Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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.

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was redirect‎ to Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud. Closed as moot per the comments below about article duplication. I'm involved as the AfD nominator, so anyone should feel free to revert these actions. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musk–Trump feud

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

I'm predisposed to a narrow read of WP:NOTNEWS, but even so this minor feud documenting the controversy of the day has only a very small likelihood of meeting our WP:SUSTAINED notability policy. I'd propose a merge/redirect to One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but others may suggest a better target. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:DUPLICATE Zzendaya (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Topic is already covered at Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud, which is undergoing its own deletion discussion. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BaduFerreira: Ah, I hadn't seen that. In the spirit of IAR and NOTBURO, I'll close this AfD and redirect the article, which is very clearly less comprehensive. That said, I'm involved, so anyone who disagrees should feel free to revert me. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:53, 5 June 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.

Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. While their buisness relationship has been publicized a lot, this is a common thread with Trump-related people, and this probably fails WP:ROUTINE as well. We don’t have Donald Trump–Mike Pence feud after their January 6th fallout, so I don’t see why this deserves an exception. This could easily fit better in individual sections such as Politics of Elon Musk. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This is not comparable to the Pence feud. There are implications to this which are becoming apparent as this discussion is occurring; Musk will decommission the SpaceX Dragon, which will affect the operations of the International Space Station. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: ElijahPepe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable conflict between the richest man in the world and the leader of the most powerful country 2603:9000:BC00:149E:6C68:8489:407A:C7CF (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, even before I typed "Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud" into the Wikipedia search bar (can't believe I guessed the exact title!), I somehow already knew that it would have been created by ElijahPepe. As always, this is WP:TOOSOON — wait to see where the conflict goes, then apply the WP:10Y test and consider whether WP:NOPAGE applies. For now, delete. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the creator of an article is relevant. WP:NPA applies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a personal attack; falsely accusing another editor of making a personal attack could be itself considered a personal attack. Calling out another editor for disruptive behavior, even if they may be acting in good faith, is not incivil. Although I usually refrain from calling out editors' past misbehavior, you have a history of prematurely creating problematic articles when notability has not been established; despite innumerable AfDs, you appear to not have learned from these past mistakes. This is troublesome, and other !voters must be aware of this context. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this context is important. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, just take a look at their talk page and you'll understand what I'm talking about ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t say that you made a personal attack, nor even insinuate it. elijahpepe merely pointed out that the identity of the article’s creator is irrelevant to the AfD discussion, which I think is fair. I say keep; WP:TOOSOON is almost always subjective and therefore not a useful heuristic here (maybe ever). No reasonable person would call WP:TOOSOON if a major political figure had just died, because there’s a reasonable (but subjective) assumption that the event will become noteworthy. We document current events as though we are our future selves looking backwards. If this turns out to be a nothingburger, then scrap it. Getabucket (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While AfD nominator is probably formally right, you just need to read the room. It's probably one of the most important events in the 2025. It ~~dominated~~ paralysed all the world news. In just a week, the article about this event will be huge. Flamekinzealot (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid keep reason. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is way more notable. The media is treating it as such. The Trump-Pence relationship is part of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This is something completely different. The senior advisor to the president is basically alleging the president is a pedophile, with a huge reaction! Personisinsterest (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It might be too soon to delete this since this will surely become more notable in the coming days. Looking up Elon Musk shows me a bunch of reporting from multiple RSs and I'm also sure that this will drag on for a while (e.g. Trump sues Elon Musk for defamation because of his Epstein tweet or something) Laura240406 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems premature and too much of a newsy article Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes all 4 aspects of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, and Passes Wikipedia:ROUTINE, as this event has significant coverage in Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Zzendaya (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The activities in the Article are definitely noteworthy, but it remains to be seen how it'll all end up playing out. If this all dies down in a few days it can be merged into another Elon Musk-related page. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 21:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The difference in scope between the Trump-Pence feud and this is vast. Musk and his circle are as deeply entrenched in the executive branch as Trump and his cabinet, whether we like it or not. Should the article have been created so hastily? I don't think so. Should it be removed entirely? I wouldn't. Stick a rapidly developing news template at the top and keep the article updated with current information as the story develops. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 21:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way WP:TOOSOON. Tomorrow it could disappear or turn into a duel. Patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON: "For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." Though facts are still emerging, reliable secondary sources are reporting on the subject. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 21:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP and wild accusations are thrown about which may or may not be true. Related pertinent facts have yet to emerge. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 22:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to a section within Political activities of Elon Musk. That article is too short to require a spin-off and this event is unlikely to have lasting notability on its own. satkara❈talk 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will surely be kept because everything involving Trump is presumed notable. But geez folks. Let's at least let the ink dry on the sources before we need an article to exactly match the news cycle. GMG ^talk 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this, unfortunately, is a very possible outcome. I think the only way to fix this problem is to have some sort of restriction like WP:ECR on AfDs regarding current events. Too many inexperienced, drive-by editors too often rush to !vote to "save" these types of problematic articles because they are unaware that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, not a source of breaking news, and creating articles before notability is established is putting the cart before the horse. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo and InfiniteNexus: do you think perhaps something should be added to WP:TRUMPCRUFT about specifically the interconnect between RECENT and NOTNEWS and things related to Trump? The closest thing now is the "FAQ" of "Look at all of the sources covering this topic, it is too notable!". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm predisposed to a narrow read of WP:NOTNEWS, but even so this minor feud documenting the controversy of the day has only a very small likelihood of meeting WP:SUSTAINED. I'd propose a merge/redirect to One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but others may suggest a better target. (Satkara's suggestion of Political activities of Elon Musk could also work.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's probably too early to see if this fails WP:NOTNEWS as the implications of this for the 2026 elections and 2028 elections if this is significant and long lasting will be profound. Musk has tremendous financial capacity and this is a broader schism between the techno-libertarian right (Musk) and the populist right (Trump)

For now I am leading towards Week Keep as this article can always be deleted if this is not a long lasting and sustained conflict. Nkulasingham (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zzendaya. Deleting now is just going to trigger a WP:REFUND a couple days later; this is going to drag out for a while. –Fredddie ™ 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, going into this I was pretty sure that I would be on the "Delete" side but after going through the coverage I'm leaning the other way... I hadn't heard anything about this but it does appear to have gotten a surprising amount of significant coverage. That being said I don't think covering the same material at One Big Beautiful Bill Act and/or Political activities of Elon Musk etc would be the end of the world (especially if the "feud" just fizzles out) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though in my view any resolution shouldn't be done yet. This feels like its firmly stepping into the type of stuff WP:RAPID recommends against. Etatrisy (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BREAKING until we have some idea about WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per basically every other !vote before mine. The "keep" !votes are saying it meets NOTNEWS... when it doesn't. We don't (and can't) predict whether it's going to be lasting at all, and also the coverage about it is routine primary source journalism. By definition there aren't secondary sources at this point for a feud that has only come into the public eye in the last 24 hours. If/when there are secondary sources - such as large investigative journalism, rather than just reporting the news - WP:REFUND is that way (points). It is not a valid excuse that a REFUND may be merited in the future. As a distant second I would be okay with this being draftified in a userspace or in the Draft: space so it (and its history) can be maintained, to help placate the people claiming REFUND is too hard for them (I don't see any other reason "we may need to REFUND it" is a valid argument). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to fall into any of the four categories of content which NOTNEWS advises against, none of that is routine coverage, and "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Your policy analysis is just weak. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. The feud may result in impacts to specific programs/services, and those can be covered in their respective articles. Further, point 2 specifies enduring notability of the event. There is no evidence this will be enduring in its notability, and it's not appropriate to assume it will be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither gossip or diary style coverage. We can't assume either way on enduring notability, we don't have a crystal ball. If in a few years there is no more coverage than what we have now you are welcome to come back and delete it on lack of enduring coverage grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to assume either way. If there isn't evidence it's notable now, then it should be deleted now. If significant secondary coverage isn't available now, it should be deleted now. If such coverage comes out later, WP:REFUND is that way (points). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been repeatedly provided with sources that other people believe are secondary and significant, you disagree... You're just beating a dead horse at this point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I wrote this above as a reply but I'll repeat it here for visibility. Too many editors appear to not realize that Wikipedia is a "lagging indicator of notability", and rushing to create articles before notability is established is putting the cart before the horse; it should the other way around. WP:DELAY explains why we should not rush to create articles based on breaking news: we do not predict whether a topic "might" be notable in the future; we evaluate whether it is currently notable. If a topic that previously not notable later becomes notable, it can and will be reinstated then; however, until then, creating a standalone article is jumping the gun. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Riposte97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also look at WP:RAPID Laura240406 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, is there a policy about rushing to create articles about breaking news events? Some1 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed and described above by User:Zzendaya. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Irrespective of problems this article has with WP:TOOSOON right now, I do not expect them to still be problems by the time this discussion closes; not at the rate things are happening. My biggest problem with the article is large parts of it should be rewritten to better match Wikipedia writing standards but that's not cause for deletion. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giga Keep - This is gonna get spicy quick Dh75 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Egads, what a woefully ill-informed dumpster fire of an article creation. Political disagreements are a routine part of politics, even between people who were once closer in agreement on issues in the past. This is plain WP:NOTNEWS with a healthy heap of WP:COATRACK, as the article just becomes a platform on which to criticize both subjects. We have enough articles where a minor mention of their alliance-turned-sour can be given a brief mention. It is not a stand-alone topic. Zaathras (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Not endorsing keeping or deleting, but while I wouldn't have created this article, I don't think nominating it for deletion the same day the news breaks is helpful, and it will be easier to assess whether notability will be sustained in a week or two. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is probably the biggest interpersonal fallout in recent political history. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important ongoing event. Furthermore, as per what FunkMonk said above. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Per WP:TOOSOON, WP:RAPID and WP:DELAY, coverage is still in the 24‑hour news‑burst phase. Suggest relisting for one‑to‑two weeks so we can see if significant secondary analysis emerges- otherwise a merge to political activities of Elon Musk would suffice. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is about "planned coverage of scheduled events".
That's not it.
WP:NOTNEWS is about original or unreliable research, besides including WP:ROUTINE.
Again, that's not it.
WP:TOOSOON is about "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources".
There is plenty already.
WP:COATRACK is about "unrelated things to make a point".
That's unrelated to notability, and related to what to include in an article, and how. There are enough deletionists around to keep that in check. At best it'd be an argument to burn everything from a page and start anew.
I'm not sure how people can judge the importance of that topic. Could be a tempest in a teapot. Could be big. Nobody has a crystal ball.
Voters might consult WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and bring arguments instead of thumbs. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Coverage of current events by news is not secondary coverage. It is by definition primary. Investigative journalism, in depth analysis, and similar articles are secondary coverage. But there are none of those yet. Per GNG, secondary coverage is required - not just routine news coverage of current events, which, again, is primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether its primary or secondary depends on context... And in this context we primarily have coverage of tweets which would be the primary source with the news coverage being secondary. What that is supposed to prevent is making an article based on the tweets, not on articles about the tweets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Coverage of tweets that just says "this person said this and here's a timeline of what happened" is not secondary. Secondary requires significant analysis/interpretation. A timeline or merely saying "this happened and here's a timeline of related events" is not secondary coverage. It's entirely possible for a source to report on information from elsewhere yet still be primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. There also appears to be a lot of analysis of how we got here and the implications going forward. We also have a number of notable individuals offering their opinion on the matter, and coverage of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not secondary coverage. Saying "this is the historical context of 'how we got here'" is not analysis or interpretation. Offering opinions on the matter does not mean there is analysis or interpretation going on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've selectively replied to my comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not. You said That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. I explained why that "interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context" is not secondary coverage. Explaining the definition of something is not secondary - likewise, explaining what the author thinks a tweet means is not secondary. The burden is on you to prove/show that there is "significant secondary" coverage. I look forward to you providing quotes (or another method) of showing what portion of sources you consider secondary in nature. I will happily revisit my position if your evidence is sufficient, alternatively, I will happily explain to you why your view of it being secondary/significant is wrong. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have and continue to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have told me to read WP:GNG first:

1. Presumed? That one is seldom on deletionists' side.

2. Significant coverage? Check:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-06-05/elon-musk-trump-feud-full-timeline-of-the-public-meltdown

3. Reliable sources? Check:

https://www.cnn.com/business/timeline-elon-musk-trump-x-dg

4. Secondary sources? From your own source:

"Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material."

In case you have difficulties finding commentaries:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wd2215q08o

https://www.vox.com/politics/415599/elon-musk-trump-feud-bill-contracts-nasa

5. Independent? That is usually implied by 4.

Also note:

"Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

To discuss usually implies one does not beg the question at hand, like you just did. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, coverage of tweets is not secondary. Secondary requires significant in depth analysis/interpretation. The current news is just "this happened, this is the history". That is not analysis/interpretation, much less in depth. A timeline is not analysis/interpretation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timelines I offered establish significant coverage and reliable sources. And again, you are begging the question as to what is significant in depth analysis.

It shouldn't be that hard to find "analysis/interpretation":

https://www.wired.com/story/musk-trump-feud-venture-capitalists-pick-sides/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-blames-musks-criticism-decision-cut-ev-tax-credits-2025-06-05/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis-1.7553387

You may dispute that it's "significant" or "in depth", but then it's easy to do when one just has to argue by assertion.

What would convince you - ten monographs written by political scientists based on a statistical model with a 5-sigma threshold? Selbsportrait (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant and reliable are only two of the requirements. An article topic can have significant coverage in 100 reliable sources - but if none of that coverage is secondary, it's not notable. A paragraph of analysis in an otherwise primary source does not make it significant coverage in a secondary source. All must be met simultaneously - significant primary coverage does not count just because one small paragraph in it is secondary analysis. It must be significant secondary coverage. The burden is on you tyo identify why those sources show significant secondary coverage. Merely saying "analysis" in the title/headline doesn't matter when all it is is a timeline with maybe 3 sentences total of "analysis". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're throwing out red herrings, none of the three articles you were just presented with have analysis in the title/headline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis

You clearly aren't actually reading what you're replying to. This thread is between me and Selbsportrait. Please don't try to derail it by commenting here when you clearly haven't even read the whole thread. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the URL, the title on the piece is "Musk vs. Trump: A power couple tumbles into a messy divorce" and it is marked as analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per WP:RAPID. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could very well become one of the largest feuds in American political history, let's at least wait and see what happens before we delete this article. NesserWiki (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bigger than Burr–Hamilton duel. It's gonna be yuuuuuuuge, believe me folks. (sarcasm of course) CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE into Political activities of Elon Musk as its own section CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no rush to delete articles. Let it play out and see what lasts Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's very little "there" there in the first place for the article. Do we need a Wikipedia page for every twitter beef? Is this even notable yet? Trump has feuded with Elon before (even on Twitter too) and brought up government subsidies then too, and they made up after that. There is no reason to believe this will last longer than a week. It is worth maybe two sentences on Political activities of Elon Musk. Catboy69 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Elon Musk called Trump a pedophile this time and everyone actually cares now. I’m sorry to be going against all those Wikipedia guidelines or whatever, but at some point people have to realize this is an important event that people care about. Notability is notability. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Parra Vallette

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fail NPOL, as the mayor of a large city in Chile (Viña del Mar). He did so in full capacity following the removal of office of Rodrigo González, who preceded him. Although he was the mayor for only three months, the article could well be expanded using offline sources such as El Mercurio de Valparaíso. --Bedivere (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 334,248 is not large enough to entitle the mayors to be inherently notable. Let's be consistent with our judgments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets enough NPOL, the subject of the biography has held an official position and has received sufficient media coverage. --Carigval.97 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luis Trejo

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with access to archived Chilean media can write and source something more substantive than this. Mayors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for existing, and have to show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact — specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just states that he existed, and just cites the absolute bare minimum of sourcing needed to prevent it from being speedied as completely unsourced, without adding any of the more substantive content or sourcing that we would actually need to see. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article sufficiently meets the notability guidelines for politicians, as it addresses the first topic of politicians who have held province–wide offices, in this case, that of mayor of Viña del Mar.

Just as there are political figures with extensive coverage without holding an official position, in this case, it is a figure with historical notoriety without much media coverage. Carigval.97 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Knochelmann

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kentucky. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Maclaine, Baron of Moy

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

Minor nobility? figure, has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." to pass WP:BIO WP:GNG Suggest redirect to Clan Maclaine of Lochbuie Nayyn (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. Nayyn (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellycrak88 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage at all outside of Burke's Peerage, which includes more than 100,000 living people - clearly not enough to fulfil WP:GNG. Even a redirect seems generous. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 21:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahzeeb Hafi

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

Not a notable poet, writer, and engineer. Fails Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dilraj Singh Rawat

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources, also the article is little promotional, may be a fan creation. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Internet, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did a search myself and didn't find anything that would lend notability. Only thing I can imagine is that there are non-English sources available. nf utvol (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mentions, primary, WP:NEWSORGINDIA or otherwise unusable sourcing is all I find. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Yu

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Suffers from WP:BOMBARD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can understand the nominator's concern about "WP:BOMBARD" given the initial article creation, it's worth assessing the subject's actual notability separately from how the article came to be.

