pretty much exactly the same. :)

I'd also add that given how self-evidently notable this person is, even if we delete this version, what's to stop someone next month recreating it? Or are we meant to salt the title (and if so, on what grounds?), or to go through AfD Groundhog Day on this subject ad infinitum? Then again, given that this is already the 2nd deletion-request-AfD, even if we don't delete this time, we may be stuck with AfD Groundhog Day... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moses seems happy to maintain a public profile on sites like the American Academy of Arts and Sciences [93] so there can be little question of privacy here, only of control. I think that's not an adequate reason for deletion for someone so prominent. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To put it another way: if the President of Harvard University asked us to delete their article, should we agree? The president of the US? We have none of the factors that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says we should take into consideration: problematic editing, real-world harm identified by the subject, nor a subject that is only minimally notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The subject is not the President of Harvard University, and the article had numerous inaccuracies at the time of the VRT request. Biographies of actual public figures receive a lot more attention from editors than those that cover relatively unknown people, such as this one. Having a Wikipedia biography is certainly a burden to many subjects that do not have marketing teams, assistants, or public relations professionals at their disposal. This is the reason that the page you reference only invites us to consider the general notability guideline, per Rhododendrites, which is a better measure of a subject's exposure to public life than NPROF. Finally, minimal notability is one of the additional factors that we are invited to consider, and this is obviously the case when apply GNG. Nothing of serious value is being lost here. Let's have some compassion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  We have here a fellow of major societies (especially the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) for whom we should aim for biographies of all members. Deleting this article would leave a permanent hole in our coverage. And it's difficult to have compassion for a bare request to delete when there is no information given on the cause for requesting deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Still as notable as they were last time at AfD, and there's several notable positions and fellowships listed. I suspect this is about not being able to control the information in the article, as being the reason for wanting it deleted. This person is a rather public figure with several profiles on public websites, the right to privacy seems to have been waived in this case. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and deleting this would only contribute to gender bias, which is a real issue on Wikipedia. We should be advocating for articles about notable females in STEM fields. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: inherently a professor is a public figure to a degree, usually part of their job is to lecture in front of students and colleagues at conferences as well as be available for journalist/government inquiries. This is doubly true at major R1 research universities. It is unreasonable to have an expectation of total privacy where their name is not mentioned anywhere in the press or on the internet. The potential for inaccuracies in the article is not a reason to delete, we can correct or remove inaccurate statements. --hroest 12:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although a clear pass of WP:Prof, delete at subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Del Thiessen

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. While the page has significant structural problems, a Fellow of American Psychological Association (see the orbit at the journal of the International Society for Comparative Psychology) passes WP:NPROF#C3 independent of whether his citations also pass C1 (Scopus h-factor 28). This was previously noted when the nominator's PROD was contested. No justification provided by nominator with the PROD, and nothing here beyond the statement "Lack of notability".

Comment the GScholar topic of comparative psychology is not a high citation area, so an h-factor of 28 might pass C1.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, California, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes NPROF C3. nf utvol (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes NPROF #1 and #3. --hroest 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have at least three reviews of his books Gene Organization and Behavior (Morris), The Evolution and Chemistry of Aggression (Eisenberg) (Sigg). The reviews would be only enough for a weak WP:AUTHOR keep for me but the obituary linked above and the case for WP:PROF#C1 through the fellowships push it up to a full keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moein Jalali

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT. Can't find any sources giving him significant coverage. The main claim I see is winning the 2A Continental Architectural Awards, though as far as I can tell, it was second place. Unfortunately I was unable search in Persian, so if sources are found, please ping me. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete the awards [94] may indicate notability since he / his team seems to have come in first but these awards only exist since 2016 so I doubt that they are relevant for WP:ARCHITECT. Also he is listed as one of multiple people on a design team for the award, so overall I dont think winning a non-notable award as part of a team can count towards notability. Also, the page reads like a CV and needs some WP:TNT. --hroest 13:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and recognition

Moein Jalali has received individual recognition in international architecture awards:
2A Continental Architectural Awards
- 2016 - Won for Parsin Dental Clinic ^[1]
- 2018 - Won for Palemos Villa 2^[2]
Organizer listings confirm these were individual awards, not team achievements. Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 2A Asia Architectural Awards' significance:

The 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:

^ "Parsin Dental Clinic - 2016 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2016. Awarded to Moein Jalali for innovative dental space design {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)
^ "Palemos Villa 2 - 2018 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2018. Recognizing Jalali's residential design integrating traditional Persian elements {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)

^[1]

Françoise Fromonot, Nasrin Seraji, Wolfgang Tschapeller, Murat Tabanlıoğlu, Hiromi Hosoya

Also the 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:^[2]

Carme Pinós, Yoko Okuyama, Willy Müller, Ali Basbous.

Moein Jalali has been selected as a jury member for several prestigious international architecture awards, reflecting his standing in the architectural community:

Jury appointments

Inspireli Awards (2024) - Considered the world's largest student architecture competition^[3]
FRAME Awards (June 2024) - International interior design awards^[4]

Selection for such judging panels typically requires:^[5]

Recognized professional achievements
Specialized expertise
International perspective

Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "A Report of 2A Asia Architecture Award 2016". 2A Magazine. 2016. Archived from the original on 2024-06-01.
^ "Overview of 2A Continental Architectural Awards 2018". 2A Magazine. 2018. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: flag (help)
^ "Inspireli Awards 2024 Jury Members". Inspireli Awards. 2024. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: save command (help)
^ "June's FRAME Awards Jury Is Here: Meet the 20 Design Professionals". FRAME Magazine. 2024-06-01.
^ Jean-Pierre Chupin (2020). The Culture of Architectural Competitions. Potential Architecture Books. ISBN 978-1-988923-15-7. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

Delete - Per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. 2A Magazine looks minor. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Sonin

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

Promotional page for non-notable engineer. I couldn't find any WP:RSs in the references that meet WP:N; and couldn't find any in Google. Subject appears WP:ROTM. Page seems created by suspicious (possibly paid), sole-purpose unregistered account. Cabrils (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I dont see any indication of notability per WP:GNG. --hroest 13:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - page background is suspicious enough, fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this through the academics deletion-sorting list but he also has no WP:PROF-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – From a detailed research I carried out, Dr. Maksim Sonin clearly satisfies the notability requirements under WP:NACADEMIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.

Under WP:NACADEMIC, Dr. Sonin is an elected Fellow (FEI) of the Energy Institute (UK)—a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society. This recognition is publicly listed on his official Stanford profile.

He is also a Sloan Fellow, and recipient of the 2024 High Flyers 50 Global Icon Award, a notable international honor—fulfilling another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC related to prestigious academic recognition.

