Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

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

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Alanna Panday

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Youtuber, who received some coverage because of her relationship with notable people like Chunky Panday, Ananya Panday and her parents Chikki Panday and Deanne Panday, but Notability is not inherited. She clearly lacks wp:SIGCOV in wp:SECONDARY reliable sources.There’s no coverage whoch can be considered critical assessment of her career.

The article creator is currently blocked. Zuck28 (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zuck28 (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traidmarc

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

Going through the sources:

[1] is an interview
[2] is just a quote
[3] he is not mentioned
[4] seems to be promotional content WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA (ends with "Sent from my iPhone")
[5] dead link
[6] interview
[7] broken link to his website
[8] broken link to his company
[9] interview
[10] interview
[11] interview
[12] interview
[13] Amnesty website does not mention Traidmarc
[14] press release
[15] press release
[16] dead link to press release
[17] seems promotional WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA
[18] IMDB
[19] self published
[20] self published/dead link

Does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. A search only found more similar sources. 🄻 🄰 14:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 14:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:RS from reliable secondary sources that are in-depth to prove notability. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 15:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Árpád Ajtony

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Beauty pageants, France, and Hungary. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Selene Delgado

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

Article full of unsourced claims, and the topic is a rumor, so it's in violation of WP:RUMOR. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mexico. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose with better sourcing there could be an article about the "hoax", but we don't even seem to have that. I can't pull up anything about this case. Sourcing now is non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Crime, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Pott

AfDs for this article:

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

The entire article is filled with either unimportant information or promotional information. There seems to be no reason for him to have his own page. The biggest still existent source I could find is this small piece in forbes about his wine not even about him. Every article is about his wine and his credentials are only brought up to promote the wines.

The most notable thing about him is the prize he won, however I have no clue how notable "Food & Wine" is in the landscape of wine judging. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Wine. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Pott in 2008. It was a keep, but a weak one and only 3 participants contributes, only 2 explicitly voted.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article by their Senior Wine Critic [21] and here [22]. Article badly needs updating though. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three articles is enough for WP:NBASIC. 🄻 🄰 14:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Chandrachud

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

Non-notable lawyer, who is a son of some famous personality, but Notability is. NOTINHERENT. Fails GNG & NBIO. Creator is blocked as a sock puppet. Zuck28 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, India, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Kaushik

AfDs for this article:

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

Lesser-known actress with insignificant and non lead roles in multiple projects. Fails Wp:NACTOR. Appears to be a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Zuck28 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough articles for notability. 🄻 🄰 14:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Reley

AfDs for this article:

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

A regular lawyer, doing his work. No SIGCOV, just press releases, blogs, non-reliable and primary sources, YouTube videos, and passing mentions are used as sources. The creator is blocked as a sockpuppet. Written in a very promotional tone and with a Wp:POV, potentially a case of UPE & COI. Fails GNG & NAUTHOR. Zuck28 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, India, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sources are as described by the nominator. 🄻 🄰 14:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kewal Garg

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

Not enough Wp:SIGCOV. Only routine coverage and non-bylined PR articles are available as sources. Zuck28 (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, India, Delhi, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All of the sources are promotional articles. 🄻 🄰 14:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Back

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

Only 1 article links to this. Just seems to be a run of the mill lawyer with most sources being primary and not SIGCOV. Nothing in Australian database trove either. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no articles about him except articles that were published by employer. 🄻 🄰 14:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Hyeong-bin

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

One RS in this (Maeil Business Newspaper); seems to otherwise have insufficient sourcing. Can't find much in Korean language. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Companies, and Software. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hallo. just google his name in korean you get a plenty of resources from the independent entities. Packer25 (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yeah, i agree with the Grapesurgeon, only one reliable source Maeil Business Newspaper is good. Baqi:) (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunty Singh

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

All the sources are about his death. SIGCOV: Not Found, Fails NACTOR, GNG and ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Dance, India, Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. Zuck28 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage appears to be occasioned by his death, assessing the career of someone prominent who has died, not about his death, as would be the case if someone was murdered or died in an unusual way. This kind of editorial obituary coverage actually establishes notability under GNG. Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Career includes non-notable projects, that too without proper citations. Fails Wp:NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regie Tongol