If Junie Yu indeed meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically for politicians, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and general notability, WP:GNG) through verifiable, independent sources, then the article should be kept. The focus should be on the subject's notability, not on the initial submission process.

Let's evaluate based on policy, not just initial impressions.

1bisdak (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countess Maria Antonia von Waldstein

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

The article is pure genealogy. There is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV). Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, Austria, Czech Republic, and Hungary. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waldstein family: No notability. Not an important historical figure. As nom said, it's just genealogy. She isn't even listed as a prominent member in the Waldstein family article. Her husband ~~isn't notable either, but~~ and her daughter Maria Antonia has some notability, so a redirect to him or her could also work. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her husband was arguably the most powerful man in the Kingdom of Hungary and served in several court and government positions before rising to the office of chancellor. I am able to find significant coverage of him (in Hungarian) but not of her. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Szwedkowicz

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

Subject does not appear to be notable enough to warrant her own article. Upon a WP:BEFORE search, no sources passing WP:GNG show up. I noticed that the article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject as well, and the article seems to be written in a promotional tone. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Film, Television, and Poland. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.

I believe that Magdalena Szwedkowicz meets the notability criteria, especially within the Polish film and television industry. She is a well-known producer with significant contributions, and the English article is a faithful translation of the existing Polish Wikipedia page, which is well-sourced and has been maintained without dispute.

I understand the concerns regarding tone and sourcing, and I am open to improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I will work on adjusting the language to make it more neutral and will add reliable, independent sources in English or Polish that verify her notability.

Please feel free to suggest any specific changes or improvements. I’m committed to ensuring the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines Jotdr4822 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jotdr4822 You're new to Wikipedia, so maybe you lack experience creating articles. Please review WP:PRODUCER along with WP:GNG for guidelines. The subject of the article needs to meet some requisites, such as being part of creating or co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, which Magdalena doesn't (or doesn't yet).

In regards of the tone, it must be encyclopedic. Review WP:MOS.

Wikipedias in different languages are independent of each other, and the English Wikipedia has higher standards than most of the other ones.

If you could improve the language of the article and add multiple reliable, independent sources that would help a lot in reviewing the article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Glenn Haber

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

A friend of mine, knowing I am a Wikipedian, requested on behalf of the article subject that I nominate this for deletion (also evidence of the subject's desire at ticket:2023111810000545). Based on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this probably qualifies as a low-profile author who is not particularly notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and Massachusetts. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think I'm qualified to vote on this, but it happens to be the first article since I started following Articles for deletion that came up that I had consulted myself previously. I shall be sad if it is deleted, but that's not a good enough reason to keep it, as my reason is purely personal: I remember the day she was born, to someone I knew well, a short time after my first daughter was born. Athel cb (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with Delete. The books are not award winners, and her focus now seems to be academic. I checked scholar and she wouldn't qualify as NACADEDEMIC so there no policy that would support keep. Lamona (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP REQUEST - I couldn't find any significant reviews of her books in newspapers.com etc., there are some mentions and a bit of academic notice but nothing that makes me think subject unambiguously passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Zzz plant (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Tavakoli

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

Someone that says they are the subject requested deletion on BLPN and on the article talk page. An IP editor attempted to nominate for AfD discussion, but the nomination wasn't correctly formed. I am nominating as a courtesy. I think that the subject probably meets notability, but give some weight to the request from (presumably) the subject, so I am neutral at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLPN discussion at WP:BLPN#Request for Review/Deletion - Janet Tavakoli. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would seem to pass AUTHOR with sources 8 and 12 being book reviews. Seems to be a fairly neutral article, I don't see anything controversial about it. Looks notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She seems to want it removed (from the discussion threat above) due to scammers emailing her. I understand the frustration, but I'm not sure a scam email is our concern, to be blunt. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the following reasons;

The subject of the article initially got interested in it back in 2013, when IP66 (presumed to be her) expressed the belief that the addition of {{Notability}} to Janet Tavakoli was intended as a retaliatory action in response to criticism she leveled at Wikipedia in an article on HuffPost. To my knowledge, before the addition of the template she never objected to the existence of the article. I harbour a good-faith belief that, had the template never been added, we likely never would have heard from her.
Apparent efforts by Janet to have the article removed have largely relied upon the clarification that the article had been created without her participation / knowledge / consent. I find the notion that Wikipedia requires the authorisation of the subject of an article to document notable material regarding them profoundly troubling. Examples of pertinent edits: One, Two, Three (see also: the edit summary of Edit #3).
While she has admittedly expressed a preference for article deletion, I think it's only fair to observe that her contributions to the website have been far from an unequivocal attempt at its deletion. Instead, she has been positively falling over herself to tell us about her career, accomplishments, and prominence. In the very same edit as previously linked she refers to being interviewed by, writing for, or being written about by C-SPAN, Forbes, CBS Evening News, and CBC News - in addition to clarifying one of her books is now in its third edition. I've never seen quite such a self-promotional (bordering on self-aggrandizement, tbqf) effort at claiming not to be notable in all my life. That particular edit almost reads like satire.
As a matter or principle, I don't believe in being more Catholic than the Pope (it's an idiom). The only argument in favour of deletion that I can possibly see is to suggest that the subject of the article is insufficiently notable. Even Janet herself has not been prepared to stake this claim. Now - I could understand someone not having realised this, but Janet has actually been incredibly careful with her choice of words. I have reviewed every edit by both IP66 and Contributions/Requester123 and I have yet to find a single instance of Janet claiming not to be a notable figure. We've had "I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards" (29 May 2025, 18:42 (UTC)), "as I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards" (29 May 2025, 23:47 (UTC)), "does not claim to meet notability standards" (31 May 2025, 22:09 (UTC)), and "Page created without consent of living subject who does not claim to meet notability standards" (1 June 2025, 14:11 (UTC)). But never just "I am not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." If she isn't prepared to claim she isn't notable, I don't see why anyone else should on her behalf.
The subject of the article is demonstrably a significant figure who more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. She has authored a minimum of nine books under her own name, in addition to ten books under the pseudonym Michael K. Clancy. IMDb describes her as an "internationally renowned finance expert." According to this page, she has written for and / or been quoted by The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, New York Times, The Economist, Business Week, Fortune, Global Risk Review, RISK, IDD, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, LIPPER HedgeWorld, Asset Securitization Report, Journal of Structured Finance, Investor Dealers’ Digest, International Securitization Report, Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Magazine, Credit, Derivatives Week, TheStreet.com, and Finance World. The same page further states she has been featured on television by CNN, CNBC, BNN, CBS Evening News, Bloomberg TV, First Business Morning News, Fox, ABC, and the BBC. Finally, she has been profiled by both Bloomberg and the University of Chicago.
I could foresee the use of a pseudonym being cited as potentially being an example of her not seeking to have a public profile. Speaking as a self-confessed zombie nerd, the use of a pseudonym for zombie-focused science fiction novels but not finance-focused books strikes me as being an effort to separate them in a bid to avoid her criticisms of individuals and bodies from being associated with her other pursuits. That she expressly claims authorship of the latter on her website suggests it's not a bid at anonymity.
While it's not necessarily part of the process, I believe we could look at WP:LOWPROFILE to help us gauge whether the deletion request forms part of an apparent effort by a person to 'lie low'. Criterion #1 is 'Media attention': Janet has herself, while arguing in favour of deletion, referred to numerous outlets that she has granted interviews. Criterion #2 is 'Promotional activities': In addition to Janet Tavakoli having a prominent biography on the website of her company - which she has named after herself - she also has the personal website JanetTavakoli.com which lists some of the books she has written. Criterion #3 is 'Appearances and performances': Janet promotes her availability as a speaker at events. I would also argue that some of her financial books would appear to qualify. Criterion #4 is 'Eminence': Janet has been profiled by the University of Chicago, "Structured success" and Bloomberg, "The Cassandra of Credit Derivatives". Additionally, she has appeared as an expert before forums of the IMF, the SEC, and the Federal Reserve bank. Finally, Criterion #5 is 'Behavior pattern and activity level': I've seen nothing to suggest her career is in any way over or in a lull. Zombies and Men (Z-Factor Book 4) by "Michael K. Clancy" was published in mid-2022, and the 3rd edition of Credit Derivatives and Securitization: Instruments and Applications was published earlier that same year.
The only known example of harm caused to Janet by the existence of the article is the receipt of a single spam email. While I could perhaps be somewhat persuaded by this were the subject of the article at disproportionate risk of falling for scams and the like, to my knowledge Janet is a perfectly competent (and, indeed, rather impressive) individual who is readily capable of disregarding such trivial inconveniences.

For whatever it might be worth - I bear no ill will toward Janet. The more I learn of her, the more I admire her. I just don't happen to think there's a great argument in favour of deletion. ···sardonism · t · c 10:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. Elsewhere a community member has raised the notion of this being a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE case, but I've yet to see an argument that even a single factor cited on the page applies. I believe the onus is on those proposing that the article be deleted - not pointing the finger at you, Russ - to demonstrate that it should be. As this has not happened to any meaningful degree, I am presently unable to support deletion. ···sardonism · t · c 15:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, similar past discussions have often ended in delete when any notability was marginal, or in keep when notability was solid enough that the article seems essential to the encyclopedia. As WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says, "editors should seriously consider honoring such requests." Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. (Saw this mentioned at the BLPN thread). The article has received an average of 4 page views daily over the past year (from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025). The general reader base won't be impacted at all if this article were to be deleted judging by the extremely low page views. If the BLP subject, who may not "clearly pass the general notability guideline", wishes to delete their article, we should honor their request. Some1 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks Russ Woodroofe for your assistance. The subject of this article is of borderline notability: I agree with Oaktree b that the article would probably survive a deletion nomination on pure notability grounds (as either keep or no consensus), but the article was tagged for notability in October 2021 and there were a grand total of 6 edits to it from that point until the article subject began requesting deletion a few days ago (four automated, one vandalism, one vandalism revert), so it's not a slam dunk. BLPREQUESTDELETE says 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. Factors weighing in favor of deletion include a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, ... Obviously this person is not a government official, and the case for passing GNG is nonzero but far short of a clear pass, and the subject has identified a genuine harm (being targeted by scammers). Needless to say that Sardonism's very long comment is completely beside the point. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lyakhov

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

Subject does not meet inclusion criteria per the sources in the article. The sources do not meet WP:RS as the subject is the author of some of the articles. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tas Qureshi

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

Prod that was redirected to Robert Braithwaite (engineer). I don't think it is appropriate to redirect to 1 of his patients even if notable. Braithwaite's article doesn't even mention Qureshi. Article subject fails WP:BIO. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here are the sources I could find [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. These are mainly database entries that prove he exist, some with a small bio but they can't be independent. I couldn't verify the majority of the sources or claims presently in the article and most that I could open were not BLP quality. Moritoriko (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as it stands is not in good shape - most of the sources are 404 not found, which is not helpful. I am still doing WP:BEFORE, and it may help other editors participating in this AfD to also search for the subject under his full name Tahseen Qureshi (as, for example, here) under which name many of his academic papers appear. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princewill Chimezie Richards

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

Fails notability guidelines, as notability is not inherited from the Biafra Nations League. Searches fail to indicate notability of the individual aside from serving as a spokesman for the group. In lieu of deletion, the redirect could be restored or relevant content can be merged to the aforementioned article. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Africa. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone sees this, would they be able to move the comment on the talk page (which I'm assuming is a keep vote) here? I'm unable to easily on my phone. Thanks! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Dahl

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is pure puffery - all notability inherited from Roald Dahl or Ruby Rose Molikog (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Molikog (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO. All but one source mentions relations to another famous Dahl or Ruby Rose, about 3/4 of place an extreme focus on them. Almost surely not notable in her own right. I can do stuff! (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hayes (adventurer)

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

Self-promotional article, subject does not meet notability standards. Article was created and heavily edited by user RowenaFernandes, who was banned for advertising and COI. All significant subsequent edits and expansions (most of them unsourced) came from a succession of accounts whose only contributions are on this article, likely to circumvent the initial ban. These accounts include 112.203.124.109, Litolividomaliwat, Service pa, Erictobeprecise, and Sonia.sherif. The attempts at ban evasion and COI/self-promotion should be enough for deletion, but the subject also has received no coverage besides a handful of low quality and self-published sources. A very niche Guinness World Record held briefly almost 20 years ago does not in itself establish notability. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched and added a ref, but overall don't think there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is material for a personal blog, not for wikipedia. InaRoed (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. These sockpuppet's edit histories are very revealing! NoSlacking (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Speedy decline. Last deletion end of 2024 and nothing has happened since that time to show notability. Sources are promotional, non-bylined (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous voters @Wikibear47:, @Star Mississippi:, @Mushy Yank:, @Saqib:, @GrabUp: --CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
acknowledging the ping, and thanks @CNMall41

Unfortunately I do not have the on wiki time to do sufficient research to cast an opinion here and don't anticipate that changing in the next week. Will weigh in if I can and appreciate the heads up. Star Mississippi 01:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)m[reply]

Keep. Aina Asif meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on new coverage since the 2024 deletion. Her lead roles in Mayi Ri, Pinjra and Judwaa have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources like The Express Tribune and The News International. The article has been rewritten with a neutral tone and now includes bylined, non-promotional references that address the original deletion rationale. As creater, i have of the article written the article in neutral tone. Behappyyar (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out said sources? I find a few bylined articles that verify a role, but nothing about her. WP:NACTOR is not guaranteed for having roles as there is NO inherent notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR clear says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is significant sources about her acting in notable dramas. Behappyyar (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the entire thread as it is misleading not to do so - "Such a person may be considered notable if:" (my emphasis added). So....notability is not inherent here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Thank you for the clarification. I understand WP:NACTOR is not automatic notability. However, Aina Asif has received significant coverage in major Pakistani media outlets — not just for her roles, but for her rising status in the industry.

For example:

The Express Tribune published a feature on her Mayi Ri role and social impact: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2434576/mayi-ri-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction
The News International highlighted her performance in Pinjra in an article discussing child-centric storytelling: https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1002289-raising-questions
Reviews and interviews on platforms like Galaxy Lollywood and Dawn Images also cover her work in detail.

These are independent, bylined, and show non-trivial coverage, meeting the threshold for WP:GNG . I’m happy to continue improving the article if you feel more sourcing or clarification is needed.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided are either broken or lead to the homepage so I cannot review. Reviews and interviews are not considered significant for purposes of establishing notability. Interviews are not independent and the reviews must be of the actor, not just mentioning the actor with a review of the work. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the error. Here you go

[6] as rising star, [7] as a cast, [8] for his early drama roles, [9] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Not even remotely notable. This article has been deleted twice yet somehow different users mange to restore the same version again and again. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just because someone acted in two more drama serials doesn't mean that they are now notable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibear47: I understand your concern about repeated recreations. However, this is not a re-post of the previously deleted versions. The article has been significantly improved with 'reliable, secondary, and bylined sources'. It now documents Aina Asif's lead roles in critically discussed serials like Mayi Ri, Pinjra, and Judwaa, with extensive media coverage that was not available at the time of earlier deletions.

The current version avoids promotional tone, uses a neutral narrative, and cites national publications like The News, Express Tribune, and Dawn. This supports a claim of notability under WP:GNG and shows growth since her earlier career stage.