A Google News search reveals significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable, non-promotional sources that demonstrate his real-world impact and scholarly influence. These include:

IBM Think – Quoted on AI and nuclear energy
USA Today – On disrupting industry status quos
Power Magazine – On coal plant operations in relation to AI demand
Business Insider Africa – Profiled for financial and career insight
Engineer Live – Discussed Kazakhstan’s GSU project

These independent, reliable sources offer substantial, non-trivial coverage, fulfilling the criteria under WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.

Moreover, Dr. Sonin has held executive roles and served on the boards of UCC, Silleno, and KMG Petrochem, among other organizations focused on global energy and humanitarian concerns. He has also worked in consortium ventures with Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil, which is documented in several of the above sources.

All these facts are clearly featured in reliable third-party publications, not self-published or promotional content.

Therefore, Dr. Maksim Sonin meets the demands of WP:NACADEMIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG, and this article should be retained.Maltuguom (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nurida Kurbanova

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

Life description has no credible claims to notability. Yousiphh (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesnt pass WP:GNG, only sources available dont have any WP:SIGCOV, no credible academic profile to be found. --hroest 13:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found for the body she founded and the awards she has received. PamD 22:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott A. Hoffinger

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

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC (no chair; insufficient reasearch contribution, with H-index of 11), nor WP:GNG - the 2009 reality series appearance seems fleeting (no sustained coverage). Klbrain (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, California, Connecticut, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klbrain/others:

Strongly, strongly disagree this article should be deleted. Based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (WP:PROF and WP:GNG), Hoffinger clearly meets the standards due to his significant and documented contributions to orthopedic medicine, particularly pediatric orthopedics, leg length inequality and other procedures, and his documented, extensive aid work in the middle east.

First, Hoffinger has significantly advanced orthopedic techniques, specifically developing magnet-powered telescoping internal rods for limb-lengthening. This method reduces complications seen with older external fixation methods and has been covered independently, including by the Stanford Medicine News Center. This clearly satisfies WP:PROF criterion 1 "significant scholarly impact". (There are many sources/ DOIs I can cite. See one here: https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/abstract/2000/07000/intramedullary_nailing_of_femoral_shaft_fractures.16.aspx)

Next, he has held key positions at respected institutions, including Stanford Children's Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and OrthoPediatrics. He also served as Director of Pediatric Orthopedics at Children’s Hospital Oakland. Additionally, he served as the Medical Staff President at Children's Hospital Oakland in 2006, effectively an academic chair position, directly addressing the criterion cited by Klbrain. These positions reflect substantial professional recognition and meet WP:PROF criterion 6 "holding distinguished positions".

Lastly, Hoffinger has participated actively in international medical outreach, notably being featured twice on television, including a documented medical mission to Iraq featured on "Little People, Big World." Such appearances indicate ongoing relevance and satisfy the WP:GNG criterion for media coverage. It wasn't a "fleeting" reality series appearance. He appeared three times, and went to the middle east with the Matt Roloff twice.

As an ancilary note, I feel that focusing solely on an H-index of 11 fails to appreciate the practical medical innovations he introduced, which have received recognition beyond citation counts. His research contributions are substantial, and many of his peer-reviewed articles can be found here: PubMed and Google scholar

Look- I understand that people make articles all the time here that aren't up to the Wiki standards. I genuinely feel this article should not be deleted. Happy to work closely with klbrain or others to edit it up to that standard, but no one can say this guy isn't notable. Hoffy600 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable doctor. Military news story [95] and a press release [96] are about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are clear indications that he is a good medical doctor, and has had useful administrative roles. However, those do not qualify him for a Wikipedia page, for that he needs large-scale national or internation recognition and/or positions or awards. Counting by hand his citations I get an h-factor of 12 which does not qualify for WP:NPROF. Almost all the various pages cited are all mini-CV of him at medical sites, not general pages of independent coverage. Sorry, but he falls far short of what we look for. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete GS finds 3 studies with 100+ citations which is not extraordinary in biomedicine especially over the course of 20+ years and does not rise to the bar of WP:NPROF. I agree that GS cannot capture the complexity of academic research and it is only a proxy we use, if there are other reputable sources that attest to his impact in the field (Festschrift or similar) we can take that into account. I dont see NPROF#6 as this usually relates to the president/dean of a whole major University, not a single department as in this case. --hroest 13:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete

Hi everyone: Some thoughts to counter what you've put here (more succinct this time, ha ha):

Klbrain:

No named chair, but served as Director of Orthopedics, Stanford Clinical Professor, and president of a national society—roles that meet the intent of WP:NPROF #6. I quote the standard as follows: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Children's Hospital Oakland is associated with UCSF Benioff, and therefore constitutes a highest level role when he was medical staff president.

He also is a member of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, a selective group. I quote the WP:ACADEMICS standard #3 "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." AAOS qualifies as such.

TV appearances were neither trivial nor fleeting—Hoffinger was a recurring expert and on-screen surgeon. By your logic, we'd have to remove Matt Roloff's page too.

Ldm1954:

Independent coverage exists in multiple forms: academic news (Stanford Medicine News), the DVIDs article you mentioned, trade media Becker's, and television (TLC). This is "independent coverage."

Serving as AACPDM president is national academic leadership. Combined with multiple other media appearances, this satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I quote the GNG standard as follows: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected".

Hroest:

Citation counts, while not astronomical, are strong for pediatric surgery. The medical field isn't uniform, and pediatric orthopedics is a field where citation count isn't valued as highly as other specialties. Three studies exceed 100 citations, which is significant in this field.

Society presidency and division leadership clearly qualify under WP:NPROF #6 as "top-tier" positions within a respected academic medical society and major hospital system. Hoffy600 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has 39k members drawn from just within orthopedic surgery. That's not highly selective. WP:NPROF #6 is for something like the National Academy of Medicine, which has fewer than 3k members despite drawing from all medical specialties and 10% foreign members. Jahaza (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhav Bhattarai

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

Unexpanded after a decade and a half, likely due to lack of reliable sources. I have found nothing in depth. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Nepal. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This astrologer operates in a fringe area but has not made enough impact to be notable for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: At least in English, the subject is quoted in some articles like this one for the calculation of dates of religious observances. However, I couldn't find significant coverage of the subject. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshdi Khalil