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

Fails WP:GNG. Strongest claim to notability is being a spokesperson (not prosecutor or defense) for a Senate impeachment court. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Law, Politics, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL including WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E. The subject is only getting media attention because he's the spokesperson for the Philippine Senate's impeachment court, which is currently a major political event in the country.AstrooKai (Talk) 13:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Jones

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

I passed this article from AfC despite the tenuous notability, but it appears other similar articles have been declined (see for example Draft:Thomas Brocherie). Therefore, I am inclined to assume I made a mistake in promoting it. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 11:15, 13 July 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 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's very bad practice to immediately nominate an article you have accepted at AfC for deletion; if you doubt its notability, either decline it or leave it for another reviewer. I concur that this article is not notable - a WP:BEFORE search only revealed passing mentions regarding the youth parliament. So we have 3 options: put it back into draftspace, delete, or WP:ATD redirect to New Zealand Youth Parliament#Youth MPs 2025. Curbon7 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nimisha Priya

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

Lacks encyclopedic value or long-term significance, being just one of many similar cases. Created based on news headlines and WP:RECENTISM. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CRIMINAL, and known solely for one event. Additionally, blood money cases are not new in Kerala, let alone India. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Events, Yemen, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's been reported on since 2024-07-05 (for more than a year now), definitely not recentism 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've also found this article from the BBC from 2023 ^[1], from First Post in 2022 ^[2] (though I'm not familiar with this source, so happy to be corrected if this article is not reliable). Plus doing a google search filtering by date quickly turns up dozens of articles about the case from as far back as 2020 in predominantly Indian news sources (I am not very familiar with Indian news sources so don't know which ones are more reliable than others). So clearly the case is notable enough to merit a page and it is not a case of WP:RECENTISM. Per WP:CRIMINAL merging the biography into the page for the crime committed or the case, but it is not obvious to me what page this would be merged in to. Perhaps renaming the article might be appropriate, but otherwise a clear keep for me. Giuliotf (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is rather sustained and reflective on societal impact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above and there is some coverage about her outside the crime in reliable and independent references to the subject. So, it meets general notability guidelines and significant coverage. Fade258 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep In addition to the points made above, it should be noted that while Nimisha Priya is from Kerala, the alleged murder took place in Yemen, not India as the nominator seems to suggest. Additionally, she is scheduled to be executed in three days, which may initiate further coverage. This also causes me to question the timing of this nomination for deletion. - Ike Lek (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above responses. The subject's coverage is recent and from reliable sources to warrant an article, and is likely to only increase in the coming days. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes notability criteria as mentioned in Wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Africa

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

Was deprodded without improvement. Currently, zero in-depth sourcing, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have searched and did not find anything useful. 🄻 🄰 14:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to IBON Foundation as WP:ATD. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Gabriel

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

Insufficiently notable youth team footballer. No first team appearances. Sources do not establish that he is notable on other grounds Pi (Talk to me!) 00:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Pi (Talk to me!) 00:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject fails to meet the WP:YOUNGATH criteria at the moment, as there isn't sustained coverage for the subject yet. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OPHYRIUS ^⚔ 04:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Chalem