I'm open to feedback and improvements but believe this version no longer qualifies for speedy deletion or a G4 tag.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the current version, how do you know what the deleted version looks(ed) like?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the references—because when the page was deleted, those references weren’t available at that time. Behappyyar (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to show the sources that support either?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Machhoya

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

Depended only on single source since 2011, There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NoteThis discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, and Gujarat. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Same editor as Vantia article. The singular source is in the lead. 14:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)— Maile (talk)
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as a form of delete opinion has been expressed by another editor, this may not necessarily derail the nomination. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vantia

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

Unsourced, hoax article, There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources, not enough coverage, fails GNG. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, and Gujarat. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This article has existed for 15 years, with no sourcing whatsoever. — Maile (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has expressed a "delete" opinion, this likely will not stop the nomination. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dodiya

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

Unsourced, not enough coverage, hoax article, There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Asia, India, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unsourced. A simple BEFORE yields plenty of people with either name, and also a genus of moth, nothing for a clan per se. UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has already expressed a "delete" opinion, that won't be enough to end this nomination. No opinion on the article or whether its contents are factual. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judith of Babenberg

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

Nothing is known about her beyond genealogy. Historians do not discuss her. That she was born to one powerful man, married to another, and mother of a few others is not grounds for a standalone article (WP:NOTINHERITED). Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Royalty and nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have WP:SIGCOV in the sources provided. It is not uncommon for medieval noblewomen or even noblemen that so few details of their lives are preserved, and this article is at least full of WP:RS. The grandfather of her husband, William IV, Marquis of Montferrat, has fewer sources, and all his predecessors are in a similar state of poor sourcing that is significantly worse than Judith of Babenberg. Of course we need to draw the line somewhere, but I think Judith is not at the top of the list. NLeeuw (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw, the sources provided merely mention her existence. How does that count as "significant coverage"? Surtsicna (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the coverage meets the WP:BASIC criteria. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That criteria includes significant coverage. What I see in the sources is only trivial coverage–the fact that she married and had some children–which is "not usually sufficient to establish notability". Could you point to any significant coverage, please? Surtsicna (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Austria, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On many other language Wikipedias, sufficient coverage for someone from this time period.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On all those Wikipedias, the only thing written about her is who her father was, who her husband was, and which children she gave birth to. That is not a biography. That is a genealogical entry. Surtsicna (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I've been unable to find anything that makes her particularly notable or relevant. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more details can be found on her; if not, a redirect to her husband's article would suffice. Keivan.f^Talk 19:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See here and here. Later Italian sources record that she went to the Holy Land to visit her grandson and to Constantinople to visit her son, where she picked up some relics. Usseglio (who is far from credulous) takes the basic story of a pilgrimage as factual, Haberstumpf as an elaborate backstory for a relic. Between these sources there is enough material for an article. Her story/legend may even be a source for the marchioness of Montferrat tale in the Decameron, but I have not been able to access Olimpio Musso's "Una leggenda monferrina nel Boccaccio". Srnec (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for digging these up, @Srnec. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a number of viable options for expansion and citations have been identified to add to those already in the article. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough sources to justify inclusion under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I appreciate the point that people of this era rarely have the documents supporting their existence let alone their notability. Therefore, the fact that the documents do exist further bolsters inclusion here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Srnec. Векочел (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Srnec. Min968 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 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 speedy keep‎. Procedurally. No objection to an editor in good standing opening a discussion if needed Star Mississippi 18:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardeshi Rajput

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

Depends on unreliable sources: see reference of Suresh Kumar is not reliable and not enough coverage. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- There is no way to have an article on wikipedia without references.Collegeboy12 (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock, though as another editor has provided a "delete" opinion the nomination is likely to continue. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 2 June 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.

Hong Wai Onn

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

I believe that the subject fails WP:NBASIC, the notability criteria for biographies. I have checked all 25 references and cannot find any independent sources. There are several press profiles but they are all highly promotional. Five are from Nigerian newspapers: WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA says Nigerian journalists are known to give news coverage to individuals and organisations in exchange for payment. My WP:BEFORE check did not find independent coverage on the first few pages of a google search.

My notes on the sources as at 14:56, 1 June 2025

1. The Borneo Post “Malaysian double record holder honoured in Britishpedia's biographical encyclopaedia" promotional newspaper article
2. The Nation (Nigeria) "Hong Wai Onn's contributions to palm oil industry" promotional newspaper article
3. A Chemical Engineer in the Palm Oil Milling Industry. Self published book by Hong Wai Onn
4. Heriot-Watt University "Shaping a sustainable future: Insights from WattMEC 2025" conference where Hong spoke
5. Nigerian Tribune "Innovation, Leadership, and Sustainable Engineering: The Journey of Hong Wai Onn" promotional newspaper article
6. Bernama "Industry Stakeholders Call For Stronger Collaboration To Unlock Oil Palm Biomass Utilisation"reports what Hong said
7. Bernama "Malaysia Urged To Embrace Bio-based Economy In Palm Oil Sector ForGlobal Sustainability – Expert" reports what Hong said
8. The Guardian (Nigeria) "A STEM visionary transforming the palm oil industry" promotional newspaper article
9. IChemE "Palm Oil Processing Special Interest Group" Hong is a member
10. IChemE "HRH Tuanku Zara Salim appointed Royal Patron of IChemE Malaysia" Hong is a member
11. IChemE "Promoting the value of chemical engineers to Malaysia's Minister of Energy" Hong is a member
12. IChemE "Chemical Engineers help Malaysia's Primary Industry Minister to make palm oil industry more sustainable" Hong is a member
13. The Chemical Engineer "New IChemE Malaysia Board visits Royal Patron" Hong is a member pf IChemE
14. IChemE "Learned Society Committee" Hong is a member
15. IChemE "Congress election" Hong is a member
16. IChemE "The MSPO Standards Revision Continues" Hong is a member
17. The Sun (Nigeria) "From humble beginnings to a leader in sustainable development" promotional newspaper article
18. Free Malaysia Today "TVET grads will expedite automation of palm oil sector, says expert" reports what Hong said
19. Business Insider Africa "Transforming Africa's palm oil industry: The untapped potential of biomass valorization" promotional news article
20. Society for the Environment "Outstanding Finalists Announced for the 2020 SocEnv Awards" listing of award nominees
21. IChemE "Hong Wai Onn Gets Recognized by the Prestigious Freedom of the City of London" Hong is a memeber
22. Vanguard (Nigeria) "Leader in circular economy innovations in palm oil processing" promotional newspaper article
23. World of Buzz "The Knights Award 2023 Honoured 70 Local & International Personalities & Companies For Their Outstanding Achievement!" report on non-notable awards
24. China Press (in Chinese) "2022年杰出博智风云人物才智奖 – 孔伟安" [2022 Outstanding Talent Award – Hong Wai Onn] promotional newspaper article
25. Hongwaionn.com "Society" Hong’s website

TSventon (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My notes on new sources as at 15:26, 1 June 2025

7. Ministry of Plantation and Commodities "Oil palm smallholders urged to adopt tech to increase yield — plantation think tank" reports what Hong said
8. Malaysian-Japan International Institute of Technology "12 External Evaluators for 3rd MJIIT Chemical Engineering Design" Hong is supervisor at university event
18. Free Malaysia Today "Geopolitics important no matter your field of study, students told" reports what Hong said
24. Sunrise News "Dedication to Empowering the Next Generation" promotional news article

TSventon (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing the article on Hong Wai Onn. I understand and respect Wikipedia’s policies regarding notability, neutrality, and verifiability, and I’m grateful for the community’s commitment to upholding high standards.

I would like to make a sincere appeal to retain the article, with a willingness to improve it based on constructive feedback. If some of the sources are perceived as promotional or borderline, I am fully open to removing them. However, I would like to highlight that many of the references used are genuinely independent and neutral.

For instance, Mr. Hong Wai Onn has been featured by IChemE, an internationally respected, independent professional body. Mr. Hong holds no editorial influence over the institution, and his features result from his elected roles and professional contributions. These recognitions reflect peer-reviewed acknowledgment of his impact in sustainable engineering.

Similarly, Bernama, Malaysia’s official national news agency, is not known to accept self-promotional material lightly. The articles referencing Mr. Hong were not press releases but news coverage related to his professional achievements and public service. These were not authored by Mr. Hong and reflect third-party reporting.

Mr. Hong is also a two-time recipient in the Malaysia Book of Records and the first Malaysian engineer to be granted the Freedom of the City of London—both significant, independently verifiable recognitions. Coverage from Free Malaysia Today, China Press, and Business Insider further affirms his notability across different media ecosystems.

I welcome any specific guidance on language or sections that may appear overly promotional. I am more than happy to rephrase or remove such content to meet Wikipedia’s standards—rather than see the entire article deleted.

Thank you once again for your fair consideration. I believe that with collaborative improvements, this article can meet the necessary criteria and serve as a valuable, balanced entry for readers seeking information about a notable Malaysian chemical engineer. Bryony Jackson (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero says that there is a 100% chance that the above comment was generated by AI. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Engineering. Baqi:) (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources all appear to be promotional and/or non-independent. The page creator's claim above that the sources from IChemE are independent is a bit rich given how much time the article spends going over all his positions on various IChemE committees and boards. The fellowships of the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institution of Chemical Engineers are not the kind of highly selective honours that could provide a pass of WP:NPROF#C3, and there's absolutely no sign of a pass on any of the other NPROF criteria. As far as I can tell he fails NBASIC. MCE89 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major claims that I see:
- Freedom of the City of London, but that article does not sound like a notable achievement.
- Malaysia Book of Records, which appears to take all comers on request (the linked website is dead, and the only non-dead independent source cited in that article has a quote from its editor: "We will encourage any record people want to create," he said. "It's not that easy to get into the Guinness Book of Records. To get into Malaysia's book is easier." Unlike its international model, Malaysia's book turns no one away.
- Britishpedia is a redlink, which suggests it's not that notable an achievement (analogous to media-stars where we only list awards that are themselves notable). Worse, googling around suggests it's a pay-to-play/vanity-press.

The news-like sources typically credulously parrot each other and these types of claims, meaning we can reject them as being reliable. This is therefore all exactly on track for WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA (via echo-chamber from underlying analogously-flawed details). Where are the independent, reliable sources and claims of actual notability that have any sort of substantive and independent gatekeeping, per WP standards? If your have to resort to making these sorts of claims, or you have been fooled into thinking these are actually worthwhile claims, then you don't have a viable article here. DMacks (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My analysis confirms the nom's nomination, thusper nom 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per others, and the author defending using LLM models is... Concerning. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 16:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sivad Heshimu Johnson

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

Fails WP:Oneevent and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Hirolovesswords (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Shapiro (music agent)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, should be merged and redirected to The Devil Wears Prada (band). guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Daniel Williams has also been nominated for merging. guninvalid (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alaska, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect at the moment: I think I agree with the OP on this one. I feel as though this one may fall under WP:BIO1E? My reasoning being upon inspecting the references, many cover the 2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash in which he was tragically involved (19 of the 22 references). This is only upon initial inspection however and I would be interested to see others' points of view on this. For now I concur with OP and think a redirect with coverage on a relevant page would probably suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a merge/redirect to the page of the band Count the Stars would be most appropriate. My reasoning for this rather than the OP's suggestion is that there is no definitive evidence Shapiro had any link to TDWP other than the crash. As Shapiro was a founding member of Count the Stars, this to me makes sense as the most appropriate choice for merge/redirection. 11WB (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find any relation between him and the band other than him dying in the same event as Daniel Williams, who was a former member of said band. 2600:1004:B347:4AE1:3C78:5FC1:1294:B927 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point if correct. A brief scroll of Google seems to back this up. It appears Dave Shapiro was a music agent/executive, but not of TDWP. In my post above for this reason, I only stated to redirect to a relevant page and not specifically to the article for TDWP. This may have been an oversight by the OP, however I think the point to redirect elsewhere stands on its own regardless. 11wallisb (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending this to be a reply to guninvalid’s comment because he said that Dave Shapiro should be merged with T.D.W.P. 2600:1004:B33F:699D:C81D:4C36:8E3F:4FB5 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they will be able to see these messages! 11WB (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Hmimssa

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

WP:BLP1E and fails WP:NBIO. Not independently notable. Longhornsg (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, Morocco, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Detroit Sleeper Cell, where he is mentioned. No comment on notability either way but he is a BLP and almost none of this is salvagable. i'd add the sources not in that article though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahim Alwan

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

WP:BLP1E, the event being Buffalo Six. Article subject has no independent notability outside the Buffalo Six case, where all pertinent information can be covered. WP:SIGCOV is only in the context of the Buffalo Six case.

Also nominating the pages of the other Buffalo Six associates for the same reason:

Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect all there (aka add the sources). No comment on thereoeticsl notability but none of these talk about anything else at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and GNG. _Dgw|Talk 01:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well going by BLP1E we would redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cheever

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a video game designer, and added one reference. This is a passing mention, and I have not been able to find other RS which would demonstrate notability. The existing two references do not mention Cheever. The article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2016. I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. No obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Computing, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various passing mentions in Gnews, mostly about the Six Days game, but those aren't about this individual. Sourcing now in the article is about of the same quality. Not enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is some coverage about those games, but not this person. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Kamal Quhafah

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist in Bengali are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 31, Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 12:52, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Bangladesh, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prenses Banu

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

The subject may still fall short of meeting Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, particularly the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Dance, Film, Popular culture, and Turkey. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Power (crisis management specialist)

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

A before did not return evidence of notability. Otr500 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A "specialist and has advised many organisations in his area of speciality."... So, he does his job? This is not off to a good start. Brief mention here [10], that's about all there is to be found. The one source now in the article is a Youtube video... We have nothing about this person, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (author, pastor)

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

Non-notable biography with no coverage in independent sources that fails NAUTHOR. Most coverage is primary and awards do not arise to the significance of ANYBIO. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and England. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weakly squeaks by on WP:AUTHOR I think. I've added reviews of his books to the article, not all of his books are even listed yet or all of the reviews. Article should probably be moved to "Andrew Wilson (pastor)" rather than using a double disambiguator. Jahaza (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Christianity.com article[11] appears to be an independent source. The site is owned by Salem Media Group. Jahaza (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional references addeed to the article including multiple reviews of his works in reliable sources so that WP:NAUTHOR is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edwards (Australian composer)

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

This Article relies so much on unreliable sources and no improvement have been made, I was thinking I could find a source with independent coverage but I couldn’t find, The subject has contributed in many field of entertainment yet fails to have WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO, fails WP:GNG per no particularly article that speaks about him independently on multiple secondary sources, most of the citations are either usercreated space under a music website where he has listed his musical works. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Theatre, Advertising, Germany, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State funeral of Boris Trajkovski

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. I think all relevant information is now at the main biographical article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Knispel

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

There isn't any other significant coverage of this man besides the fabrications told by Kurowski in Panzer Aces. Doesn't meet notability standards for biographies. Cutlass ^Ciera 02:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume you mean notability for a biography, not a BLP. He died 80 years ago. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my error. Cutlass ^Ciera 02:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Czech Republic, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be sufficient coverage for GNG. Checking the Italian Wikipedia (one of about 30 different wikis with an article on him), there's three paragraphs in this book, I found this from Stern, and German Wikipedia includes this decent Welt story, while mainly being cited to Sergeant Kurt Knispel. The Uncomfortable One (translated), a six-page story in the journal Militär & Geschichte. It also cites an Academia.edu paper "Panzerass" Kurt Knispel: Märchen versus Realität ("Tank Ace" Kurt Knispel: Fairy Tales versus Reality). Whether his tank count is true or not, he seems to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just going through assorted AFDs, and this is the second one i've seen today where the article also exists in a slew of other language wikipedias. That's usually a cause to pause before making a nomination. The Germans don't write articles on everything. Fabrications in a life story doesn't mean a subject isn't notable, its often the opposite.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beannie. I don't want to !vote based on "I've heard of this guy", but the controversy around Kurowski's hyping of this guy means he himself is very likely to have SIGCOV from the people who debunked it. For example Roman Toppel has written/talked about him. From at least the Märchen versus Realität source this appears to exist. I think it's easy for people aware of the controversy about Kurowski to be over-zealous in correcting the record, but the best way of doing this is through ordinary editing of the articles affected by Kurowski's work. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons articulated by others. If the record is inflated, he still exists in a book people have read and having something on him is of value (especially for those who may be unaware of the controversy surrounding Kurowski's work). Intothat darkness 14:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Agnes Prevost

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and all coverage about Mildred is related to the fact that her son is Pope Leo XIV. The Family of Pope Leo XIV article suffices. Only one source is dedicated to talking about her specifically, all others are about Leo's family in general. Even the article that talks about her, does not make any claim that she is notable other than for the fact that she is Leo's mother.

Also notable is that many sections of this article strongly seems to be AI-generated, without disclosure. There may he hallucinations/miscited material as a result: For example, the NYTimes article is cited for The 1950 U.S. Census also notes a foster son, Raymond Fuller, living with them but there is no mention of that in the article. It seems as if this may have actually been in the 1950 census, but it is invalidly cited, drawing into question the integrity of the rest of the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Religion. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While the nominator argues that Mildred Agnes Prevost's notability is solely inherited from her son, Pope Leo XIV, and thus fails WP:NOTINHERITED, I believe the article demonstrates sufficient independent notability under WP:GNG. The nominator acknowledges at least one source dedicated specifically to Mildred, which suggests some level of independent coverage. Additionally, a broader search for sources (e.g., Google News, Google Scholar) may reveal further coverage not yet cited in the article, particularly given her historical significance as the mother of a prominent figure, the first American pope. For comparison, mothers of notable figures, such as Ann Dunham (mother of Barack Obama) and Lillian Gordy Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter), have their own Wikipedia articles, often based on coverage tied to their familial roles but supplemented by independent achievements or public interest (e.g., Ann Dunham’s anthropological work, Lillian Gordy Carter’s philanthropy and public presence). These articles are justified under WP:GNG due to significant, reliable coverage, and a similar standard could apply here if additional sources are found.