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

Potentially notable mathematician but there has been some discussion on whether he is notable on talk and that has not been resolved. Looking for a wider discussion. A note tag has been placed on the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to Google Scholar, and his work has been cited 6291 by others; he has an h-index of 23, and an i10-index of 46. He is a tenured Full Professor. I don't know enough about these scores in relation to his specific field of mathematics to be able to interpret them, but it seems he may be notable. Apparently he is also a poet. Netherzone (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I wrote on the article talk some time ago, "Heavy citations in mathematics, centered on dubious journals, can be less a sign of notability and more a sign that something suspicious is going on." See Science: Citation cartels help some mathematicians—and their universities—climb the rankings: Widespread citation manipulation has led entire field of math to be excluded from influential list of top researchers. The subject is exactly the sort of person this was targeted at: someone high on the lists of heavily cited mathematicians but whose name would be unfamiliar to most mainstream mathematicians. For this reason I think we need to base notability on something else other than WP:PROF#C1. I don't see any evidence of that something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the information that David Eppstein has shared. It's good to be aware of the fact that this sort of gaming of the system occurs in the mathematics field. A BEFORE search had revealed nothing else, and the awards are not notable, they are run-of-the-mill teaching awards. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the analysis above. However it does raise the question of how NPROF#1 should be assessed in mathematics going forward, probably going by awards and recognitions? --hroest 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably. Major mathematics societies have issued statements telling mathematicians not to rely solely on citation counts in evaluation: IMU (IMU summary), AMS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Glauser

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

An associate professor with a rather light career output (18 works on ORCID; 5 on Scopus); doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC and doesn't seem to have sufficient media engagement to meet WP:GNG. It also looks like an unacknowledged translation from the German article (also suggesting that we're not missing anything). Notability tagged for 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have 293 results on Swissdox, but many are false postivies for a master cheesemaker and head of the Käserei Zäziwil, whose promotion of Emmental cheese has gotten lots of coverage. On account of this cheesy interference, it will take me longer than usual to analyze the sources. Toadspike [Talk] 15:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete as he doesnt meet WP:NPROF, but seems to have some sort of public profile. However, I dont see many news articles about him (or at least dont have access in Canada) but lets see whether Toadspike can find anything more. --hroest 15:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

[97] A part-interview piece that has enough info about him to count towards the GNG. [98] [99] Plus two more with probably sigcov about him predicting the 2016 US election
It seems his doctoral thesis was edited down and published as a book, titled "Einfach blitzsauber: Die Geschichte des Staubsaugers". Yes, it is about the history of the vacuum cleaner. It was reviewed by: NZZ, 16 March 2002, "Der Staubsauger, das unbekannte Wesen" by Aiolfi S.; Berner Zeitung, later reprinted in the Neue Luzerner Zeitung, 27.10.2001, "Eine verstaubte Geschichte entstaubt", Franziska Egli; Tages-Anzeiger, "Staub als Thema", 16.10.2001, Walter Jäggi; Die Weltwoche, "Hauptsache, sauber", 11.10.2001, Benini Sandro; Le Temps, "Le grand nettoyage par le vide ou les cent ans de l'aspirateur", 29.08.2001, Isabelle Cerboneschi; and short reviews in the Solothurner Zeitung and Blick. This book is, apparently, notable.
Non-independent coverage of ArgYou [100] and a related interview [101], which has a bio of him too.
Glauser was quoted as an expert on brand image in an article in Le Temps titled "Les petits nouveaux et le storytelling", 17 June 2022, by Matthias Niklowitz – this article also appeared in the Handelszeitung in German, but I can't find either version online. Similar expert quotes of Glauser alongside sigcov of ArgYou here [102]. I've found quite a few other instances where he is quoted as an expert in a variety of papers, but I won't list them all here to save time and space.
ArgYou seems to be regularly cited as a source of data, with articles often mentioning Glauser's name as well. One example is this newswire piece from Keystone-SDA, reprinted in a bunch of papers [103].

Sorry for spamming all these links here. I haven't quite gone through all the newspaper database results (I got distracted by other stuff) but I think there's enough to keep here. Toadspike [Talk] 19:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain@Hannes Röst Would you like to take a look at the above? I think the first three sources, linked in the first bullet point, should be enough. Toadspike [Talk] 19:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look, and still not impressed, although understand if others disagree. That an internet marketing expert can get some fireside chats published in some blog-like website covered in adds doesn't seem sufficient to me for WP:GNG. The research claims made in those articles are likely to be factually true, but don't demonstrate that WP:NACADEMIC is reached. Klbrain (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which website you are referring to, but all of the sources I cited are reliable Swiss newspapers (except maybe Blick, which is a tabloid, but one with a decent reputation regardless). The level of advertising is not a measure of reliability, though if you like I can email you the print versions of nearly all of the sources I cited, which have far fewer ads. Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Alderete

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I found only one reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject to count towards WP:BIO [104], which I added to the article. The other two sources cited in the article are not independent. I checked WP:NPROF and I think the only criteria that might apply is #1, for citations. Her Google Scholar profile [105] gives an h-index of around 30, which I suggest is borderline; I do note that the article had explicitly been undraftified with this comment respectable h-index, may meet WP:NPROF. I submit that it doesn't, and therefore than an article now is too soon. As an alternative to deletion, I would be happy for the article to be draftified again for future expansion and resubmisssion when notability is clearer. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Health and fitness, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would argue the one article the nom cites as potentially meeting WP:BIO is not in-depth enough count towards significance --- it's largely interview responses. From a public health perspective, the potential link between pollution and allergies/asthma/diabetes was established well before Aderelte's career began (e.g. [106]), so much of her research isn't groundbreaking in the field. I wouldn't even draftify this as academics usually take a while to become notable and it's likely to languish there for years. If Alderete becomes notable in the future someone can rewrite based on newer and better information. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz if she passes WP:NPROF then she does not need to pass WP:BIO as well. Based on her GS profile and similar cases in the past, she probably passes the bar for NPROF. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I admit I am also generally skeptical of WP:NPROF as setting too low a bar for notability among academics. I'm not a fan of h-index or other citation metrics for establishing notability since I think such metrics skew incentives for scientific investigation. Raw citation counts are also difficult to use since some fields can be much more citation-happy than others.

I took a brief look at three of Alderete's publications based on the weak keep votes, and I'm not impressed by the quality of the science in two so I am still sticking with my delete vote (the third was too specialized for me to understand well enough).