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

Under WP:GNG and WP:PROF, this does not warrant a standalone article. Brent Chalem was a minor child actor with supporting roles in 1980s TV and a part in _The Monster Squad_. Aside from a 1997 LA Times obituary, there is no independent coverage, interviews, or critical analysis. Icem4k (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Icem4k (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Icem4k: - how does WP:PROF apply here? Also, I'm seeing some results on newspapers.com. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out, @Starship.paint. You’re absolutely correct that WP:PROF was cited in error—it doesn’t apply here my bad. I should’ve referred to WP:NACTOR alongside WP:GNG.
After carefully reviewing the article again:
- The LA Times obituary and Ventura County Star provide some independent coverage, but the remaining sources are fan retrospectives and blogs.
- There’s no evidence of sustained, in-depth coverage or critical analysis about Brent Chalem himself beyond his one notable role in The Monster Squad.
With that in mind, I still believe the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. However, I’d be open to reconsidering if there are additional substantial sources beyond obituaries and routine filmography mentions. Icem4k (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Icem4k: - thank you for correcting the error. I'm taking a crack at expanding the article and we'll see how it turns out. starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Icem4k: - there's at least two in-depth articles wholly about Chalem [23] [24] and I managed to find sources expanding other parts of the article. What do you think? starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think there are enough articles for notability with the ones found by starship. 🄻 🄰 14:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shafik Quoraishee

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

There's no significant independent coverage or profiles in reliable media to satisfy WP:GNG. Shafik Quoraishee is mentioned in primary or self-published sources (personal website, LinkedIn, Medium) and event listings. Icem4k (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icem4k (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is also his work at Nieman lab: https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/01/how-the-new-york-times-is-building-experimental-handwriting-recognition-for-its-crosswords-app/, which is a significant and notable publication. And also at the Brave Technologist where he was interviewed: https://brave.com/podcast/e71/.

The NYT Open Platform is maintained by the New York Times, where his work is mentioned. https://open.nytimes.com/developing-an-internal-tool-for-our-puzzle-editor-d5dc7a9a6464

He's also mentioned on The New York Times Games wikipedia. The New York Times Games Meester king (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep, based on the above additional sources and notes. Meester king (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Engineering, Computing, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There don't seem to be enough independent sources that cover his person for us to have an article. Notability according to WP:NPROF doesn't seem to apply either; I can find a Shafik Quoraishee who has published a few papers, but nothing nearly prominent enough to meet those criteria. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but willing to change my mind: I don't see multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject in the current references. If someone who was involved in the article wants to take a look, I recommend providing WP:Three sources as a starting point and we can go from there. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noriyo Hiroi

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

Alpine skier that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Japan. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Competed in three Olympics, four World Championships and probably one hundred World Cup races (didn't count them), placing as high as tenth. Tenth place in the world. Searching for her Japanese name, this was the second hit, which entails that WP:SPORTCRIT is met and I therefore don't feel inclined to search further. Geschichte (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it would seem that coverage will almost certainly exist, that source is seemingly a blog and as such isn't reliable. I have not looked further to see what other sourcing might be out there, but we need something a bit better if we are going to keep this article. Let'srun (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, if a suitable redirect target can't be found. Specifically I used her Japanese name when conducting my searches, and while I did get a ton of hits, nearly all of them were blogs or non-independent sources. While notability criteria are helpful, they don't guarantee SIGCOV to exist. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 12:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: It would appear that WP:SIGCOV exists somewhere based on the achievements, but until that can be proven a standalone article is not permissible. I'm also not seeing a clear redirect target, but if someone wants to draftify this, be my guest. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable per Geschichte. And this source describes a feature story on her titled 見えない栄光へのテイクオフ ("Takeoff to invisible glory") published in a magazine. The nominator is also blocked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adebola Opaleye

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

Unfortunately, this seems to be a case where WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA applies, NEWSORGNIGERIA itself says that Nigerian newspaper coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability, particularly for biographies.. All of the cited sources are extremely promotional and it looks like, over the last week, Opaleye has paid to have these articles written. They all seem to have very similar content to each other as well. My own WP:BEFORE only yields other puff pieces. I don't think that we can consider someone notable unless they have significant coverage about them that is not promotional itself. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