Regarding the concerns about AI-generated content and potential hallucinations, these are valid but do not inherently negate notability. The miscitation of the 1950 U.S. Census in the NYTimes article suggests a need for cleanup rather than deletion. The article can be improved by verifying sources, removing any unsourced or dubious claims (e.g., the foster son reference), and ensuring compliance with WP:V and WP:RS. If the article is retained, editors can address these issues through standard editing processes rather than deletion. I propose retaining the article and tagging it for cleanup to address sourcing and AI-related concerns. Hektor (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NB: This comment comes back on GPTZero as 100% AI generated; using AI to write discussion comments is a violation of the WP:AITALK guideline. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native English speaker and I asked a translation. Disqualifying the person who arguments against your proposal is a well known debating technique. You would have preferred gibberish ? Hektor (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am stating the Wikipedia guideline on the matter. You have been contributing to English language Wikipedia since 2004. LLMs have only been available in the past few years. I would vastly prefer broken English from a human over a speaking to a machine. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stop here since it is becoming personal attacks. Hektor (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how expressing a preference that I would rather hear from you, as a human being, over from a computer is an attack on anything or anyone but LLMs. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the information in this article in any case conflicts with that in Family_of_Pope_Leo_XIV on date of birth. Much of the current article is also an extremely close paraphrase of the Chicago Tribune article, and should therefore probably be deleted as copyvio. Chicago Tribune: "An enthusiastic performer, a regular in costumed skits and plays at school fund-raisers, and an accomplished singer, Mrs. Prevost once recorded her own rendition of “Ave Maria,” a hymn of considerable difficulty for an amateur." This article: "An enthusiastic performer, Mildred participated in costumed skits and plays at school fundraisers and was an accomplished singer, once recording a rendition of “Ave Maria,” a challenging hymn for an amateur." Elemimele (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another instance of improperly cited/hallucinated material: Baptized on February 4, 1912, at Holy Name Cathedral is not supported by the citation. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Pope Leo XIV due to reliability issues and sufficient coverage in that consolidated article. Jahaza (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable except as part of a family and that family has appropriate coverage already. Rutsq (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really oppose a redirect to the family article? Jahaza (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Pope Leo XIV as a good AtD. The article fails WP:NBIO and strays into BLOWITUP territory with the AI use. Hektor's use of AI in the article and in this discussion may present an issue that extends beyond whether this particular article is retained. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Hektor argument Rochambeau1783 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 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 merge‎ to Kilmacduagh monastery. Noting that this could likely have been performed with a merge discussion or even a bold merge. Also noting that the list, up to the start of Bermingham's term, is verified by the first cited source. Please only merge verifiable content. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 00:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean of Kilmacduagh

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

Fails WP:NLIST, topic is not independently notable from the monastery, and any needed information could be merged to the primary Kilmacduagh monastery article. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Christianity, Europe, and Ireland. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. One and done, right? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It should be merged to Kilmacduagh monastery. Fade258 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kilmacduagh monastery: No reason for this to be a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a section of Kilmacduagh monastery. Or, failing that, simply delete. While I understand the "merge" recommendations, I note that the bulk of this title (effectively a standalone list article) is uncited. And, if that content is merged in its current form, it would be unsupported. If the outcome is merge/redirect, then the merging editor will need to find sources for the merged "list of names" content (coz it's currently uncited). Guliolopez (talk) 13:23, 30 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.

Sekou Ma'at

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

Non-notable social worker. No WP:RSs and would seem none are likely to exist. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a quick Google search yields only five results, only three of which actually mention him. The article itself cites very minimal sources, one of which is a primary source. Is written largely like a resume. Element10101 T ~ C 01:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Yakubovskyi

AfDs for this article:

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

Thinking this over, I have got myself to agree with the (probable) sock who nominated this article for deletion previously. Many of the sources cited to not mention this person, or mention him only in passing. It is essentially a coatrack about corruption scandals of entities associated with Yakubovskyi.

And then there is this. It was mentioned in the previous AfD that this article is a translation of the Ukrainian version. So better TNT this problematic BLP and avoid another defamation-lawsuit scandal.

--Janhrach (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Janhrach (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a LOT to go through, but the sources I checked generally were only very passing mentions, or mentions of his companies. A lot of trivial coverage does not make up one significant coverage. Agree with the nom on the second point as well. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avner Netanyahu

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

There's a lot of coverage of him because he's the son of a public figure. Supporting your relative's political career does not make you a public figure. He's not involved in politics himself or done anything to establish WP:NBIO. WP:INVALIDBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is rather routine, he went to school, military and he got married... Perhaps competing on the TV show would make him notable, but there isn't much coverage about that either. I don't see notability being met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP and WP:NOTINHERITED violations galore. Many more (75%?) lines of text are devoted to his family, fights, arguments, phone hacks, breakups, and security details - than anything he's ever done. Where's the assertion of notability? Also, the photo of him as a kid is problematic. Ping me if you can fix this. I'm a fan of Israel, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avner Netanyahu himself requested that the article about him be deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia on 8 Arpil 2024. The article remained. There were editors who admire Benjamin Netanyahu, who supported the deletion. There was a biased vote. The article was deleted and then restored because it was discovered that there was a problem with the vote with editors who specifically registered to vote. See here. It is strange that even the English Wikipedia wants to delete an article about a person in whom there is a lot of interest. Avner Netanyahu is going to get married on June 16, 2025, in Ronit farm a very expensive place with 2,000 very wealthy guests. This is causing a lot of anger in Israel, and there are going to be many demonstrations near the wedding venue, including blocking the narrow road to the wedding venue. And here they suddenly think it has no encyclopedic importance. See Articles 1. חתונת המ(ח)אה: ההכנות לחתונה של אבנר נתניהו קיבלו תפנית מפתיעה - ואיש לא נשאר אדיש. 2. התכנון למחאה בחתונת בנו של רה"מ - והביקורת בשמאל: "מטומטם וחסר תועלת, כך מתכננים בשמאל "להחריב" את חתונתו של אבנר נתניהו, 3. חתונת בנו של נתניהו בסכנה? אלו הפעולות הצפויות באירוע Hanay (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article about him? Avner Netanyahu is less involved than his brother Yair, but he is definitely involved. He said of his father, Benjamin Netanyahu, that he is a great leader like Winston Churchill. and more. Hanay (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Avner Netanyahu may have been in the background in the past but his upcoming wedding is now of major interest. People will want to know who is Avner Netanyahu. His wedding is a slap in the face to the thousands of hostages, injured, dead, and their families. The lavish and ostentatious event for some 2000 guests is occurring while hostages, soldiers, and Gazans are being killed as a result of the policy of Avner's father, Benjamin Netanyahu. While some claim Avner shouldn't pay the price of his parents' perfidy, one of the leaders of the protests, who worked as security guard for the Netanyahu family so knows them well, appealed to Avner to wed in a modest ceremony. Ami Dror posted this notice: "Avner, Advice from someone who knew you as a cute little boy...Have a modest wedding,...as if the 58 kidnapped people were your brothers, and not as if they were a story that doesn't concern you. Go to the media and talk about it. I promise you we won't come. Stay at Ronit Farm, say there will be 200 guests, a reasonable number. No asado, no caviar, and no champagne waterfalls...Avner, A modest wedding - I promise you won't see us. A Ceausescu-style banquet - we'll do everything we can to have you dance to the Gaza horror film while pictures of the hostages fly above you tied to yellow balloons." Activists are reportedly organizing motorcades to disrupt guest arrivals and plan to distribute copies of the book Mr. Abandonment and magnets bearing images of hostages. “We’re not trying to ruin the wedding,” protest leader Ami Dror told Ynet. “We couldn’t if we wanted to.” He explained that the protest isn’t about the marriage itself, but what the celebration symbolizes—especially after 21 months of war, during which many soldiers have held modest, makeshift weddings in between reserve duties. “It’s about the disconnection and arrogance. While reservists got married on wooden crates, he’s hosting a grand event at the country’s most luxurious venue.” MK Naama Lazimi of the "Democrats" party, headed by Yair Golan: “The problem isn’t the wedding itself,” she added, “but the complete tone-deafness. While the public grieves, struggles, and goes sleepless, the prime minister’s family puts on a lavish spectacle. It’s a show of detachment from the people.” Who is Amit Yardeni? Meet the woman marrying into Israel’s most-watched family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves coffee (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By having this extravagant wedding while so many people are suffering, Avner has made himself a public figure. Loves coffee (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Hanay, it is interesting to learn about the subject's deletion request at hewiki, but as I understand it he has made no such request here, so it likely does not impact this discussion. The English Wikipedia has its own standards for notability, which are fairly high. Please do not be surprised that an article kept elsewhere might be deleted here. More importantly, I understand that the discussion at hewiki was troubled, but the way you have worded your comment, it sounds like you are accusing Oaktree b and Bearian, two highly-experienced editors, of being connected to the issues there. This is casting aspersions and not allowed; I encourage you to strike the sentences beginning "It is strange..." and "And here they..." Toadspike [Talk] 23:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Even with the sources from Hanay, it seems the subject would be considered WP:BLP1E at best.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avner receives regular coverage, not all of which dervives from his family name, From the recent wedding saga to the very debate on his article deletion on hewiki (1, 2), to his victory in the bible quiz, enlistment and so on. I haven't looked into it too deeply, but this seens to constitute repeated coverage from noteworthy sources (haaretz, ynet, N12) that centers on Avner himself. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:INHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're more experienced with this than me. If that's how the criteria is defined, i guess i'm changing my stance Totalstgamer (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.

As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.

Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.

Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.

Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications

The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic), Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!

And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mahbub E Khoda

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

Promotional and written by editors who are close to the subject, the editors' (@Asadpolash and @MahdiRiyad) maximum edits are on this article, and @Asadpolash uploads of several images in Commons for this article definitely have WP:COI and WP:FAN issues here. Also, most sources are unreliable and come from primary sources, so it's hard to verify the information. More reliable sources are needed for verification. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~I see that the structure of the article and the sources of information are correct. Therefore, I am in favor of keeping the article. MahdiRiyad (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)~~ (

Blocked sockpuppet of MuhammadRiyad, see investigation)[reply]

Maximum sources comes from unreliable sources and most likely from promotional website. For example these:[12][13][14][15][16] and many more in the article. I also think you are connected with the subject. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 16:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is been modified and guided by other editor which includes the removal of a large portion of words and facts so it doesn't look promotional. We have the track of that editing. That admin was from Australia and we obeyed every single editing provided. Now you're again here creating the mess putting unrelated tags saying the same thing.

Is it that you have personal clash with the subject as you're from the same country? it seems that you're way of processing has a connection of your personal grudges with the subject. Asadpolash (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum sources are unreliable (I already gave the links in an earlier reply), and you are saying personal grudges? How funny! I don't know him much. Your accounts' maximum edits are on this article and Dewanbag Sharif, the same subject, so you should disclose WP:COI. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 18:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and is well-structured according to Wikipedia standards. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, fulfilling the criteria set by WP:GNG. The references cited are verifiable and come from credible media outlets, supporting the article's factual accuracy and encyclopedic value. I strongly support keeping this page, and any issues should be resolved through constructive editing, not deletion. Hossain Muhammad (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC) ( Confirmed sockpuppeteer, see investigation)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User Hossain Muhammad and user MahdiRiyad are the same user and blocked for sock puppetry.[17] He tried to manipulate this AfD with his sock account. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 22:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in terrible shape, probably due to COI, but the subject seems notable. Deletion is not clean up.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Would you please remove the tag added on the beginning for the investigation so this looks okay and we can move forward with the translations.? Asadpolash (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs cleanup, but the subject is notable. Many people in Bangladesh love him blindly, so COI is possible. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 13:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Bragg

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

No evidence of notability from independent reliable sources, only from church sources[18]. The only independent sources are about the sad fate of his mother. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Latter Day Saints, and California. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGY as a holder of an inherently notable position of religious leadership. Per the EL here, while a regular Mormon bishop is equivalent to a local pastor, a General Authority Seventy, which Mr. Bragg is, is a much senior position, with a scope easily equivalent to a Bishop in the Roman Catholic or Anglican traditions. As such, we know that appropriate coverage exists, whether or not we can find it and/or agree on whether coverage in LDS sources is independent. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example SlTrib from earlier this year notes his position as "president of the faith’s North America West Area" which puts him above a Catholic archbishop in terms of adherents, clergy, area, and institutions overseen. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are essays, not policies or guidelines. And the claim that coverage zxists is rather a weak claim for a US BLP, where coverage is normally easy to find if it exists. Fram (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They accurately reflect consensus. Point being that it's a waste of time for us to go digging through looking for stuff that's going to be there somewhere. There's simply no question that he has a ton of coverage from LDS sources which are some degree or another less than completely independent... but discounting all of that is needlessly Procrustean and anti-LDS. Notability has never been a policy, always a guideline, and sticklers for it in such cases can never really explain to me why an encyclopedia with oodles of pop stars, voice actors, etc. would be improved only by removing the leaders of religious denominations that are covered in the religious (non-independent) press, rather than nominally independent pop-culture sources. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you allow articles where all you have are non-independent sources, then there is no way to keep out all spam, vanity, self-promoting individuals and groups, ... A basic principle of Wikipedia is that we reflect and summarise what other reliable, independent sources have written, to get as close as possible to a neutral point of view and independently verified facts. Fram (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is. You rely on things like WP:BISHOPS to restrict, for example, bio coverage of major religious figures to the top 1-2% of clergy based on position and importance, rather than title. It's a parallel way to make sure we're not covering every self-promoting, self-declared apostle, but can e.g. cover regionally/nationally important figures. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my last sentence. Fram (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article, I concur with Jclemens that Bragg is inherently notable per WP:CLERGY and WP:BISHOPS, being in a position equivalent to a Bishop in Catholicism or Anglicanism and "[being a] high level religious official with a substantial deal of power and autonomy, and they tend to play a substantial role in their local community, including interactions with public officials, the media, etc." PortlandSaint (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fram makes a very compelling argument that the assumption of independent reliable sources existing is problematic. 206.83.99.60 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Yang

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

Refs do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression he passed WP:NACTOR, with at least two notable roles (a main role in a miniseries and a lead role in a film + a further upcoming project). However, if I was mistaken, then it's a case of WP:TOSOON and I would support redirecting to Last Days (2025 film) for now. Starklinson (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to clarify, my vote is keep (for passing WP:NACTOR) or if not, redirect (for being WP:TOOSOON). Starklinson (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Source 8 is a RS, but it's rather thin. Source 12 is also a RS, but isn't just about this individual. Those are all I can find as well... Would likely pass ACTOR, but we need sourcing... Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi

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

I recently accepted this article via AfC. The subject has significant coverage in reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Print, and Hindustan Times, mainly around his death, but with in-depth info about his life. There's also a 2021 Hindi source with substantial coverage. I believe this meets the GNG, but to ensure consensus, I think an AfD discussion would be helpful so experienced editors can weigh in. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also found these sources on Google, [19], [20]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough references to demonstrate subject's notability. [21] - This is an in-depth coverage by reliable source Mongabay, [22]- An in-depth article by Hindustan Times. AndySailz (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was his death notable? Most people have obituaries. Where is the significant coverage outside of his death? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question please. If a news article about a person's death includes substantial coverage of their early life, career, and accomplishments essentially providing in-depth information directly about the subject, does that count toward meeting the General Notability Guideline (GNG)? Or is such a source discounted just because it's related to their death?Afstromen (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting on someone's life is exactly what an obituary does. If they were notable prior to the death, there would be significant coverage about their life during that time. So, unless something about the death is notable, it would not count. Otherwise, we could simply create new pages based on obituary sections of newspapers. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i wasn't aware of this. Outside his death, i found some sources [23], [24], [25].Afstromen (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi was a celebrity in Indian conservation circles prior to his death with many stories published about his work in Hindi and English. He also won notable awards, so he seems to clear the notability bar. Naturepeople (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was notable person before his death. He won awards from Rajasthan gov and he was featured in many popular news sites. Jodhpuri (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Rajasthan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject has got substantial coverage in independent media like The Print, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, and other. I think it passes WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kliff

AfDs for this article:

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

Page was deleted after an AfD discussion in 2021, and recently recreated. I can't see the old version to know if this is a G4 situation, but I do not see any sources beyond those discussed in the 2021 AfD, and do not think much has changed. Bringing back to AfD for clarity. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources aren't sufficient to meet WP:GNG, just like last time. - MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment to answer a point the nominator raised: this is substantially different to the 2021 article so should be discussed on its merits. G4 does not apply. Star Mississippi 01:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a well-known journalist who has non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. Here are examples, which include an interview on NPR:

Sarah Kliff brings transparency to ER prices, one hospital bill at a time - Columbia Journalism Review

Healthcare policy journalist Sarah Kliff talks Obamacare legacy, coronavirus - The Princetonian

Republicans Want To Get Rid Of Obamacare. But Then What? : NPR

These, plus other sources, suggest that she satisfies WP:GNG. I add that she also frequently appears in the media as an independent expert beyond her reporting role:

Breaking down the House GOP health care bill - CBS News

Obamacare open enrollment set to begin as Trump officials try to upend health care law wikicreativity (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspaper articles and interviews with the biography subject do not build the case for notability. Just like last time around. MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I can see why this was an AfD nomination as the article isn't sourced properly, as most sources, while reliable, are primary and not independent secondary ones. And it's really hard to find sources about a subject who is also a prolific writer as one has to weed through and not consider authored articles. Regarding sources mentioned so far, I don't see why the Columbia Journalism Review and The Princetonian articles presented above by the article's author don't count as sources. The first is an interview although has introductory secondary coverage. The second has a lot of quotes which some editors don't like. But I'd count them. Here are some more: This article [26] discusses Kliff's views on the ACA and give some background on her. This has a review [27] of a NYT article she wrote with a colleague. The Nieman Lab published this article [28] about Kliff and a piece she wrote for JAMA. I think in sum these may meet WP:BASIC but only the Columbia Journalism Review source is in the article. I think this article has potential but needs to be Draftified and re-worked to include sources and verify claims. Let's first see if editors think it meets BASIC like I do. Nnev66 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In accordance with WP:JOURNALIST, Kliff "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" in the area of health policy. She is frequently interviewed in the media and especially in audio or video, so I'm not sure how accessible a lot of that media is. Because of her notability and media prominence, she has 128k followers on Twitter. A Reddit "Ask me anything" from 2019 has 19k upvotes and 1.5k comments. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NJOURNALIST, which simply requires the subject "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers". A whole frickin' episode of Fresh Air devoted to her is clearly shows she is "widely cited by peers". And there is nothing wrong with student newspapers per se. In this case, Columbia Journalism Review isn't even a student paper, while The Daily Princetonian is older and more highly-respected than many non-student papers. Toadspike [Talk] 22:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like emerging consensus is clearly on the keep side. I may have been too hasty in my nomination (I see for example that G4 had already been considered and rejected in the viewable article history), although I also note that the sources considered here are pretty much the same as the ones found lacking in 2021. For myself, I find the framing put forth by Nnev66 and Toadspike reasonably convincing. Remark that many of the sources considered are interviews, but e.g. CJR and Fresh Air are weighty sources that one should take seriously. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sarah Kliff is a notable American journalist. I found this to demonstrate her notability: [29], [30], [31]. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For the record, those are the first three links posted by Creativitywiki above, not new sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 17:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A detailed review of independent sources would be helpful, remembering that interviews are not independent sources and so do not contribute toward notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me, the interviews are not convincing to establish GNG, but a case can be made for NJOURNALIST, that she is "widely cited by peers". Neimanlab and this report are clearly sigcov on her reporting. Then, the CJR article and NPR episode are good sources to demonstrate her recognition as an expert in her field. Combined with sources like this article (Wichita Eagle), this response (by a professor, I think), I'd say she easily passes the NJOURNALIST bar. (note that most of these sources were listed by !voters above)
There's other non-independent sources that could be used to flesh out an article, such as a profile by her alma mater, NYT announcement, so I'm not concerned that we cannot have an encyclopedic article here.
As an aside, I really don't think student journalism can count as reliable reporting that would be indicative of notability though, even one like The Daily Princetonian. As an undergrad, I published some things in Ivy League level undergraduate publications that got literally no peer review. And undergrads can't be trusted to reliably review things anyways. But there's enough here beyond that Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are not great, and I'm not even seeing enough to meet WP:BASIC. Most of what is available is WP:PRIMARY or from sources that are not considered reliable. However, the subject meets WP:JOURNALIST, and seems notable in her profession.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Afua

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

Most of the references are not about the subject or provide only passing mentions. Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG Sources include: a full-page article about her on the front page of The Jackson Sun; a full-page article about her on page 2 of the metro section of the New York Daily News; a peer-reviewed book chapter about her work in an academic publications; a master's thesis about her from Georgia State University. NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are four RS focussed solely on her, which as far as I can tell passes WP:SIRS twice over. NotBartEhrman (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James P Mahon

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, Sports, Ireland, Romania, England, Scotland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some about himself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tricky one to try and assess. Ultimately I think notability is not there. There is some coverage but is it significant? I think not. Looking at the academic side, I don't think the research and published works are there yet. The awards are non-notable really and as for the references, most are published own works. It almost feels kind of WP:Auto even if it isn't. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Costas

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Bibliographies, News media, Music, Business, Management, and Australia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am the author of this Wikipedia page. I note @S-Aura that you have nominated this page for deletion. I am curious to know why?

I would say that the article on Damien Costas clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, not just in passing.

Examples include:

• The Sydney Morning Herald’s detailed report on Costas’s bankruptcy annulment and business dealings (https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/porn-king-says-supporters-prepared-to-forgive-his-millions-in-bad-debt-20210728-p58dmf.html).

• Crikey’s reporting on his editorial transformation of Australian Penthouse (https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/11/07/penthouse-australia-alt-right/).

• The Guardian and ABC News coverage of public events he organized (Milo Yiannopoulos and Nigel Farage tours).

• International Business Times on his media influence (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/damien-costas-reshaping-thought-behind-media-influence-responsibility-moulding-public-opinion-1727160).

These sources span business, politics, and culture — showing that the subject of Damien Costas has been covered across domains over a number of years. I believe that the article is neutrally written and properly cited. I would argue that there is no policy-based reason to delete this page. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey's report mentions Costas once. This is a long way from WP:SIGCOV of him.
The Guardian and ABC reports don't mention him at all.
The International Business Times report is an interview. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't count towards establishing notablity.

TarnishedPath^talk 06:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow-up. To clarify, with specific reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

Regarding significant coverage and source quality:

The Sydney Morning Herald article ("Debt deal and sex appeal") is an independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of Costas's business activities and financial history. Per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article clearly meets the threshold of WP:SIGCOV as it discusses the subject substantively rather than in passing. As established in Wikipedia policy, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Crikey's article mentions Costas several times throughout. Further, it is not used alone to establish notability. It complements other sources that do provide in-depth coverage. Under WP:GNG, multiple sources providing coverage can collectively demonstrate notability, as the guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Regarding supporting sources and their appropriate use:

ABC News and The Guardian are used to verify key aspects of Costas's professional activities — specifically his role in organizing major speaking tours. These are supporting citations, not primary evidence of notability. Per WP:BIO (WP:Notability (people)), biographical articles may include material from multiple reliable sources to establish the full scope of a person's notable activities.

Regarding primary sources and interviews:

Regarding the International Business Times, while interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, this does not make them unusable. Per WP:NOR, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." They can be cited to support attributed statements or commentary about the subject's views — which is precisely how it's used in the article. As stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author."

Additional supporting coverage:

Additionally, a recent article in Men's Health Australia (October 2024) offers a profile on Costas's media leadership and innovation strategies, providing another layer of significant coverage from a reputable publication (https://menshealth.com.au/damien-costas-on-fostering-creativity-and-innovation-in-the-media-industry)

Meeting notability requirements:

Taken together — Sydney Morning Herald, Men's Health, SmartCompany, and IBTimes (for attributed quotes) — the subject clearly receives sustained, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. The General Notability Guideline requires that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

The coverage spans business, media, and cultural domains over multiple years, demonstrating the sustained attention that indicates lasting notability rather than temporary news coverage. As stated in WP:N, "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" and "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" - meaning topics are notable when "the outside world has already 'taken notice of it.'"

I'm happy to improve the article if needed, but the topic plainly meets notability standards under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Damien Costas article to include additional citations from independent and credible publications, strengthening its compliance with Wikipedia's sources policy. Below is a list of the new references added to the current version:

• WAtoday: Includes detailed reporting on Costas’s organization of Nigel Farage’s 2022 Australian tour, strengthening notability by documenting his significant role in high-profile political events.

• The Guardian: Covers Costas’s involvement in the emerging market for rightwing speaking tours, with his own insights, bolstering notability through in-depth, independent analysis of his cultural and political impact.

• The Sydney Morning Herald: Provides substantive coverage of Costas’s 2025 book, What Happened to the Lucky Country?, reinforcing notability by highlighting his authorship and influence in cultural commentary.

Australian Financial Review: Details Costas’s bankruptcy and financial history with independent reporting, enhancing notability by offering credible coverage of his business and personal challenges.

• Men’s Health Magazine Australia: Profiles Costas’s innovative media leadership and risk-taking approach, supporting notability with independent recognition of his sustained impact in the media industry.

These additions enhance the article’s alignment with Wikipedia’s policies:

• WP:RS: These publications—WAtoday, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, and Men’s Health Magazine Australia—are reputable, editorially controlled, and independent of the subject, meeting Wikipedia’s standards for reliable secondary sources.

• WP:GNG: The added sources provide significant, sustained coverage of Damien Costas across business, media, and cultural domains, directly addressing his activities in detail and reinforcing notability through multiple credible, independent outlets.

• Verifiability: These independent publications bolster the article’s verifiability, supporting claims about Costas’s work with high-quality sources, reducing reliance on less robust material. CharlotteMilic (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Men's Health article, at the bottom of the article is written "Switzer Media newsroom and editorial staff were not involved in the creation of this content". This looks like paid advertising.

The test for WP:GNG is significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources which are independent from the subject. The only reference you've provided that contains significant coverage in a reliable secondary sources, which is independent from the subject, is The Sydney Morning Herald. That's not enough. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TarnishedPath - I take your point re the Men's Health article, though this could mean the story was sourced from a freelancer etc. But still, it could be paid advertising so I will remove it.

Re other secondary sources, Costas was mentioned several times in the cited articles from the Australian Financial Review, Crikey, ABC News, the Guardian etc. All of these are significant coverage of Costas' activities, and all are independent news sources. CharlotteMilic (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ongoing discussion. I’ve removed the Men’s Health source to avoid doubt.

That aside, coverage in The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, Crikey, WAtoday, and The Guardian all substantively discuss Costas’s professional and cultural activities. Crikey and AFR provide more than trivial mention; The Guardian and WAtoday contextualize his public influence.

Taken together, these meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO — no original research is needed to verify content, and sources are both independent and editorially reliable.

I’m open to further article improvement, but deletion isn’t policy-justified. Recommend Keep. CharlotteMilic (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding me. My comments above are not in relation to whether certain references are usable in the article. The question is whether they count towards establishing notability. Only the SMH article goes towards notability. TarnishedPath^talk 13:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, refer to WP:IBTIMES for the reliablity of International Business Times. TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's been an attempt by the creator of the article to WP:CANVASS other editors here. Refer to Special:Diff/1293200899, Special:Diff/1293200817, Special:Diff/1293200761, Special:Diff/1293200688, Special:Diff/1293200547 and Special:Diff/1293200433. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's the editor of a non-notable journal, a co-founder of a non-notable company, and the author of a non-notable book. What's he supposed to be notable for? Maproom (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not particularly keen to see this article kept either, but there's a fair bit of coverage out there. His bankruptcy and various other legal issues have been covered in The Age, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review [32], Crikey, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times. There's also this 2014 article in The Australian, although it's fairly heavy on quotes. And he was recently covered in the Fairfax papers due to his new book. I think there's probably enough there to satisfy GNG, but the article is a disaster (particularly the section on his bankruptcy) and I'm open to the possibility that WP:TNT is in order. MCE89 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Din Mohammad Nuristani

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

Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Bearing in mind his DoB we don't even know if he's still alive, and if he's not we don't have a date of death. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Afghanistan. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghanistan at the 1956 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD - already cross-reffed to Afghanistan at the 1948 Summer Olympics. Ingratis (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Kadir Nuristani

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

Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Bearing in mind his DoB we don't even know if he's still alive, and if he's not we don't have a date of death. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Afghanistan. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the nom, I couldn't find the needed WP:SIGCOV for the WP:SPORTSCRIT to be met here, either in the article (only databases are currently referenced), corresponding wikis, or elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghanistan at the 1948 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Heelaman

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The only independent sources used in the article all fail to mention Arshad Heelaman even once, so do not confer notability. Those that do mention him are all social media sites, so not WP:RS. I have no idea how the article creator has managed to write such a detailed article about this man when searches in English and Pashto (ارشاد هیله من) yield absolutely no independent WP:RS at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have used all sources from his primary Youtube channel, which includes extensive interviews of him talking about his background and the work he has done, those interviews were done one Afghan television and are in the Pashto language. Spyjockstrap (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube interviews have been used as references which include himself speaking on Afghan national television:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT-3fKoPP40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_01eANPIv0&t=14s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgbXymmYY0I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VSUJ6a_-4&t=1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5_37_B3hE&t=1s Spyjockstrap (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another interviews of himself on Afghan TV Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWuPx09yMhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y0xN6BUQRs Spyjockstrap (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is video from previous Afghan national government TV Channel with former president of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXKPi-dLCwY

At (0:29) timestamp Arshad Heelaman can be seen in attendance with other former Afghan government officials. Spyjockstrap (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been involved in the government of Afghanistan in the past which can be seen from his X account posts:

https://x.com/AHeelaman/status/1347954458244894724/photo/1

Issue is he is from a backwards marginalized community (Gujar) in Afghanistan so there will not be much 3rd party information about him online in English or Pashto, but he is a known figure in the Gujjar community for the work he has done for his people. Here is his official Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/arshadheelaman1 Spyjockstrap (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All social media. If he is indeed notable then there should be some independent news sources that cover him. As things stand, I still support deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age, almost anyone can create a YouTube, X and Facebook account about themselves. It doesn't make him notable having those. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the videos ? Im not sure who would go on Afghan national television and in the Afghan parliament as a minority rights activist, just to get a page on Wikipedia. Please go through the sources thoroughly, I have seen Youtube Videos been used as references as long as they are primary sources of a known figure. Spyjockstrap (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person is genuine and has had to recently flee his homeland Afghanistan because of the recent Taliban take over and his work for womens and minority rights in Afghanistan. Spyjockstrap (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His own YouTube channel is not an independent source - see WP:GNG. Have you got any Afghan news sources covering him? What about Pajhwok Afghan News, The Kabul Times Daily or Daily Afghanistan? We can't have an article on someone based only on his own primary sources. I'm not suggesting he isn't 'genuine', in fact, I'm sure he's a great guy. By the way, doing an interview on TV does not make someone automatically notable. If there were to be independent analysis of his TV appearances from a reliable news source then that would be a better argument for notability. There are hundreds of people that get interviewed every year by BBC News or Sky News that wouldn't automatically be notable either so I don't see why it would be a different standard for an Afghan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, I've read WP:OWNWORDS carefully and it does warn against using YouTube videos when there might be a copyright issue. Do we know that Heelaman has permission to use that TV footage from the Afghan station itself? That material doesn't belong to him so he may be in breach of copyright by uploading it into the public domain but I'm not too familiar with Afghan copyright law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right check was passed by another user, those videos have been uploaded for a long time. Would be been copyright striked by now Im assuming. Spyjockstrap (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you confirm how Heelaman meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG? BIO is clear when it says Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Therefore, Heelaman uploading his own YouTube videos does not prove notability, as his own YouTube is obviously a primary source. Has he been covered by any major secondary sources such as Pajhwok Afghan News, The Kabul Times Daily or Daily Afghanistan? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point, there should be secondary sources mentioning him and my only argument for that is because he is from a backwards and marginalised group it is not possible to find such info unfortunately. We both agree on this, only thing now is, what is the next step ? Let's get a vote and come to a conclusion because the back and forth is not productive. Spyjockstrap (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero media coverage, Gnews is blank. Gsearch is only social media. Article is sourced only to primary or non-RS sources. There is nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The photo is also a likely copyright violation, I've tagged it. that's another red flag that this person isn't notable. We see them in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources are just yt as nominator said, and no proper results yielded on Google also. BoomBoxBuddy (talk) 2:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Khokhar Khanzada

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

There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator's reason. Ixudi (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has concurred with the delete rationale, this may not stop the nomination. I have no opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nimal Bandara (Diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not automatically notable, just because of their appointment. Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage not press releases about them presenting their credentials. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Israel. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage by secondary sources to justify WP:GNG, mostly passing mention about his post. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage by secondary sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've been on a year, deleting articles about diplomats, but in this case, there's unique and reliably sourced material about Sri Lankans in Israel, which would be a better place. Can we move this material? Bearian (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel–Sri Lanka relations as ATD. Don't see any material worth preserving. Longhornsg (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel–Sri Lanka relations as ATD. If for anything being an author could have assisted Bandara in passing the GNG, yet do I not see yet that this is actually the case. gidonb (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I believe the article on Nimal Bandara meets Wikipedia's notability requirements under both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The article has recently been improved and now contains multiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of his diplomatic work and authorship.