As an aside, the first paper I have concerns with are [107] which throws out measured infant masses in the methods section instead of using averages/standard deviations. I'd expect to get fired if I used such a method. Including standard deviations in mass would likely make the correlations appear much weaker than stated in the paper. The second is this one which does not include income as a potential confounding factor (incomes are generally lower near sources of pollution, and lower incomes mean healthier foods can be unaffordable, so could that be a more reasonable explanation for the observed correlation?). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree with you, I also feel this is a case just at the edge. However, the reason we are lenient for articles of professors / scientists is the Strickland case and the fact that its often fiendishly difficult for Wikipedians to judge academic research quality (and takes up a lot of time). Therefore peer assessment is what we go for and everything else borders on WP:OR. Personally, I am not familiar with the standard methodology for infant weight/length measurements, in some cases outlier removal is a valid method and treating outliers as if they come from a normally distributed set of values is also a mistake by itself. Maybe its just nontrivial to get a baby to hold still in a scale :-) ? I also agree that income could be a confounding factor for the other study, however they do mention they use parental education as a proxy for socioeconomic status so there is an attempt to control for it but there is no evidence to support this choice. Either way, it would be good if the discussion of the results would have included this limitation but it does not necessarily invalidate the whole study. --hroest 13:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep this person (just) passes WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 33 and 13 of her publications cited 100+ times. This indicates an impact in her academic field as per guidelines. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and repair. There were some very strange statements such as her currently being a postdoctoral scholar (at the same time as an associate professor), I removed that one as I don't believe it. Her h-index is borderline, as others have said, but her citation trend is very strongly increasing so I am OK to give her the benefit of the doubt. Someone badly needs to repair the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naseem Ameer Ali

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

Promo bio for a non-notable individual with no evidence of passing WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. His h-index of 5 (from the Scopus page linked in the footnotes) is what might be expected from a postdoc or graduate student, not an associate professor, and signals the opposite of significantly impacted...academia, to quote the peacocking language used here. He meets none of the other NACADEMIC criteria. The sourcing (here and in a BEFORE search) does not support GNG either. It's limited to non-independent pages: his faculty profile, primary source bios ([108], [109], his own writings [110], [111] and a LinkedIn page. One source turns up a blank page and another is a random search box. The final tenuous claim of notability is an award as a lifetime member of the NZ Institute of Quantity Surveying, but this is unlikely to be a notable award since NZIQS appears non-notable, and it fails WP:V, since the only source is the aforementioned WP:USERGENERATED LinkedIn page and search queries on the NZIQS website turn up no results for life/lifetime members or for Ali's name. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A long way from passing WP:Prof and, on the basis of the thorough nomination, I don't see enough for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF clearly, as seen in GS and there is no evidence that he "has significantly impacted both academia and the construction industry". --hroest 15:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a academic doing his job and took a chance at getting an article. scope_creep^Talk 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has very few RSes to speak of and it not notable. It seems like this person just wants to be able to use Wikipedia as an advertisement. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Siy

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

Sources do not indicate sufficient notability. References to the subject of the article are fairly minor, mostly press releases and the like. Noleander (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Won't contest this one. I just came across the article and expanded it as I happened to know his work to a degree, but even I would agree that there is a lack of sources that ascertains the subject as notable for WP. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venugopal Reddy. I

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

Not notable pediatrician who claims to be a researcher and author, with an h-factor of 2 so claims are unverified. No indication of any significant coverage in reputable sources, no major peer awards and those in the article look highly dubious. After draftification an editor removed comments and moved it back to main, hence time for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Fails wp:GNG and wp:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recreation of previously deleted Venugopal Reddy Iragamreddy. Which was created by a blocked user in violation of a block. Zuck28 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of of NPROF, I didn't find reviews for NAUTHOR (albeit in a somewhat cursory search), no other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a non-notable profile, also previously deleted.--Almandavi (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --hroest 15:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very low profile and citations. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination Fails WP:GNG 𝒮𝓎𝓃𝒸-!⃝

Kazuki Fujitaka

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

No indication that the article subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Sexuality and gender, and Japan. Astaire (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Default Keep on basis of inadequate nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Please justify your comment by referring to WP:NACADEMIC, or this should be discarded per WP:NOREASON. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a properly posed nomination see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naseem Ameer Ali. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

For a properly posed keep vote, see the other comments on this page. You have made no argument based on notability. Astaire (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are four single authored books here, which, if they're reviewed, may make a case for WP:AUTHOR. But it's difficult for me to search for reviews in Japanese. The book with the title translated as "Feminism is Trouble" is reviewed here[112]. Jahaza (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did find that review during WP:BEFORE, but could not find independent reviews for any other of the author's books. Thanks. Astaire (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are four additional academic reviews of their publications (two of which do not appear to be available online).https://doi.org/10.51086/sfjp.24.0_300, https://www2.igs.ocha.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/0678fafd17549d594983f4ab989329fc.pdf, https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1520584642166304640, https://mainichi.jp/articles/20240803/ddm/015/070/022000c QJmisaki (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add them to the article? --hroest 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is true that Fujitaka is not well known in the English-speaking world, but they is a well-known scholar of queer theory in Japan. While this is supported indirectly by English-language sources, Kawasaka and Würrer’s article cites their books Judith Butler and Feminism as “Trouble” as “important contributions” to queer theory in Japan. In addition, Fujitaka has been actively engaged in critiquing transphobia in Japan, which suggests that their public engagement beyond academia should also be taken into account. Although English-language information on this is limited, Yamada’s article may serve as a useful reference. I believe the article would be better improved by incorporating such information rather than deleted.--QJmisaki (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kawasaka and Würrer’s article cites their books Judith Butler and Feminism as “Trouble” as “important contributions” to queer theory in Japan Well, if they were really "important contributions" worthy of a Wikipedia article, I think there would be more to say than a single vague mention. This is the entire quote you are referring to:

The corpus of queer studies also grew after 2010 with important contributions to various fields, including, for example, queer theory and criticism by Nagashima Saeko (2013, 2019), Fujitaka Kazuki (2018, 2022)...

Fujitaka has been actively engaged in critiquing transphobia in Japan Has this received coverage in reliable sources, Japanese or otherwise? Foreign language sources are allowed here. See WP:NONENG. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One online article states that “among the essential Japanese-language works for studying intersectionality are writings by Risa Kumamoto, Kazuki Fujitaka, and Akiko Shimizu,” and it includes an explanation of Fujitaka’s research. The essay by Fujitaka cited in the article is included in Feminism as a Trouble. The author of the web article is a sociologist who conducts research on racism in Japan and is also a translator of academic texts on intersectionality.

As for the social reception of Fujitaka’s writings on transgender discrimination, I have not yet found reliable sources, but I will continue looking into it. QJmisaki (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I'm Neutral about this, I strongly suggest doing a WP:JAPANBEFORE about the subject with the JP name above per WP:NONENG. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep seems to pass WP:NAUTHOR with several (at least two, sounds like four) academic reviews on his different books. Still seems a little early for a full article on a junior researcher, but to me it seems they pass the bar. --hroest 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly question whether WP:NAUTHOR applies here.

First, that guideline is for authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Can an academic writing about academic subjects really be considered a "creative professional"? The relevant guideline should be WP:NACADEMIC, as I said in my nomination.

Second, the subject has written four books: Judith Butler, Feminism as a Trouble, Not Like This, and The Introduction of Butler. Jahaza and QJmisaki have presented five reviews of the subject's work in scholarly journals: one of Judith Butler [113], two of Feminism as a Trouble [114] [115], one of Not Like This [116], and one of The Introduction of Butler [117]

WP:NAUTHOR requires a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Feminism as a Trouble is the only book that has multiple reviews, which means it barely scrapes by our notability guidelines (WP:NBOOK). I also see no indication that the book is particularly "significant" or "well-known". Astaire (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes, it's long established that WP:AUTHOR applies to well, authors, which includes people who write books, including academics.