- Keep The article meets the notability criteria per WP:GNG with multiple independent, reliable sources including *The Nation*, *Vanguard Nigeria*, *The Guardian Nigeria*, *Tribune*, and *Independent*. These are mainstream national newspapers with editorial standards. Speculating that these stories are "paid for" undermines the presumption of good faith toward established media outlets and is not an acceptable basis for deletion. Wikipedia guidelines focus on the existence of reliable, independent coverage — which this article clearly has. The article has been rewritten for neutrality, includes inline citations, and is now linked from relevant articles such as Abeokuta. Sapeotyy (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catherinefo SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Keep The article meets the notability criteria per WP:GNG with multiple independent, reliable sources including *The Nation*, *Vanguard Nigeria*, *The Guardian Nigeria*, *Tribune*, and *Independent*. These are mainstream national newspapers with editorial standards. Speculating that these stories are "paid for" undermines the presumption of good faith toward established media outlets and is not an acceptable basis for deletion. Wikipedia guidelines focus on the existence of reliable, independent coverage — which this article clearly has. The article has been rewritten for neutrality, includes inline citations, and is now linked from relevant articles such as Abeokuta. Sapeotyy (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are the sources so promotional and why do they contain exaggerated claims? For example, Tribune Online is promotional from start to finish and has statements like Because of this mentality, his work has transcended national boundaries. Readers on multiple continents have come to his writings thanks to their appearance in international media. Where exactly has his work featured in international media? All that seems to have happened is a few suspiciously similar promo pieces in Nigerian news sources of questionable reliability. See also Independent, which contains the false/exaggerated statement He is also a recipient of numerous awards from student and youth organizations both in Nigeria and across the diaspora. His work and leadership have earned him recognition as one of the shining lights of Nigeria abroad, and a distinguished youth ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. There are many more examples across the 6 'references'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the notability criteria under WP:GNG, supported by multiple reliable, independent sources including *The Nation*, *Vanguard*, *The Guardian Nigeria*, *Tribune*, and *Independent*. These are recognized national outlets with editorial oversight. The article itself does not include the exaggerated or promotional statements cited by the nominator. Those claims appear only in the sources, not in the Wikipedia article, which has been carefully rewritten in neutral language and structured in line with WP:NPOV and WP:V. The subject's biographical facts — publishing under the name Dakingsman, founding DKMNGR, and being covered in national media — are verifiable and independently published. The existence of strong sourcing satisfies Wikipedia's content policies. Dismissing national news coverage simply because the tone of some articles is enthusiastic is not a valid reason for deletion. The subject has also been internally linked from multiple Wikipedia articles (e.g., Abeokuta), further reinforcing the page's integration into mainspace. -- Sapeotyy (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA? This states Concern has been raised in particular about undisclosed or unclearly disclosed promotional articles. Nigerian journalists are known to give news coverage to individuals and organisations in exchange for payment, a long-standing practice called brown envelope journalism. Consequently, some editors suggest that Nigerian newspaper coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability, particularly for biographies. Do you have any examples of significant coverage outside of the promotional articles from Nigerian newspapers that we can use? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA to imply that all Nigerian journalism is unreliable or that coverage is automatically assumed to be paid for is concerning. While "brown envelope journalism" exists — as it does in many media ecosystems worldwide — it's a practice, not a blanket label. It should not be used to disqualify all Nigerian sources unless specific evidence exists that the coverage in question was paid or promotional in nature.

The article relies on major Nigerian publications — *The Nation*, *The Guardian Nigeria*, *Vanguard*, *Tribune*, *Independent* — which operate with editorial processes and accountability. These sources have published thousands of articles unrelated to the subject and are recognized across numerous other Wikipedia entries.

None of the coverage used here has been proven to be paid, nor are any of the articles labeled as sponsored or advertorials. Importantly, the Wikipedia article itself does not reproduce promotional language — the content has been rewritten in full neutrality, avoiding all subjective claims.

Caution toward sources is valid — but defaulting to the assumption of corruption without specific proof risks being discriminatory and undermines the credibility of legitimate journalism in Nigeria. Wikipedia evaluates sources based on **reliability**, **independence**, and **editorial control**, all of which are present here.

If concerns remain, adjustments can be made to de-emphasize any weak or flowery sources. But deletion on the basis of an assumption about an entire country’s media would set a troubling precedent.