Author Notability (WP:AUTHOR):
Bandara is a published author of several books across historical and youth genres:
- Mahanuwara Rajyathanthrika Sambandatha (2024), a 494-page academic work on the diplomatic history of the Kingdom of Kandy (1582–1815). Covered in detail by The Island: https://island.lk/ambassador-nimal-bandara-to-launch-book-on-kandys-diplomatic-history
- Other titles include: Rangiri Arana, Galge Kanda, Samuduru Mekala, and Nomakena Afrikanu Mathakayan, published by Sooriya Publishers and featured in eLanka and Sri Lankan literary circles.
This establishes independent coverage and enduring contributions to literature — satisfying WP:AUTHOR.

Diplomatic Notability (WP:GNG / WP:BIO):
Bandara is not merely a routine appointee; he has received sustained, non-trivial media coverage for his crisis leadership and policy engagement as Ambassador to Israel:
- The Jerusalem Post reported on his involvement in organizing labor efforts during the Israel–Gaza conflict: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-778363
- News 1st and Hiru News covered his safety advisories and evacuation coordination for Sri Lankans amid missile attacks and unrest in Gaza:
  - https://english.newsfirst.lk/2024/04/20/70-sri-lankans-in-israel-working-safely-from-home
  - https://www.newsfirst.lk/2024/08/23/over-11-000-sri-lankans-in-israel-advised-to-stay-safe
  - https://www.hirunews.lk/english/377841
- Daily Mirror reported on domestic political praise for his ambassadorial conduct: https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/SL-Ambassador-to-Israel-doing-a-good-job-SJB/108-269309
These demonstrate coverage beyond routine diplomatic announcements, highlighting both his public visibility and national impact.

Conclusion:

Between the independent coverage of his authorship and the significant media attention to his actions as ambassador, Nimal Bandara meets Wikipedia’s notability thresholds. This article should be retained and improved, not deleted. 103.48.209.4 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources added since this article's AfD nomination provide independent, significant coverage of this person. Government sources are not independent, while the news reports are just parroting his safety advice for Sri Lankans in Israel. Of the other three source's you've linked here, two are not sigcov either: [33] is a bunch of quotes from one guy and [34] is just a short event announcement, not an actual book review. The Jerusalem Post article [35] is the only GNG-level source here. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. I can live with that. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR through Independent Coverage of Both Diplomatic and Literary Contributions

This article on Nimal Bandara should be retained. The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria through multiple independent, reliable sources that provide non-trivial, in-depth coverage of both his diplomatic service and authorship.

----

Literary Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Bandara is the author of Mahanuwara Rajyathanthrika Sambandatha (2024), a 494-page academic work on the diplomatic history of the Kingdom of Kandy (1582–1815). This book launch was covered in detail by The Island, a reputable and independent Sri Lankan newspaper:

🔗 https://island.lk/ambassador-nimal-bandara-to-launch-book-on-kandys-diplomatic-history

He has also written several other books in Sinhala including Rangiri Arana, Galge Kanda, Samuduru Mekala, and Nomakena Afrikanu Mathakayan, published by Sooriya Publishers and featured on platforms like eLanka and Booksy.lk.

🔗 https://www.elanka.com.au/book-launch-by-nimal-bandara

Additionally, Bandara has authored numerous historical and cultural essays in national newspapers, including Daily News and The Sunday Times, confirming sustained and meaningful public engagement.

🔗 Daily News: Literature on astrology

🔗 Sunday Times: Sri Lanka women's contribution to diplomacy

----

Diplomatic Notability (WP:GNG / WP:BIO)
Nimal Bandara has received sustained independent media coverage in his role as Ambassador to Israel, particularly for his crisis response and leadership:
- Jerusalem Post article on his coordination of Sri Lankan laborers during Israel's manpower shortage: 🔗 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-778363
- Hiru News, News First, and Lanka News Web have all independently covered his efforts to safeguard Sri Lankan citizens during periods of rocket attacks and regional tension: 🔗 https://hirunews.lk/english/377841 🔗 https://english.newsfirst.lk/2024/08/23/over-11-000-sri-lankans-in-israel-advised-to-stay-safe 🔗 https://lankanewsweb.net/archives/63251
These are not routine announcements—they reflect significant, policy-level actions and public engagement.

----
Summary:
- The subject satisfies WP:GNG via independent, significant media coverage.
- He meets WP:AUTHOR through a published scholarly monograph and multiple other works, all covered in the media.
- Sources are independent, reliable, and not limited to press releases or routine credentialing announcements.
----

Recommendation: Keep. If needed, the article can be trimmed and refocused, but deletion would discard verifiable, non-trivial coverage of a notable public figure who has contributed meaningfully to both diplomacy and literature. Rivindub (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more GNG level sources to the references. Rivindub (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This includes one post from Washington Post, one from the The Hindu, another one from Jerusalem Post and one from Economy Next. 103.48.209.4 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all that has been provided is a series of mentions in passing not any significant coverage beyond acknowledgement of his position as Ambassador to Isreal or his statements on behalf of the Sri Lankan government. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original contributor of this article. Captain Mayuran (Saba) was a member of the LTTE during the Sri Lankan civil war and served as a close protection officer for LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. He participated in several key operations and is remembered within the Tamil community, especially for his role during the Battle of Pooneryn in 1993, where he was killed in action. The article is based on multiple Tamil sources, including contemporary reports and commemorative publications. I have aimed to present the content in a neutral, fact-based manner. I’m open to improvements and willing to add stronger references if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thili1977 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Mayuran (Saba)

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

A bodyguard that lacks notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with Tamil references was notable and the LTTE named a sniper unit after him, known as the Mayuran Sniper Unit after his death.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the references are in Tamil, could this article be moved to the Tamil Wikipedia? ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG Recommend that sources be in English but as long as non-English sources are reliable and could be verified they are also allowed. -UtoD 10:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding the sources. I’m currently working on finding additional references in English or from more widely accepted Tamil publications. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article’s compliance with WP:RS. Thili1977 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing the discussion. While there are no English-language articles about Captain Mayuran (Saba), this is primarily because he served in a security role within the LTTE, which was not internationally covered in detail. However, his internal importance to the organization was clearly recognized — for example, the LTTE named a sniper unit after him after his death. His legacy is remembered through Tamil-language commemorative publications, obituaries, and community memorials. I understand the need for reliable sourcing and am doing my best to represent the subject neutrally and verifiably, within the limits of what is available. Thili1977 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolu Okupe

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no information or sources stating of this person is either a model or activist. The article does not mention any fashion shows or brands that he participated in, nor does it mention any activism that he has done. He is only notable as a son of a former presidential aide which makes this WP:INVALIDBIO. This person is not notable. Sackkid (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is some coverage in reliable sources; how significant is debatable. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. The coverage that you are referring to all mirror that this is a gay man who happens to be the son of a former presidential aide. But there is no actual notability in that. I would say it would be more appropriate to merge this with Doyin Okupe but it is already there. Sackkid (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Blaise

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

Fails WP:BIO. A lot of this stuff is trivial. The Time source does not feature him as the topic of discussion, The Pink News source simply mentioned that he was one of the attendees but does not state that he organized the protest, The Bloomberg source does not exist, The Out magazine source was written by them (Blaise); which leads that this article could have been created and edited by Matthew Blaise. "In 2020, they were a winner of The Future Awards Africa "Prize for Leading Conversations" but the source does not mention him winning any award of the sort. Also, the page receives very little traffic. If this person is an actual activist, there should be more focus on what they actually changed in the course of history and human rights. But once you take away the sentences with the meaningless sources, you are left with trivial information about where he is allegedly attending college. Sackkid (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg source exists and link is still active. There are many articles and publications about them, and their nonprofit is quite active as well. Iseaseeshells (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, none of them say what he has actually done as an "activist", they are simply mirroring each other. I saw several pages that says he founded The Oasis Project but there are no articles that elaborate on it, say who it has helped, or what it has actually done. Many publications do not do their own research to see if the information given to them is credible. They are simply calling it "a Nigeria-based registered non-profit organization" but it is not registered with the Nigerian CAC or Global Giving, so it is not an establishment. So again, these publications are mirroring each other. Example: "I believe the sky is yellow and pink because you told me. You believe the sky is yellow and pink because I told you." Sackkid (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear where you’re coming from, he is active with his nonprofit, Obodo, which is registered with CAC Iseaseeshells (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There would still need to be significant coverage from reliable sources in order to support the claim that Matthew Blaise is notable by Wikipedia standards. Also do you know Matthew Blaise personally? Sackkid (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Basar

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Two previous deletions in English and then deleted in Bengali Wikipedia four days ago. Obvious promotion attempt based on additional sourcing of YouTube, interviews, and promotional churnalism since last AfD. CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This actor is notable and he has won various awards, including the Meril-Prothom Alo Awards for Best actor, that's enough to keep the article. Aqsis Bey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The non-notable awards, all of which were won prior to the 2nd AfD? Please let me know what has changed since the last AfD with these awards to make the subject notable under WP:NACTOR. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meril-Prothom Alo Awards are the non-notable award? maybe there was no sources mentioned about the awards in the previous pages! So, due to a vulnerability editor previously created or single editor repeatedly recreating this article, this "probably notable" will never be accepted? check the career section, i tried rewriting to make it neutral. wouldn't he pass WP:NACTOR for his roles in various films, web series, web films, television drama and short films from 2017-2024? Aqsis Bey (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are not based on what is present on a page at the time. It matters what is available in reliable soruces (see WP:BEFORE). So, my question remains...what has changed since the last AfD with these awards to make the subject notable under NACTOR? I am unsure what you mean by vulnerability of an editor or what its relation to notability is so cannot opine on that comment. For NACTOR, having "roles in various films" does not earn someone inherent notability. In fact, it must be lead roles in "notable" films (commonplace in NACTOR deletion discussions - let me know and I can link a few for you). If they did have lead roles, we still need significant coverage (not just verification) that talks about them in those roles. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, why do you say the Meril-Prothom Alo Awards are not notable? From the Wikipedia article, these awards appear notable along with two others awards and Bangladesh is larger than any country in Europe. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a misstatement as one of the awards is notable. The others are not as we do not list awards without Wikipedia pages in film projects. My point is that nothing notable has happened since the last AfD unless it can be pointed out there has (which I cannot see). Also, I am unsure what country size has to do with notability but if you can clarify maybe I am missing something. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Today, I added WP Biography and assessed as Start-class article. Since I am not familiar with this bio, I am neutral about whether to keep or delete. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO by winning a Meril Prothom Alo Award award and having significant roles in multiple notable TV shows or films (at a minimum, Networker Baire and Kajolrekha). I don't know what sources the previous AfD discussions considered, but he only won the award last Friday, so that's at least one thing that has changed. The focus now should be on reining in promotionalism and tightening up the language. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to unblocked participants in earlier AfD discussions, as concerned editors: (Chronos.Zx—MdsShakil—Mekomo—Mushy Yank—Vinegarymass911—আফতাবুজ্জামান ) --Worldbruce (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can keep per Worldbruce. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 17:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per "X" is an WP:ATA. For the Keep vote of WB and your comment, please note that there is nothing in WP:NACTOR that makes someone inherently notable for winning an award or for having multiple roles in a show. Since it says "may" and not "are" notable, can you point out the sourcing that would make this person notable under WP:ANYBIO?

Criterion #1 under WP:ANYBIO is: "The person has received a well-known and significant award ..., or has been nominated for such an award several times". In my experience an Oscar/BAFTA is usually considered enough to satisfy this, except perhaps for child actors. The Meril-Prothom Alo Awards are a notch down from the Oscars, second in stature to the National Film Awards, equivalent perhaps to a Golden Globe Award (sorry, I'm not that familiar with Western entertainment awards). For 170 million people, the Meril-Prothom Alo Awards are well-known and significant (possibly what A. B. was alluding to above). --Worldbruce (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your contention. What I am saying is that winning an award does not automatically guarantee notability. Winning an Oscar would be enough, but not because of the win. It would be because the person likely received significant coverage based on that award. ANYBIO states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It would come down to the coverage and on this there is a mention of the person's name in the most recent source added but nothing significant. I am also not in agreement that all of the shows/films the person appeared in are notable (one I did not take to AfD as not to give the appearance of bludgeoning while the AfD is going on). Most are web films which don't always gain a lot sourcing. The film Thikana Bangladesh is mentioned but not released but maybe there will be more press surrounding Basar once it does and it would merit inclusion of a page for them. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. There have been similar cases where I've insisted that someone show me the significant coverage that other factors suggest must exist. To be consistent, I should seek that in the heap of Bengali search results, but I've sunk as much time into this as I can spare right now. If that means this gets deleted again, so be it. I think WP:WHYN is worth bearing in mind. We're trying to avoid something that Wikipedia is not, an article that contains original research, a claim of noteworthiness that is unverifiable, over reliance on primary sources, and an article that presents only the subject's viewpoint. I believe there is now a sufficient number and diversity of sources to, with some editing, meet those goals. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Worldbruce's comments. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent news coverage shows subject has become notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ok - but do we have sources? Any new coverage because of that award he just won, etc?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:, we do not. I am even willing to do the WP:HEY, but the most recent I can find is from December last year which is not bylined and just him talking about himself. No significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article seems well-sourced, the award appears notable, based on what I read. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Ghoshe

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Sources are mentions, unreliable, or otherwise not in-depth about the subject. CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NOTINHERITED. First off, we need an analysis of the reviews, if any, of his books in reliable sources. Next, his tenuous relationship with a famous foundation is not explained. Finally, it's too promotional in tone. Ping me if you can fix this mess of a page. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a long list of references but hardly relevant. He has written books but are they notable, Hard to find news about his books. I even couldn’t find any reliable book reviews to understand more about the subject. Neither there are coverage on subject in independent sources. He clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR. Above all article is promoting the individual by language and contents as well. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article clearly meets both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The article contains citations from:
Times of India – National daily; easily passes “newspaper of record” bar for reliability.^[1]
The Daily Star – Independent, third-party literary criticism → satisfies NAUTHOR #3.^[2]
Indiablooms – National digital news-wire, independent.^[3]
The Telegraph – Independent national daily (mostly popular in West Bengal and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands).^[4]
Trans World Features – in-depth author interview.^[5]

Each of these pieces is non-PR and non-paid. Together they comfortably exceed the two-source threshold of WP:GNG. Publishing credentials:

ISBN citations include works from Rupa Publications – one of India’s oldest mainstream publishers.
N.E. Publishers and Smriti Publishers – both commercial, audited presses (not vanity).

This, plus multiple in-depth reviews (at least on two books), means Victor Ghoshe meets WP:NAUTHOR outright. Additional evidence of lasting impact:

Library holdings: Tomb of God is catalogued in the Kerala State Central Library – the country’s second-oldest public library.^[6]
International distribution: The novel is stocked by Waterstones UK (brick-and-mortar chain).^[7]
Cultural cross-overs: Launches were headlined by National Film-Award legend Soumitra Chatterjee (for Tomb of God) and Sahitya Akademi winner Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay (for Paranormal 2).^[3]

These points strengthen the “enduring, not temporary” aspect of notability per WP:N.

On the Gates Foundation mention: The caption of the image is the only evidence for that collaboration. If this single citation is insufficient, we can remove the claim without affecting notability.

Addressing the objections:

Mentions are not trivial: Coverage comes from mainstream dailies.
No independent book reviews: Daily Star piece is a 1 000-word critique; TOI article devotes its entire feature to dissecting plot and historical backdrop.
Tone is promotional: Agreed. The solution is copy-editing, not deletion.