However, I share your doubt that this article passes WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews that we've been able to surface. Jahaza (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuu Matsuura

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

Article gives no indication that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. According to Google Scholar, the subject has a total of 18 citations [118]. Astaire (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Social science, and Japan. Astaire (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They have published this book "Guide to Aro/Ace" (in japanese) but I don't have any details on it being a significant book. The article appears to be mostly translated from the Japanese article of the same name but without attribution so that should be fixed as well. Moritoriko (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the translator of this article. I translated it from the Japanese Wikipedia, and I apologize for omitting attribution to the original sources in the translation. I decided to translate the article because the subject has published a sole-authored academic book, received an award from Japan’s largest sociological association, had their research translated and introduced in other languages, and appears to be active outside academia as well. For these reasons, I believed the article was worth translating. While I acknowledge that some parts may currently lack sufficient information, I believe it would be more constructive to improve the article by adding reliable sources rather than deleting it.--QJmisaki (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the subject has published a sole-authored academic book This is not relevant to NACADEMIC #1, unless the book has had a "significant impact".

received an award from Japan’s largest sociological association Receiving the 23rd Japan Sociological Society Encouraging Award (Article Category) - basically an emerging scholar award - seems like a respectable achievement, but not "highly prestigious" as required by NACADEMIC #2.

had their research translated and introduced in other languages Having research translated is not by itself evidence of significant impact.

appears to be active outside academia as well You are welcome to produce sources to help meet WP:GNG, because I still don't see the case for NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s true that, based on the information available online, there may not be sufficient evidence that the subject meets the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. However, as I understand it, not meeting WP:NACADEMIC does not automatically require deletion. In particular, it is important to consider that minority groups in non-Western contexts are often underrepresented on Wikipedia (WP:GLOBALIZE). Even if the article does not fully meet WP:NACADEMIC, the information presented may still suggest a certain level of notability. QJmisaki (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, An Introduction to Asexuality and Aromanticism is the first academic book on the topic in Japanese. Additionally, many Japanese academic publications, particularly books, are not indexed by Google Scholar, so citation counts there may not accurately reflect the significance of Japanese-language sources.--QJmisaki (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An Introduction to Asexuality and Aromanticism is the first academic book on the topic in Japanese Do you have a secondary source that says this? Being the first academic book on X in language Y is not by itself evidence of significant impact in a field. Has the book been widely reviewed by academics and the media, has it been cited and interpreted by other scholars, etc.? Since it just came out this year - I'm guessing no. Astaire (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I was able to find online, there is one review of the book written by an academic, which appears to be a reprint of a review originally published in a journal. However, it does not state that this is the first academic book in Japanese on Aro/Ace topics. While I do not have detailed information, it seems the book was also featured on two radio programs (https://www.joqr.co.jp/qr/article/150765/ and https://www.tbsradio.jp/articles/93833/), both broadcast by legally licensed stations in Japan. Additionally, I found that the book is listed as a reference in a university syllabus, this is just for reference. QJmisaki (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I'm neutral about this, try searching the Japanese name into google using above. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. The vast majority of sources appear to be retroactive to the subject itself, lacking third-party sources. Svartner (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt pass WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF and I dont see any evidence of passing WP:GNG. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, this person just finished their PhD in 2024. I dont see any reviews of their book, at least not in JSTOR in English, the one academic review in Japanese does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 15:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similar to above. With a 2024 PhD it appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I do not see any indications of sufficient citations, with the caveat that there are others with the same initials.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (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}}.

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field

1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/

2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity

3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/

4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics

5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/

6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley

I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.

Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...

1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf

2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312

3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf

4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf

Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this meets the 7th criteria of WP:NACADEMIC due to his publications in the Journal of Financial Economics and his appearances/contributions to mainstream media sources and think tanks. He seems to have been frequently interviewed by prominent institutions, the Wharton School as an example. This also seems to be notable since he has been covered in various RSes such as The Globe and Mail, National Post, and more. Lastly, there are lots of professors who have fewer or a similar amount of RSes, content, and notability and remain on Wikipedia and are not being nominated for deletion. Examples include but are not limited to Herman Clarence Nixon, Daniel Nugent, Thomas Sakmar, Avery Craven, James L. Fitzgerald, Lawrence M. Friedman, H. Gregg Lewis, Guy A. Marco, and more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article seems to have been deleted previously due to a lacking of sources that were acceptable by our standards at the time of its prior publication on Wikipedia. However, as of 2025 there seems to be more than enough reliable and independent sources covering the subject of the article. In the two plus years since the prior AfD, sources for the subject appear to be better and more relevant and independent. The subject is pretty clearly active and well established in academia. WP:SIGCOV easily passes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - winning a made up in one day Forbes award for an up and coming but run of the mill academic. WP:NOTFB. I'm willing to change my mind about this if evidence of full tenure or high citation numbers is added. Right now, he's a fellow at a think tank that has long ago become subject to donor pressure. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jon Hartley meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, and concerns about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTFB do not seem to be applicable in this case. His research appears to have been published in reliable journals such as the Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, and Economics Letters. A Google search reveals Hartley to have been featured in sources including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and National Post. The sources demonstrate significant coverage and in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. His recognition by Forbes in their 30 Under 30 list for Law & Policy in 2017 further demonstrates notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers is what every academic does - it definitely does not confer notability. Similarly, the articles in reliable sources are written by him, not about him and that is a crucial difference - the coverage is not about him. SmartSE (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Carlos Gustavo Rosado Muñoz

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

Doesn't seem notable, very weak sourcing with only one source. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was able to verify that he received a licenciate in actuarial mathematics from UNAM in 1964 [119]. Searching Google Scholar did not find anything by the subject. But it did find [120], apparently a 2007 government notice to other government agencies and states informing them that they must not do business with him (or someone with the same name). I could not find anything in the article to explain this, but it seems like the sort of thing that should be reflected somehow in our article, with better sourcing. However, neither of these finds directly contributes to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, if it turns out that we cannot find sourcing for what this is about, it might be a reason to delete the article: there is information that is inadequately sourced for WP:BLP to allow us to mention, but for which not mentioning is problematic with respect to WP:N, and therefore deleting is the best resolution of this contradiction. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since he died in 2013, BLP would no longer apply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Orphaned article without any source. Subject of the article is not notable. WP:NOT is not met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzcuauhtli11 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I didn't express a clear !vote above. We don't have evidence of WP:GNG, nor sourcing usable for an article. There are claims that might plausibly pass WP:PROF#C6 but we do not have sourcing to verify them let alone judge their significance. We do have evidence that the article is not a full and accurate reflection of his life. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alan Levy