-- Sapeotyy (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question. I repeat. Do you have any examples of significant coverage outside of the promotional articles from Nigerian newspapers that we can use? We can end this AfD now by providing two independent, reliable sources that provide significant and unbiased coverage on the subject. Honestly, it feels like I'm talking to SmarterChild here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want to respond directly and clearly: Nothing in the article indicates that these are promotional or sponsored pieces. That assumption appears speculative and unsupported.

The accusation that these articles are "promo" simply because they are positive or published in Nigerian media misrepresents both the sources and the broader standard of WP:GNG, which focuses on **reliability**, **independence**, and **editorial oversight** — all of which are satisfied here.

Regarding the “SmarterChild” comment — I’m engaging in good faith, answering your questions, and referencing policy throughout. It’s disappointing to be met with sarcasm while defending content supported by verifiable sources. If any specific claim is still of concern, I’m open to clarifying or adjusting. But dismissing an article due to **unsupported generalizations about Nigerian journalism** risks setting an unfair and discriminatory precedent.

-- Sapeotyy (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me, hand on heart, that you don't see any problems whatsoever with the 'references' that you have provided? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern; references on biographical articles should absolutely be scrutinized. That said, the current sources are independent and provide significant coverage of the subject, which meets the threshold set by WP:GNG. While they may not all be high-profile publications, they are publicly verifiable, not self-published, and not trivial mentions.

Of course, if any specific source fails WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV, I’m open to discussing that, but taken together, these references appear to satisfy notability requirements as defined by policy. Sapeotyy (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've reviewed the article and the sources, and in my view, it clearly satisfies notability per WP:GNG. The article itself reads neutrally and is properly referenced. Unless there’s a policy-based argument beyond skepticism of regional media, I don’t see grounds for deletion. Suggest closing as keep. Rhughax (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what a wonderful time to be alive, if this is no a discriminatory reason for your to request for this article to be brought down , and if you haven’t had any prior issues with Nigerian journalism, i will humbly suggest this discussion should be outrightly closed . Furthermore i would suggest editors to consider using their Medulla oblongata before requesting for such an obnoxious yet infinitesimal and nonchalant request about discussing what should not be discussed in a a logical reasoning. Finally should there be need to criticize kindly make it a constructive one and not a direct insult on the country .

Dayballar (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)— Dayballar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - if this article is to be kept then all promotional references need to be removed. Vanguard is promotional. It contains Growing up surrounded by these influences, Adebola found himself swimming naturally in a sea of stories, language, and culture. and His homeland’s stories, traditions, and values created a foundation he carries proudly, inspiring his work and vision. Carrying the Torch Forward Today, Adebola is the publisher of Dkmngr, a platform dedicated to amplifying voices, culture, and creative thought. Tribune Online contains Adebola Opaleye chooses something else: substance in a digital world that often rewards speed and spectacle. And by doing this, he’s not just building a platform; he’s paving the road for others to follow. Because the quietest stories frequently resonate with us the most. Guardian contains Fifteen years in, Adebola Opaleye isn’t chasing visibility. He’s chasing value. He’s publishing not to please the internet, but to serve the people who come to his platform looking for something real. In a time when so much online feels fast and forgettable, DKMNGR and the man behind it remain slow, steady, and unforgettable. The Nation contains many unacceptable sentences. Some of which are Some people don’t need to speak loudly to be noticed. Their work speaks for them. Adebola Opaleye, better known as Dakingsman, is one of those people. and He is continuing a legacy passed down from his grandfather and father: a love of writing, a respect for truth, and a belief in the power of storytelling. But he’s also building his own legacy: one that belongs to a new generation of digital thinkers and truth-seekers. This is just a small list of examples of problems with the references provided. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thanks for the clarification. To be clear: the article does not reproduce the promotional language quoted above. All original coverage, including *The Nation*, *Tribune*, *Guardian*, and *Vanguard*, has been used selectively, with only neutral and verifiable content included in the article. The presence of narrative or expressive writing in a published profile does not make the source unreliable. Many respected biographies in major newspapers feature such language, this is a stylistic choice, not a disqualifier under WP:RS. What matters under WP:GNG is the existence of **significant**, **independent**, and **reliable** coverage, not whether the coverage is enthusiastically written. If specific sources contain flowery or subjective language, the appropriate action is to **de-emphasize or paraphrase** responsibly in the article, not to dismiss the entire source, especially when no evidence has been provided that the pieces are paid content or marked advertorials. This discussion has already confirmed that multiple national outlets with independent editorial standards covered the subject. The current version of the article is neutral and policy-compliant. I recommend closing the discussion as keep, with continued openness to minor trimming if needed. Rhughax (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IS states An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. - the last two words being of particular importance. Can the same honestly be said for any of the references provided for this person? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IS defines an independent source as one with **no vested interest** in the subject. That does not mean the coverage must be negative or emotionless, it means the publisher is **not the subject**, **not paid by the subject**, and has **editorial freedom**. None of the articles used here, from *The Nation*, *Vanguard*, *Guardian Nigeria*, *Tribune*, etc., are self-published, promotional materials, or labeled as sponsored content.