--ParallelDimension (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Kolkata gets its own Da Vinci Code version with Charnock fiction". The Times of India. 12 March 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "If Only Job Charnock Knew!". The Daily Star. 28 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ ^a ^b "Actor Soumitra Chatterjee launches Victor Kalyan Ghoshe's latest novel". Indiablooms. 22 Mar 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay launches author Victor Ghosh's latest book Paranormal 2". The Telegraph. 11 Jun 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "The Job Charnock Riddle is written as a visual treat: Victor Ghoshe". Trans World Features. 22 May 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "Tomb of God". Kerala State Central Library catalogue. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "Tomb of God". Waterstones. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

Keep per ParallelDimension, passes NAUTHOR.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The number of editors who have very few edits but came out of the woodwork for this AfD is astounding. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One is the creator of the article, and the other had a very significant burst of activity on the 29th, editing many AfDs and making a lot of edits to an article. I don't think this one is particularly astounding. -- asilvering (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I was commenting on the whole but did not leave enough context. Sorry if it seemed like I was just throwing darts. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing is sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador:, which sourcing exactly?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing you blanket declared insufficient above and didn't bother to examine further. Cortador (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to not be WP:CIVIL and answer a question which shows you obviously did not review the sourcing you somehow deem sufficient. Understood. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you did any sources analysis, feel free to point me to it. As per WP:BEFORE, that was your job, not mine. Cortador (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

His win in a reality show (Bigg Boss OTT 2) and some online controversies have received temporary media attention, but these do not amount to the kind of sustained, independent coverage needed to demonstrate long-term wiki article. The article also leans promotional in tone, with excessive detail on YouTube milestones and trivial career facts, which goes against WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Being internet famous is not inherently equivalent to being notable by Wiki. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Music, India, and Haryana. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the nominatior that his career is smaller than the controversy section. And doesn’t pass notability. But the given sources suggest he received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources which compound to Wp:GNG. I believe the sources should be checked carefully and evaluated if they really are reliable sources or just puff pieces and. wp:CHURNALISM and Wp:QUESTIONABLE. Zuck28 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon observing this article, I'm not confident about the article blog-style reporting & entertainment coverage lacking editorial oversight. Well, per WP:NYOUTUBER, mere social media popularity and viral fame is insufficient. Notability come from lasting, third-party recognition in RS which is absent here. This is a clear case of WP:NOTPROMO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and comment above. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is (unfortunately) a close call because he has received a fair amount of media coverage but for all the wrong reasons. As said by folks above, more significant coverage of his "career" is needed per WP:NYOUTUBER, while the reports he received for various acts of shameless self-promotional desperation are numerous but largely WP:CHURNALISM. Gotta admit that he knows how to get fleeting mentions of his name in the tabloids though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article about his youtube channels and winning an Indian version of Big Brother. Editors probably sympathetic to him have repeatedly tried to remove the controversy section so I suspect the deletion of this article would aid that censorship attempt, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG. The amount of coverage is too huge to justify even the AfD, let alone deleting the article. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Many reliable sources have provided him significant coverage. International sources like The Independent have also covered him.[36] I am totally surprised over this AfD. Agletarang (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was surprised by how much media attention he has received. This goes well beyond a one-event bio. Not a BLP1E, and looks notable to me.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough sources for notability and these sources are already present on the page. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elvish is the winner of noted noted reality show Big Boss.Collegeboy12 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several sources exist in independent sources, and >15M subscriber count on YouTube. Article content issues and reasons for popularity nothwithstanding, I believe it clears the criteria of notability. WeWake (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm surprised to see this be nominated for deletion. He is clearly notable, there are many articles about him related to different events. An article being bad is not a reason to delete it. KnowDeath (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shania Yan

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:SINGER criteria. I cannot find multiple independent, credible sources on the web. I began trying to remove obviously-bad sources but reverted when I realized I would have stripped the article of basically all citations and I wasn't having luck finding better ones. The sources in the article appear to be promotional articles and almost all of them do not actually match the statements they're supporting:

Article Text	Source
Details about her family and early education remain private, as she prefers to keep her personal life out of the public eye	Blog post which does not match what it's supporting in the article, appears to be AI
Her content often draws inspiration from anime and video games like Genshin Impact, reflecting her personal interests	Blog post which does not match what it's supporting in the article, appears to be AI
"Her Instagram account, also under @shaniayanofc, has over 2 million followers, where she shares selfies and career-related content"	Two sources: beacons.ai marketing platform, and myCast which is user-generated content

I'm unable to find credible, independent sources in my Googling. The only thing that comes close is the paper listed as a source in the article. While articles generated through AI are not (to my knowledge) automatic candidates for AfD, it's still worth mentioning that the article itself appears to be mostly just that, and some of the sources' URLs show very clearly that the editor arrived there by ChatGPT (https://beacons.ai/i/blog/shania-yan-bio?utm_source=chatgpt.com). I don't believe this meets notability per WP:SINGER, and if it does meet notability, I'm not sure how we're going to replace the bad sources if independent, credible ones do not exist. —tony^{st (talk)} 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Indonesia. —tony^{st (talk)} 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes I agree that major revisions are needed in this article, but I definitely do think the subject of the article is notable. There is also a peer reviewed article on her song : https://jurnal.masoemuniversity.ac.id/index.php/englishpedagogy/article/view/677 Yes, most of the current content are unsourced because some are from primary sources, but those can be improved. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Earwig results raised some questions about the originality of the lead for me, and due to the only keep vote coming from the author, I'm going to support draftifying this article. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 14:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a claim to notability in the article and the sources are particularly weak and don't seem to match the claims they are attached to, per nom. In my own searching I found nothing better than anything in the article. Moritoriko (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umair (music producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. At first glance there appears to be significant coverage but looking closer you will see that most are not bylined, are from unreliable sources, or just routine coverage or mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Umair meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. His 2024 album Rockstar Without a Guitar peaked at #8 on Spotify Pakistan and was featured in Genius Community’s 25 Best Albums of 2024 (ThePrint). His single “Asli Hai” topped YouTube Pakistan charts (Music Metrics Vault). Covered by reliable sources like Samaa TV, ThePrint, Wordplay Magazine, and Itz Hip Hop. Producer for notable duo Young Stunners. Meets NMUSIC via charting work, media coverage, and national significance.

— Behappyyar (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSICIAN would not be met based on charting. Spotify and YouTube are not acceptable under WP:CHART. Also, being a producer for someone notable does not come with inherent notability. Can you address the non-bylined references? Do you feel these are reliable and if so how? For WP:GNG, you are also cited press releases above which can never be used for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 While it’s true that WP:CHART places limits on YouTube/Spotify data for standalone notability, those indicators support broader cultural relevance under WP:NMUSIC#1 and WP:GNG. Chart placements help demonstrate impact in the absence of traditional charts in South Asia, where mainstream media often lags behind independent or digital-first musicians.

Regarding sources:

Samaa TV and ThePrint are independent, professional outlets with editorial oversight and journalistic standards. These are not self-published or fan-driven and are widely accepted as RS in other music-related AfDs.
The Itz Hip Hop review is bylined and analytical, not promotional; it contains critical assessment of Umair’s production and album structure.
The Wordplay Magazine article, while regional, is independent and contains critical evaluation — see similar RS used in AfDs for artists in UK/India-Pak context.

I accept that the ANI press release cannot count toward WP:GNG, but it was cited for factual support of chart placements, not to satisfy notability directly.

Notability isn’t only about headlining credits. Umair is the primary producer behind Rebirth and Open Letter, two of the most discussed hip-hop albums in Pakistan — both critically reviewed in RS and recognized in independent retrospectives. His influence is creative and structural, meeting WP:NMUSIC#2 (“significant contribution to the work of others that is covered in reliable sources”).

On balance, the article meets WP:GNG through multiple independent sources with critical commentary, and WP:NMUSIC through documented production of notable albums and influence on Pakistan’s hip-hop scene.

— Behappyyar (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a major role in major works proves notability. Could you give more info on the part he played and on the notability of those albums? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to forget: Talha Anjum's most famous song Kaun Talha? in which he diss an Indian rapper Naezy was produced by Umair. ^[1] Behappyyar (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@(Itzcuauhtli11) He served as the lead producer and co-composer on both Rebirth (2017) and Open Letter (2023), two landmark Urdu hip-hop albums in Pakistan.

On Rebirth, Umair produced all 15 tracks for Young Stunners, a duo considered foundational to Pakistani rap. The album is credited with shaping the Urdu hip-hop scene and received wide media attention from outlets like SAMAA TV.^[2]

For Open Letter, he was again the key producer, collaborating with Talha Anjum and international names such as KRSNA. The album was reviewed independently and discussed critically within South Asian music forums.^[3]^[4]

These albums are not just popular but culturally significant, marking key points in the evolution of Pakistani hip-hop. Umair’s complete production involvement and critical coverage of these albums demonstrate a major creative role in notable works, satisfying WP:NMUSIC#2 and strengthening his case under WP:GNG. ^[5]

References

^ "Indian rapper asks 'Talha Kaun?', Talha Anjum responds with a brutal diss track". Images.Dawn.com. Dawn Media Group. 21 May 2025. Retrieved 23 May 2025.
^ "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.
^ "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".
^ "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".
^ "Umair and Jokhay The man behind the rise of Talha Anjum amd Talha Younas".

There is a huge WP:WALLOFTEXT so I will only be addressing some of the main points. I wouldn't consider Young Stunners even notable despite having a Wikipedia page (that one needs to go to AfD as well). A single collaboration with a rapper is not something that gains inherent notability. Everything else is more of an WP:ILIKEIT argument. As far as the "landmark" albums you speak of, I would guess they would have enough coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page since they are landmark, yet I do not see it. Fact is, the coverage has some mentions, routine announcements, and unreliable sources (even a publication that is reliable like Dawn can have specific articles considered unreliable - see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). The rest of what you cited is not reliable (two blogs and Reddit?). If this artist was truly worthy of notice (a requirement of notability), there would be more than blog posts and promotional churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 This isn’t WP:ILIKEIT—his notability stems from his influence on multiple notable works. While some early coverage may be light or promotional, there is independent, reliable coverage (e.g., SAMAA TV, The Express Tribune, and Dawn articles/interviews) highlighting Umair’s production role. [37]. Behappyyar (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The comment proves what I have been saying. You cite this which is a routine announcement and not-bylined. It is not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. It is the same concept as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Finally, please do not cite interviews anymore. They are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link i have shared Umair slides into Genius Top Albums of the Year is not a routine announcement. It highlights Umair’s recognition by Genius alongside global artists like Beyoncé. This editorial coverage by a reliable source (The Express Tribune) goes beyond routine mentions and supports notability per WP:GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already stated numerous times. It is NOT BYLINED and falls under similar concerns as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Articles published under "news desk" or "webdesk" have consistently found to be unreliable for notability purposes as they are promotional churnalism, not something in-depth written by a journalist. Please see WP:CIR. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: would benefit from additional input. Contributors are also reminded to please refrain from using LLMs to generate walls of text, as they don't help anyone. Write your own arguments, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I lean to agree with CNMall41; most of the articles with SIGCOV doesn't mention the author of the article, and all of them have promotional undertones. The Rolling Stones review is nice, checks all the boxes for a good sources (except the promotional vibes). If we can find another 2+ sources of the quality of this Rolling Stones article, we can save the article. This source also has a little bit specifically on Umair. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought the Rolling Stone reference was okay, but when I looked closer during a WP:BEFORE, I saw it was Rolling Stone India which is not Rolling Stone and has different (if any) oversight authority. Should be treated similar to Forbes India or Entrepreneur India. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Ghorbani

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Attempted to draftify but OP recreated it in mainspace. It was noted this was the "english" version so I looked at Wikidata and it appears there is a mass posting campaign across many languages. CNMall41 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Iran. CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a real person, one of the Iranian music artists and press writers. As you can see, the article has complete sources and is well-known. Given the importance of the topic, there is no reason to delete the article!Thank You! Rahavardeparsì (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This appears to be a case of long-term abuse. See User:Richardsondiva. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link before it was blanked. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:, it in fact is, across multiple Wikipedia projects. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Iran, due to internet filtering and users connecting to VPNs, there are always network interferences and I have no knowledge of the past. As I said, the article has a valid and necessary topic and sources. It is better to discuss whether the article should remain or not. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahavardeparsì. You have "no knowledge of the past" yet you happened to recreate an article of Hamidreza Ghorbani very similar to that created by User:Farbodzade. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Raha and we share the same internet with Farbodzade. We are trying to create. We are students of Professor Hamidreza Ghorbani. Look at our edits. We do not intend to sabotage the files. We only made edits. Please do not seek adventure and comment on whether the article should remain or not. This is a poll, not an interrogation! Should the article remain or be deleted? Rahavardeparsì (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked, not by me but by another user, to disclose outside connections you have. Up to this point you have been skewing this discussion about long-term abuse. I question your sincerity. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be pessimistic. I am honest with all users. We are the educated class of Iran and we have learned the way of honesty from our professors. If you and other friends believe that our professor's article should remain, please vote positive and save the article. We, the people of Iran, love all the people of the world. Thank you for your attention. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:, it is. The SPI found the connection which is something that should have been disclosed in the beginning by the user (only now they talk about "shared internet" now that they are aware of the SPI). The LTA can be dealt with once the AfD has run its course in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know anything about the Iranian internet. We have connectivity problems and many networks and sites are filtered here. Yes, we have shared internet because Farbodzadeh is my neighbor and we live in a residential apartment. I am not looking for adventure and we respect your decision to stay or delete the article. You are respected. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Time to discuss the article not the editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article can remain. Objection to deletion. Reason: Reliable sources and importance of the topic. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Junker

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

Article has been orphaned for more than a year; the main subject is of the memorial that never happened, not the person himself. Does not meet WP:BIO LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Wisconsin. LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clear cut application of WP:ONEEVENT here - subject is only notable for a single event that made the news, and all of the coverage of his death focused on that same event. I also don't think the construction of the shrine passes WP:NEVENT, so a page move from Ted Junker to an article about the event is not a viable alternative to deletion. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added some refs. The reason for my "keep" is that I have found accounts of this in a variety of sources, including a newspaper in Iceland (no idea what it says but it's about this). A story went out over Associated Press so it got spread pretty far. I also recognize the WP:ONEEVENT aspect so would not protest if this gets deleted. Lamona (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found my link to the Icelandic news article: Hitlers-stofa hættuleg heilsunni?

Blaðið, Iceland 16 June 2006 Lamona (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person that's been deceased for a decade, possibly wanting to do some controversial things before passing away.... I don't see notability. Barely even BLP1E, not even sure the "event" even happened... From what I see in the article, the monoment was blocked from ever being build, students protested... Then Junker dies and the story ends. More of an interesting/colorful local tidbit at this point than anything notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chee

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:GNG as refs don't pass WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Malaysia. UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Peter Chee is ranked #2 globally by Global Gurus (2023) and was named to the inaugural Coaches50 list by Thinkers50. Both these platforms are independent, reputable authorities in executive coaching. He has co-authored books with Jack Canfield, Brian Tracy, and Marshall Goldsmith, and is featured in major media including The Star and CNN Philippines. The article cites independent, verifiable sources. It meets notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CORP and should be "KEEP". User:CS Aaron 08:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I" and "V" are only two parts. Please read WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was just at a previous AFD a few days ago so it is ineligible for another Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely looks like a grifter with no meaningful contribution to the coaching profession. All "sources" are PR driven. 178.23.206.26 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. No significant coverage in any reliable sources other than fluffy executive profiles. N3rsti (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the article. All sources are clearly verified and credible. His contributions to thought leadership through original coaching models and internationally recognized certifications are substantial and well-documented. Collaborations with top-tier coaches and recognition by global rankings should not be discounted simply because the subject operates outside more traditionally covered geographies. This article clearly meets notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CORP and should be KEPT. User:CS Aaron (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP What is the fuss? The references are there, the sources are credible, the people who work with him are real; they’re not suing him for using their name, and the work produced in executive coaching is documented and accessible. Good to see Asian contributions in this field. This article should be KEPT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:3800:8FF:B14B:6948:C9D0:AF83:46DB (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the person has received media coverage in presumably Asian countries, CNN Vietnam, etc. to meet GNG. --Antônia Tônia (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-published and/or unreliable sources, many are tangent and do not concern with the subject leaving actual number of sources to be too thin, if any, to meet notability. WeWake (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some source analysis, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Curious how The Star, Thinkers50, McGraw Hill, and ICF all suddenly became “unreliable” when covering an Asian coach. They’re established, independent sources with global credibility. Dr. Chee has co-authored with Goldsmith, Canfield, and Tracy. He’s been ranked #2 in the world by Global Gurus and listed by Thinkers50. That’s significant, independent recognition. How are those fluff? Notability isn't limited to coverage in U.S. or U.K. media. This meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS Aaron (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

Article appears to be a BLP failing WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. The sources listed are primary (1-7) or passing (8). A pretty substantial search turned up nothing covering this individual. Garsh (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Engineering, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which i provided are this man's own interviews. and its very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem though, interviews are primary sources and do not show notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do then. This article is very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I quickly found this article in Israel's newspaper of record. It's about Sassoon and about the organization that interviewed him. Haven't made up my mind yet. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be more about the organization that interviewed Sassoon and Saddam's regime, not necessarily Sassoon himself. I'm not sure that a two paragraph mention in an article about a related topic counts as significant coverage. Garsh (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beginning. If others want to continue the search, they can! gidonb (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaoul Sassoon mentioned is Zionist, who is son of Iraq's Grand Rabbi Sassoon Khadouri. not Engineer Shaul Sasoon Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaul Sassoon is different from this one on whom the article is about Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked some more and did not find enough for the GNG. The domain is not well-covered, so with regret. gidonb (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are news some sources such as Baghdad Observer and al-Watan.com, these are website sources and remaining are interviews in four parts (four refs can be interview themselves and two parts of interview is mentioned in a website separately Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if you want this article to be kept, please indicate Keep in bold font so it doesn't get overlooked. Also a source review would be very helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand. Can you pls explain me what you meant to say Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i believe the article should be kept, even thou its not currently at its best, it is good in expanding on reconigtion of iraqi jews during the 70s-2003, when jews are overshadowed in iraqi history. Local Mandaean (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG. Skitash (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's failing WP:GNG and lacking significant coverage. Cinder painter (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is important with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It gives an important information that just like Christians and Mandaeans, Jews were also a part of Saddam Hussein's government. Unlike the propaganda narrative spread by Israel on anti-Zionist leaders, whom they equate with total antisemitism. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh