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Internet, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS that discuss this person are used for sourcing. Source 15 is a RS but doesn't mention this person. I don't see any either, some primary sourcing only. The was at AfD over a decade ago, and still no RS have turned up. I don't think this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current article is in need of a clean-up and better sourcing, but I think some alternatives to deletion per Wikipedia:ATD are appropriate and I think this nomination is premature. This profile in the Washingtonian demonstrates, at least to me, there is a chance that the subject can meet WP:GNG based on a 40-year legal career at a large public advocacy group that includes arguing in front of SCOTUS. A search on Google Scholar indicates he is published in legal journals at least more than a regular attorney. Google Scholar is the floor, not the ceiling based on his writing in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. In addition, he is mentioned in a number of books at the Internet Archive including books independent of him and Public Citizen. I would also recommend, should we not keep, to !redirect to Public Citizen where the guy has worked for over 40 years. The preface of "weak" is that I am in a space of quantity vs quality at this point with Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. I am very open to the possibility he is not the subject in enough of these or that the work is not so atypical as to warrant an individual article as a non-attorney.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not coverage. That short article are the real thing that mention him in any detail. There is no other WP:SECONDARY coverage that I can find that is specifically about him. And its nothing like enough. scope_creep^Talk 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will go through the reference and look at them in detail in the next couple of days to see what is what. scope_creep^Talk 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have seen a few articles about him from reliable sources that prove notability. One of them in my quick look was the Washingtonian February 3 article "Paul Levy, the Web Bully’s Worst Enemy", which also made me laugh out loud. Collectively regular coverage in Reason and New York Times, it satisfies me. He sounds like an interesting man. He's also got my interest too. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inclined to say that he is on this side of GNG. Andre🚐 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence free !voting there I see. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references:

Ref 1 [121] That is self-written profile. Not independent.
Ref 2 [122] Secondary source.
Ref 3 [123] Not about him. Its a passing mention.
Ref 4 [124] CV. Not independent.
Ref 5 Non-rs
Ref 6 [125] That is a spam and will need to be removed.
Ref 7 [126] Another passing mention.
Ref 8 [127] Passing mention.
Ref 9 [128] Passing mention.
Ref 10 [129] Not independent.
Ref 11 404
Ref 12 [130] The docket. Non-rs
Ref 13 [131] Not independent.
Ref 14 [132] A short quote from him. Not independent.

The first two blocks of references, 2 non-rs, 5 not-independent, 4 passing mentions, a 404, a spam link and 1 secondary source that reads like a puff piece. This is a WP:BLP. Its states in that policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources The sources are atrocious. They are crap. There is no other way to desribe them. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lolade Dosunmu Adeyemi

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

Likely fails WP Academics and ANY BIO. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMICS or WP:GNG. Insufficient coverages found to establish notability of any sort. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Banks

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

Non-notable subject with one RS, couldn't find others during BEFORE. Previous AfD led to article being deleted (in 2008) and I don't believe he passes GNG now. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Psychology, New Jersey, and New York. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphan, not really a biography, little in the way of google scholar Czarking0 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further to this coverage cited in the article, the subject appears to have many hits on the newspaperarchive. See, for example, Box Elder Journal, 1963, and Daily Texan, 1953, and Chester Times, 1954. ResonantDis_tortion 22:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Muyia Nafukho

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

Requested by individual Maomulma (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not sure what the reason for deletion is? Is it the person the article that this article is about saw it, and now wants it deleted? Is it a bot that made this deletion request? I've never seen a nomination like this on Wikipedia. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, Kenya, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to whom? I see nothing on this article's talk page. I see nothing on the nom's talk page or the creator's talk page. Short of the subject dropping a verified UTRS request (or a substantive challenge to the subject's notability), there are no grounds to sustain a deletion, and the nom has failed to make one. Ravenswing 21:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I presume that the subject himself wants the article deleted? Is there evidence of this? However, I see a substantial GS profile with an h-index of 49 which easily clear WP:NPROF but the article does have some issues and needs cleanup, but I do not see a reason for deletion. --hroest 20:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - without clear and convincing evidence of the subject's wishes, it's merely speculation. If this were a child or an associate professor, then I would go along with deletion. He's fairly notable. We're an encyclopedia, not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Ahlquist

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

Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.

Additionally, article was created by User:AmChestertonSoc, likely undisclosed paid editing; article overall is written like a WP:RESUME or WP:PROMOTION, and relies on primary sourcing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Minnesota. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is going to pass WP:Author. There's also some extensive (negative) writing about him[133] Jahaza (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on that article - I'm not sure why that didn't pop up in my Google News search. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried my hand at cleaning up some of the promotional writing (could still do some more probably). And I would like clarification on how he meets WP:AUTHOR Moritoriko (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's fewer book reviews than I expected to find. Jahaza (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to meet NPROF/NAUTHOR/GNG. I found one profile that counts towards sigcov, the NCR article linked above by Jahaza is another one, and so far one paragraph about a chapter he contributed to an edited work, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 reviews of books he wrote/edited probably add up to be another element. I'm landing at 'weak' because it feels like the reviews are a bit of a walled garden (they are from two journals), but they seem reliable, and there's definitely enough to write a substantive article here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the worst of the cruft had been removed, but just barely squeezed by. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Takis Sakellariou

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

Fails WP:GNG - clearly falls into WP:LUGSTUBS. Ré union! 03:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Olympedia gives him a decent-size bio strongly indicates that he was notable. What we need to do is search Greek sources. Has that been done? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering that Olympedia is owned by the IOC, that isn't a independent source. Let'srun (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content was written before IOC ownership and was previously hosted by Sports Reference; only after the rename to Olympedia did the IOC buy it (i.e. its independent). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a date on the bio. How are you sure it was written before IOC ownership? Let'srun (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to try to look through Wayback Machine archives for this particular one, but based on other ones I've checked in the past, the biographies were originally on SR, then imported to Olympedia when SR's Olympics site split. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Die Olympischen Kunstwettbewerbe 1912-1948 (The Olympic Art Competitions 1912-1948) covers the olympic artwork, but with little beyond. [134] He also gets multiple mentions in A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War [135], although these are not biographical of him. That's all I found so far. That is not a GNG pass yet, but may indicate there is more to be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is not a typical Lugstub at all. Has anyone searched in Wikilibrary sources? Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of people with the name Takis Sakellariou. There's also no Greek article on him, unfortunately, so it's not like we can just expand it with the corresponding article in Greek. If someone native in the language looked, maybe we'd get a more definitive answer if there's any articles that do pass GNG on him. Ré union! 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will certainly be namesakes, but what is the basis for saying there are a lot of them? Sakellariou is not unusual but neither is it a particularly common Greek surname, and the same could be said for the forename, Takis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, this one [136] is clearly more notable and accounts for most of what I am turning up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Greek there is an extensive reference to Sakelariou here which comes from a book on the subject - I think it's a reliable source. Apart from that, however, I have not found anything else worthwhile. Delete Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics or consider Grigoris Lambrakis, although mention at the page would be required. I have searched but unable to find any SIGCOV secondary sources for this subject. There is a more notable namesake in entertainment (actor and producer) and most sources refer to that one. However the sources I found above are confirmed to be this page subject. The problem is that these are just not enough. The history of the Olympic art competitions confirms his entry, but doesn't have anything to tell us about the man. Likewise Gkotzaridis (2016), that is, A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War, which I have now obtained a library copy of, only actually has three mentions of the page subject, the other mentions of Sakellariou in the work referring to one of five others with that surname: Alexandros, Aristeidis, Epameinondas, Petros and Vassileos. The most substantial of the references to the page subject reads: As for Takis Sakellariou, he was properly bedazzled and stirred - like so many others back at home - by the spectacle of Germans rooting for Greek athletes in Greek and some even succeeding in intoning the first verses of the Greek national anthem! and this is referenced to one of his works:

- Takis Sakellariou, "The Foustanela-dressed of the Gymnastics Academy and the Greek Champions: Mantikas, Syllas and Papadimas," Athlitismos, August 10, 1936.

That source, of course, is primary. The book also confirms his involvement in training, with As soon as he met Grigorios, the coach, Takis Sakellariou, sensed at once that he had in front of him a rare instance of an athlete, with remarkable jumping capabilities. He started to train him, believing firmly that he would grow into a wonderful jumper. The other mention also briefly mentions training. And that is it. We have no secondary sources covering the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the one good source below, striking my redirect for now, as focus on the subject as a sports science pioneer may be more fruitful than as an Olympian. At the very least we should allow time for further searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting my redirect !vote back. The source below is excerpted from a local history book published by the Piraeus association. The website is similarly supported by the association. The claims about him being a pioneer are, it seems, overhyped, as there is no other evidence of this. He is of local interest, but it is a single source by an association promoting Piraeus. This is not enough for GNG and nothing else is coming to light. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Svartner and Sirfurboy: A search brought up that he literally had an in-depth story written on him this year, see this, which is 1,600 words on him by some Greek historical writer, titled "the pioneer of scientific gymnastics". In addition to it being SIGCOV, the fact that he still gets in-depth coverage today and that recent Greek writers were able to find so much on him strongly indicates that there would be further, offline coverage, as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this one meets SIGCOV in a secondary source, and is an excerpt from a book that appears to be reliable, and independent. Who are the Thematic Office of Culture? Almost certainly this gives us one good source. We need multiple to meet GNG, so one more will do it (given that we have the brief mentions too). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The website you found deals exclusively with Piraeus issues - it records the local history of the city. There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. – How do you know? Have you checked old Greek archives? What about 1930s newspapers? Not everything is on the internet... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources that are inaccessible to us - it is as if they do not exist since they cannot be documented. The newspapers of the time are considered primary sources since they cannot prove notability. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccessible to you does not equate to non-existent. If you have not checked any Greek archives, then you have no right to claim that they do not exist. Neither are all newspaper sources primary and unusable like you claim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a Russell's teapot argument. It is for the people asserting that these things exist to demonstrate that they do. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its also utterly ridiculous to claim a clearly prominent figure who still gets covered by historians today has "no further coverage" when no one has looked where the coverage is most likely to be! The chances that he would not have been covered significantly in his day is very, very, very slim given that he's still being covered today. No one has checked any Greek archives. People get covered most when they are active; that he gets covered significantly decades after his death is a very strong indication that there was significant coverage of him in the past. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. We have one source with clear sigcov and some other sources that mention him. For a topic so inaccessible, this is enough to convince me that WP:NEXIST applies. Toadspike [Talk] 10:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I have struck my !vote after seeing FOARP point out below that the one source with sigcov seems to be a blog created with the "sole purpose" of promoting Piraeus. The author's other credentials are not, in my opinion, enough to qualify him as so much of a subject-matter expert that it can overcome the obvious declared bias. Toadspike [Talk] 21:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The website is hosting content from a book the author wrote on Pireaus history. Plenty of reliable writers/media outlets focus on specific regions. What sort of credentials are you looking for for a subject-matter expert? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Olympedia is an unreliable source, as we saw with the Frank English AFD (wrong death-date, wrong name) and others. Moreover the operators corrected Olympedia directly in response to our Frank English AFD so it appears that they are using Wiki as a source. This unreliability is part and parcel of the other reason that Olympedia does not indicate notability: it has wide-sweeping inclusion criteria. A lot of their data appears to come from family members, so it is not independent even ignoring the fact that it is owned by the IOC.

I was tempted to vote keep based on the Pireorama, but looking at the about page it appears to just be a blog set up to promote Pireus, and as such is a self-published source. The article is an excerpt from what appears to be a self-published book (Milesis is a prominent member of the Pireus Association). The article also references an encyclopaedia listing for Sakellariou but crucially it also tells you that Sakellariou authored that encyclopaedia - as such, that encyclopaedia is not an independent source.

It just doesn't look like there's any there there, which is the problem with so many of these LUGSTUB articles. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you consider Pireorama a self-published source, the author Stefanos Milesis (Στέφανος Μίλεσης) is clearly a subject-matter expert, given that he's a historian, newspaper columnist, lecturer, television host and the author of nearly two dozen history books, many of which are non-self-published. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP - Every site has some errors. It happens. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics : Subject lacks the required WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I too share the concerns with using Olympedia and I can't find anything better to support notability here. Let'srun (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And what's wrong with Milesis's article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's a blog post, an excerpt from a book published by the association of which Milesis is a member, about that association (and so self-published). FOARP (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  But Sakellariou wasn't a member of that organization, was he? Self-published sources can still be reliable if the author is a subject matter expert. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It says he's a member on his Linkedin profile: ("He is a member of the National Society of Greek Writers, the Piraeus Association and the Maritime Museum of Greece."). FOARP (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I mean Sakellariou. If Sakellariou has no connection to the Piraeus Association, then someone in the Piraeus Association who is a subject matter expert writing SIGCOV about Sakellariou is SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The passage in the book certainly is SIGCOV. But that is not enough. To count towards GNG, you need significant coverage (SIGCOV) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. A self published source is not a reliable source. But, in any case, you can argue the toss on this one - we still don't have multiple sources. And sources like this are exactly why we need multiple sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. Note that per WP:SPORTCRIT, having one piece of SIGCOV indicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Also note that, per WP:NSPORT, The sports-specific notability guidelines are ... meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. One piece of SIGCOV is sufficient to satisfy NSPORT, and thus it should be acceptable to allow for more time instead of demanding "GNG now!" He's got SIGCOV, a second piece of arguably borderline coverage (Olympedia), and thus it should be acceptable to keep this on that basis for now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Nah, it's not. SPORTCRIT starts off (emphasis mine) A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The bit you quote specifically says one source does not indicate notability but is a minimum requirement for any article that meets the following shortcut criteria for a presumption of notability. And no one has argued that this article meets any of those. But again, SPORTCRIT is the same as GNG here. Multiple sources are required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  There is no other way to interpret that having SIGCOV, like here, indicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article, and meeting it is meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... [and] Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  That's not how it works Beannie: Self-published works are self-published works regardless of what they are writing about. The Pireus association is obviously interested in promoting their city. WP:SPS also warns against using self-published works, particularly for biographies ("if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". WP:SPS also requires the "expert" to have expertise "in the relevant field", which is questionable here - as far as I can see Milesis's background is in business administration and his career is broadcasting, he is at best an amateur historian. FOARP (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Per above, A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. You think its "questionable"? He's a newspaper columnist, a television/radio host discussing the area history, a lecturer on the area history, and has written numerous published history books on area history. He's clearly acceptable for area history like this. if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources – yeah, the thing is that no one has looked in any of the archives where that coverage would be. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Which sound exactly like millions of other amateur historians. FOARP (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, you can say that, but all that matters is that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Being published in newspapers, on radio / television shows and having books published by independent houses meets that, whether you think its like "millions of others" or not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  In addition to what Sirfurboy has ably discussed above, I’d throw in self-published sources being a poor indicator of notability even accepting for the sake of argument the author being an expert of some kind. “Self published by an expert” might be reliable because the person writing about it knows the subject area, but the fact that they couldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them and had to do it themselves makes notability dubious. FOARP (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Self-published doesn't automatically mean that the author couldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them... If written by an expert, the piece is reliable per our policy on self-published sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Reliable" does not automatically mean "notable". People talking about themselves is an example of a source that is reliable, but does not show that the subject is notable. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Reliable" + "independent" + "in-depth" = SIGCOV. This is not a subject talking about themselves. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  No WP:SIGCOV just means significant coverage. That is, it is in-depth, addressing the subject. For a subject to be notable, it must meet the general notability guidelines (GNG), for which there must be multiple sources with SIGCOV, where each must be reliable, and independent. And also these must be secondary sources. Furthermore, the article must not be excluded under what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). See WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And? Pireaus is both reliable, independent, and in-depth. NOT has no application here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. This WP:SPS has been discussed above against that standard. We do not agree that it is reliable. Even if it were, we still need multiple sources. We especially need multiple sources if the only source we have is a local self published source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ugh, I've demonstrated that the source is clearly a subject-matter expert, which means that even if SPS, it is reliable. Olympedia can be counted as the second source; it is over 100 words on him. I contacted Millesis and he said that Sakellariou was covered numerous times in his day, so I've asked if he could share the extent of some of the sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request as this is soon due for closure, could we get a relist? (see above comment) Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the comment directly above the request. Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has someone looked into Greek newspapers, as newspapers can be good quality reliable secondary sources? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a number through archive.org, yes. The expectation, of course, is that news reporting will usually be primary, not secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a newspaper article is reporting about a current event it's a primary source, in most other cases it's a secondary article. If we are able to find a newspaper article writing about the works of Sakellariou, it's likely to be a secondary source article. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org is not the best place to search for offline-newspaper articles. Is there an online website where you can search into old Greek newspapers? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Greek newspapers did you look in? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I managed to find this piece of significant coverage on him from 1958 following his death that's more or less 300 words. [137] Additionally, we now know when and why he passed away, the when being on the 17th of September 1958 (which can also be confirmed here) and the why being from a cerebral haemorrhage following a stroke. Using Google Translate, he is described as a "teacher", he was the deputy director of the "Maternal Education" and a sports editor (including for Vradyni for 10 years) who wrote "many articles in newspapers and magazines". He also "dealt with studies on sports in antiquity and published a dozen of notable books that were translated into foreign languages". In addition, he was also a professor at the "Gymnastics Academy" and a swimming coach for the national team and for Panathinaikos A.O. who "highlighted a number of excellent swimmers." Whilst the other pieces of coverage that I've found didn't contain significant coverage of him, they could help in expanding the article. This piece talks about the establishment of prizes in his honour; this piece describes him (using Google Translate) as a "great teacher"; and even though this doesn't contribute to notability, I also managed to find an article written by him. [138] I think based on this, we can safely assume that there's more coverage on him in offline sources than what is currently available to us. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Reiji Nagakawa (via WP:PROD on 7 May 2025)
Anna Erat (via WP:BLP-PROD on 6 May 2025)
Kevin Kruse (surgeon) (via WP:PROD on 5 May 2025)
Igor Ivitskiy (via WP:PROD on 5 May 2025)
Waleed A. Alrodhan (via WP:PROD on 3 May 2025)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Athletes Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians

[1] "Parsin Dental Clinic - 2016 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2016. Awarded to Moein Jalali for innovative dental space design {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)

[2] "Palemos Villa 2 - 2018 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2018. Recognizing Jalali's residential design integrating traditional Persian elements {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)

[2A2016-3] "A Report of 2A Asia Architecture Award 2016". 2A Magazine. 2016. Archived from the original on 2024-06-01.

[2A2018-4] "Overview of 2A Continental Architectural Awards 2018". 2A Magazine. 2018. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: flag (help)

[5] "Inspireli Awards 2024 Jury Members". Inspireli Awards. 2024. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: save command (help)

[6] "June's FRAME Awards Jury Is Here: Meet the 20 Design Professionals". FRAME Magazine. 2024-06-01.

[7] Jean-Pierre Chupin (2020). The Culture of Architectural Competitions. Potential Architecture Books. ISBN 978-1-988923-15-7. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

[8] "Parsin Dental Clinic - 2016 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2016. Awarded to Moein Jalali for innovative dental space design {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)

[9] "Palemos Villa 2 - 2018 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2018. Recognizing Jalali's residential design integrating traditional Persian elements {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)

[2A2016-10] "A Report of 2A Asia Architecture Award 2016". 2A Magazine. 2016. Archived from the original on 2024-06-01.

[2A2018-11] "Overview of 2A Continental Architectural Awards 2018". 2A Magazine. 2018. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: flag (help)

[12] "Inspireli Awards 2024 Jury Members". Inspireli Awards. 2024. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: save command (help)

[13] "June's FRAME Awards Jury Is Here: Meet the 20 Design Professionals". FRAME Magazine. 2024-06-01.

[14] Jean-Pierre Chupin (2020). The Culture of Architectural Competitions. Potential Architecture Books. ISBN 978-1-988923-15-7. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]