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

Most sources are just passing mentions or about retirement or Chief, more in-depth sources needed or nomination will not be withdrawn. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:48, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frivolous nomination. Meets WP:NBIO. Multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources exist that contain significant coverage of him, not just passing mentions.[38][39][40] --Worldbruce (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now. User:Vinegarymass911, were you going to cast a "vote"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received significant coverage beyond routine due to their role in a transition period in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ejaz

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

More reliable sources needed, violates WP:RS unless proven then i will withdraw nomination. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:30, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - This can be Keep on the source mentioned.([41]]) Dv24mail (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep, plus most sources are about passing mentions anyways, if articles with somewhat in-depth sources are deleted, then articles with just passing mentions will also surely be deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Only the nominator can withdraw an AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received widespread coverage as seen in the sources presented. Nomination is retaliation, something the nominator has done before going by their talk page.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Hoping to have clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doar family

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

Long-time orphan with severe lack of footnotes and content demonstrating notability. How this had not been AfDed successfully before is beyond me. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Carolina. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found a few sources here and there but not quite WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - and hoping someone picks up the writing on the article. The Doar family appears to have been one of the more successful and prominent families and plantation owners in the American south. If you do a Google search for Doar Plantation, there are a lot of returns on that search. If you can open this: https://schistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Doar-Middleton-Family-papers-1247.0.pdf There apparently are their NRHP properties also in multiple places. :Also see: Stephen D. Doar papers, 1807-1898 The issue is getting someone to write it Wikipedia style. — Maile (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slaughter

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

Subject fails NPOL and sources are insufficient to satisfy the requirements for GNG (independent, reliable, and substantial coverage). Some are interviews (not even with the subject), while others are election results from unsuccessful candidacy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the discussion, my argument for keeping the article as is, is as follows:

In the NPOL guidelines under the subheading Politicians and judges, it includes politicians who are quote "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Further in this point's explanatory note (8) it states "...A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Slaughter as a local Welsh politician has indeed gained independent news feature stories about him. Here are links to several of them:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50368944

https://nation.cymru/news/anthony-slaughter-re-elected-as-leader-of-wales-green-party/

https://www.penarthtimes.co.uk/news/10945089.penarths-anthony-slaughter-elected-deputy-leader-of-welsh-green-party/

Further here are two articles BBC News articles whereby he is mentioned in passing because he is the leader of the Wales Green Party (non-feature articles):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56644323

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2520dndy6o

Best, Flare Flarehayr (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't much to add except that I agree with @Flarehayr's assessment of the availability of sources on Slaughter. As he is the leader of a sizeable political party in Wales, his position naturally warrants coverage, some of which has been listed out above. I would also argue for keeping the article. Cofion, Fwltur Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my comment above, I have only just noticed the request that new comments be added under this notice. Apologies for missing this, it is my first time participating in a AfD discussion. Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leader of a significant political party. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, leader of a major political party Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For a leader of a political party to be considered notable they have to pass WP:GNG. The sources mentioned above are WP:ROUTINE and WP:ROTM and source like that cannot be used to substantiate notability. WP:NPOL has already been failed here, and same goes for WP:GNG. Being the leader of a political party does not automatically or inherently make one notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:POL states that national politicians are "presumed to be notable". This is the same language the GNG uses. It is then contrasted with local politicians who are only notable if they meet the GNG. The implication is that national politicians are notable whether or not they meet the GNG; compare it to WP:SPORTSPERSON just below, which explicitly notes that "meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability". CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas El Maliki

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article via WP:AFD in March and nothing has changed since then. The nomination statement in the first AFD and comments therein remain valid. Mekomo (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Crime, Discrimination, Internet, and Morocco. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Mccapra (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 and the previous deletion nomination. Also salt to prevent future recreations until he actually becomes notable. λ NegativeMP1 13:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Deletion

This article substantially improves upon the previously deleted version by adding verifiable, independent sources demonstrating Ilyas El Maliki’s notability per WP:GNG:

Global Digital Influence: Ranked by Dexerto as the 12th-largest Kick streamer worldwide and Africa’s #1.
International Sports Role: Official chairman of Morocco’s national team at the Kings World Cup 2024, (Video of the game on Kings League's channel), with repeat invitation for 2025 alongside stars like Lamine Yamal.

Addressing Systemic Bias

While I respect Wikipedia’s deletion processes, I must note the recurring difficulty in establishing notability for clearly significant figures from Morocco and the broader MENA region. Despite providing verifiable, independent sources (including industry rankings and international tournament participation), articles like this face disproportionate scrutiny compared to Western counterparts with similar or lesser achievements.

I urge editors to consider whether this reflects unconscious bias rather than policy compliance. Improve articles, not deleting them, should always be the first option. ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete per previous AfD, little change. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Deletion

the original article of the subject got deleted because claimed "No real sign of notability", I list a number of sources proving that the subject is indeed notable:

- International Tournament Participation: Kings League World Cup 2025.

- Top 15 Streamers Worldwide: ranked at 12.

- Massive coverage by Moroccan press both in English (more), and Arabic.

if all these still don't make the subject notable, then sure go ahead and delete. ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

just to add one more thing (a fact and a message):

The first 3 months of 2023, the subject of this article was the most streamed gamer on YouTube, surpassing IShowSpeed, all this achieved through a dialect (Darija) spoken by about 40 million people, not a major language (English spoken by over 2 billion people). But somehow he is not notable!

It's really demotivating to continue contributing to Wikipedia against all these (unconscious) biases. This is not an accusation, it's studied and proved, "Reliability of Wikipedia". We come here with good intention to contribute, but seems like not on English Wikipedia, unfortunately. El Maliki is literally the biggest streamer in all of Africa according to all reliable sources included (like Dexerto).

respectfully, ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (still new here, I just learnt that this is the right term)!

so, since these discussions are NOT VOTES, then it should be that if 1 editor is able to present sufficient RSs on the subject, it won't matter how many spam "speedy delete"

Allow me to list an organized number of RSs testifying to the notability of the subject of this article:

The most watched streaming gamer of the first quarter of 2023 (surpassing IShowSpeed), Dexerto & SVG.
The 6th highest peak viewed stream on Kick's history (Surpassing Adin Ross, he literally had a stream with President Trump while running for office, still got surpassed by a guy speaking a dialect of 40 million people), Dexerto.
12th biggest streamer worldwide, Dexerto.
His Ultra was the first team selected for the 2025 Kings World Cup Club, the official and sole chairman of the Kingdom of Morocco on a world-class international competition, Kings League Pro.
His life largely covered by multiple RS in different languages: UAE's Al Mashhad, Morocco's most popular press outlets and most RSs: MWN, L'Opinion, Hespress, Le360, and much more.

It's not that difficult to look up stuff on Google. Best ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to have a discussion and evaluation of above sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several of the above sources were highlighted in the previous deletion discussion and practically all of it was deemed not suitable enough to establish notability beyond mere shallow coverage of his criminal record. See WP:SIGCOV. λ NegativeMP1 16:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the previous deletion discussion was disappointing doesn't mean this one has to be too!

Let's discuss the above sources and why they don't establish the subject's notability. (Btw, non of the sources above cover his criminal record but rather his achievements as a streamer and his role as a chairman of Morocco in the Kings World Cup). Rap no Davinci (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the end, Ideophagous provided a 2023 article from Al-Quds Al-Arabi on a Quran related controversy. But we cannot base an article entirely on controversy. IgelRM (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply there is a reason why we're having a second discussion!

the source from Al-Quds Al-Arabi you mentioned is not listed in the sources above nor it's included in the current article, so it really has nothing to do with our discussion here.

The sources above are L'Opinion, Hespress, Al-Mashhad, Morocco World News, and Kings Leagues official website, all covering his role as a chairman of Morocco + Dexerto writing about his achievements as the biggest streamer in Africa.

All these sources together (plus more) is enough to establish the subject's notability as an online streamer and media personality. Rap no Davinci (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article cites several sources considered reliable in Morocco and the Arab world. Most of them focus on his streaming career rather than past legal issues. WikiEdWoq (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think some source analysis by uninvolved editors could be helpful here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 and salt. Questionable sigcov and this was settled in favor of delete only to be recreated. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply G4: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies."

The current page is not substantially identical to the deleted version (as determined by an admin, see reason of his decline of CSD ) and about 50% of the sources listed weren't used/discussed before! Rap no Davinci (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made my case in the last deletion discussion, please read my arguments for keeping the article there.--Ideophagous (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per G4. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, there are 42 refs listed in the article, at least half of them were never used in the previous deletion discussion, yet not one editor bothered to check them out and explain to us here why they don't establish notability of the individual. Writing "speedy delete" is quite pointless considering that it got declined before, and the current article address the reasons for which the previous one got deleted.

Almost all major Moroccan media wrote about him in Arabic, French and English as well as other sources from overseas.

Still hoping to have an actual discussion! Rap no Davinci (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hunt (editor)

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

This article has existed in a pretty dire state since its creation in 2006. Over the past two decades, a dearth of significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources has been noted. It seems that the subject's alleged notability was inherited from their affiliation with the Green Anarchist publication and their later affiliation with Troy Southgate's national-anarchism.

None of the sources currently cited in this article give the subject substantial coverage independent of these two areas. There appears to be no information that could construct anything resembling a biography about this person. As this article appears to fall short of our notability guidelines on people, I'm recommending this article for deletion; a possible alternative to deletion could be redirecting to the Green Anarchist article. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Politics, Environment, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Anarchism as a suitable alternative to deletion, since he's affiliated with the topic. He is just as affiliated with Alternative Green, but since we have no article on that, I think the former is a better target than some broader article on national anarchism or the political right in the UK. I didn't see enough in a source search that we could use to substantiate a standalone article. czar 13:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal would be a redirect to Green Alternative so I wonder if we should create a stub for that? Otherwise redirect to Green Anarchist would be fine. However, Green Anarchism (which goes to Green anarchism) is far too general and would be a bad move. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: Was Green Alternative even notable enough for an article? If there's no significant coverage of it, like there isn't of its founder, then I think it could easily be covered by a few sentences in the Green Anarchist article. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you’re right. I’ve got a bunch of tabs open so will look. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see there is currently a Green Alternative page which is a disamb page that doesn’t include Hunt’s group. I’ll add it there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green Anarchism is not a viable target because "Richard Hunt" is not mentioned there. These are the sort of confusing redirects that get created at AfD, linger a few months, and then have to get deleted at RfD. Let's avoid creating them in the first place. Cremastra (u — c) 23:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I took on de-stubifying this article at Project Anarchism, I had lots of tabs open. I've now gone through these and added as much material to the page as I can find. Some of it is from solid reliable sources; some (including more biographical material) is from weaker primary sources. My feeling now is there is enough here to keep the article. However, an alternative that I would also support would be to Rename as Green Alternative (magazine) or Green Alternative (UK) and rewrite it so the focus is on the publication/group not the individual. I would also be happy to merge the content into the (currently badly sourced) Green Anarchist article (but that might give Hunt too much space there). I still have a bunch of tabs open with the aim of improving that article. Pinging previous contributors Grnrchst and Czar in case my edits change their mind, and also John Eden who has done the most solid editing on the GA article and Jdcooper who I believe created this stub. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the expansion! There are a few different threads here but my thoughts are: (1) The Hunt article still is too dependent on primary sources for basic details—i.e., there isn't enough coverage of Hunt himself in reliable, secondary sources to avoid having to revert to reliable sources—so I think the best bet is to redirect (but to where?) (2) Is there enough content on Alternative Green for a dedicated article? In the linked sources that I've read, AG is just part of the Southgate story and the actual scope of those articles is Southgate's movement in the UK which, in lieu of a separate article, is essentially the scope of National-anarchism. Would it suffice to cover GA in its own article (as it is) and AG in the National-anarchism article, where Hunt is already mentioned? (3) As for where to redirect Hunt, I'd sooner redirect to GA because I read the sources as associating him better with that then AG but if he is equally associated with both, we might want to delete the Hunt link as having no clear redirect target. I think that is a better outcome than redirecting to National-anarchism, where Hunt is mentioned but is not clearly affiliated. czar 01:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still recommend redirecting to GA at this point but courtesy ping @Bobfrombrockley @Grnrchst czar 12:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Keeping this article isn't a hill I'd die on. Unless someone publishes some new research, it's unlikely to get stronger than it is. I personally think there's enough in it now to just keep it as it is, but if other editors don't then fair enough. (2) If we do delete it, I think there is some case for creating an article for AG, because it existed for about a decade and gave rise to significant controversy within the anarchist scene. But it won't be substantially stronger than this article, just avoid some of the BLP related concerns. If not, I don't think national anarchism is a good redirect point. Hunt is mentioned only briefly in the national anarchism article, and currently AG isn't mentioned at all. We could expand that, but it would remain marginal to the story, so that would not be a good place to redirect AG. (Hunt and AG should be expanded in Southgate's article too. If we delete this article, should make sure to copy relevant text to those articles first.) If the consensus is for deleting this article and not creating an AG article, then my strong view is that both Hunt and AG should redirect to the GA article and we work on making that robust. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 28 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 06:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Bob's work on this, but I think this should be merged into the Green Anarchist article. Covering Hunt's shift towards the far-right succinctly in a section of the Green Anarchist article would, I think, be a better usage of this information. Macklin's work should also be summarised rather than quoted at-length. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In advance of the deletion, which seems like the emerging consensus, I have copied the relevant parts to the Southgate and Green Anarchist articles, with the only material lost the basically biographical stuff (which is mostly poorly sourced). So, happy for the page to be deleted now. The two articles I've just expanded now will need to be condensed again, though, in particular summarising the long Macklin quotes, as Grnrchst notes, which I'll do when I have time if nobody else does. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kane County John Doe (1994)

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. This possible murder victim was finally identified 30 years after his body was found, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, crime does not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't yet looked for sourcing on this individual, but would like to suggest that merging to Othram#Unidentified remains cases might be a possibility. This case is not yet included in that article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see why this one is borderline, but there is enough coverage in neutral media for this to merit a keep. On a subjective level, it also just feels like a good article to have on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section in Big Water, Utah, the sources in this article are lacking. Scuba 23:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The entire article is self contradictory. It says that he was unidentified, and then goes on and how he was not identified, which makes no sense. This reads like one of those murder cases, not an encyclopedia article. Ping me if you actually fix this, but underneath is a run of the mill missing person story. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian I think I fixed it, namely by adding a section that clarifies the identification. Scuba 15:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. I'm fine with a merge if that's the compromise consensus. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Darkfrog24 that this is a good article to have on Wikipedia. I found it somewhat fascinating. As long as we get any existing kinks ironed out, I'd like to see this one kept. — Maile (talk) 15:06, 2 June 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:01, 13 May 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)} 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient media presence for a socialite, akin to Kardashians, "notable for being notable". --Altenmann >talk 03:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're coming up on a month of this discussion being open, but could still use some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

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

[TOI-1] "Kolkata gets its own Da Vinci Code version with Charnock fiction". The Times of India. 12 March 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[DS-2] "If Only Job Charnock Knew!". The Daily Star. 28 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[IB-3] "Actor Soumitra Chatterjee launches Victor Kalyan Ghoshe's latest novel". Indiablooms. 22 Mar 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[Telegraph-4] "Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay launches author Victor Ghosh's latest book Paranormal 2". The Telegraph. 11 Jun 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[TWF-5] "The Job Charnock Riddle is written as a visual treat: Victor Ghoshe". Trans World Features. 22 May 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[KSCL-6] "Tomb of God". Kerala State Central Library catalogue. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[Waterstones-7] "Tomb of God". Waterstones. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[8] "Indian rapper asks 'Talha Kaun?', Talha Anjum responds with a brutal diss track". Images.Dawn.com. Dawn Media Group. 21 May 2025. Retrieved 23 May 2025.

[9] "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.

[10] "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".

[11] "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".

[12] "Umair and Jokhay The man behind the rise of Talha Anjum amd Talha Younas".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]