No source has been shown to have a financial or personal connection to Adebola Opaleye or DKMNGR. These are **longstanding newspapers of record** in Nigeria with professional editorial processes. Assuming vested interest because a profile is written in a positive tone sets a flawed and unfair precedent, especially when no such assumptions are applied to equivalent publications in other regions.

Per WP:GNG, notability is based on **significant coverage in reliable, independent sources** — which this article meets. If tone in any source seems too flowery, we adjust the article's content, not disqualify the source unless it's proven to be compromised.

~~Unless there’s direct evidence of bias or paid placement, these sources meet the independence standard required. Rhughax (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)~~— Rhughax (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.[reply]

Rhughax blocked as sock of Catherineinfo

- Keep Now im convinced that you are a sore looser , and a charlatan. I really don’t know why you guys always love to find faults where there is non. I’m sure people like you would have objected the nomination of noble laureate Prof Wole Soyinka who coincidentally hails from same town and city as the person in the article when he was nominated for the prize decades ago. It is a known fact that Nigeria and Africa is naturally blessed with highly intellectual personalities and authors such as Award winning Chiamanda, Chinua Achebe , Ola Rotimi , Amongst several other great and prolific writers of international recognition.
Dayballar (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Dayballer (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. — Dayballar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The difference is that Wole Soyinka isn't sourced purely to PR puff pieces. If you can provide 2 or 3 articles about Opaleye that aren't blatant spam then I'm happy to change my stance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The idea that all of these media outlets just happened to decide to write highly promotional articles about the founder of an obscure blog for no apparent reason within the course of the same week utterly defies credulity. It's completely obvious that all of these articles were paid for. MCE89 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. While the newspapers cited are reliable, those particular pieces referenced in the article are PR puffery clearly paid for. If the article is stripped of those promotional pieces nothing would be left to sustain it. Patre23 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources, all sources I've found are plainly promotional and unreliable, this includes the sources currently used in the article. This comment is non-chronological for the same reasons SandyGeorgia gives below. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, Vanguard Nigeria sample, per nom and per all sources created in the same week. (I am placing my declaration non-chronologically to facilitate capping of the remainder below pending sock puppet investigation.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep as logic suggest, people can be celebrated for so many different reasons and for different reliable media outlet to publish the same thing about Opaleye suggest that he is been celebrated and worthy to be celebrated. Unless there is a policy based argument beyond Opaleye being praised in the media, i suggest closing as keep

9:17 Catherinefo (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)— Catherinefo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:SPIP states Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Do you have any non-promotional sources about Opaleye? I can see that you have tried to write an article about him before as you are the original creator of Draft:Adebola Opaleye? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No i have tried to write an article about him just as anyone might have tried to. I saw this discussion and said maybe i should contribute or is the discussion mainly for “family and friends”? Yeah evidence of notability according to Wiki’s policy are : Significant Coverage, (in at least 3 - 5 publications, newspaper, magazines etc?), Reliable Sources, Independent Sources, so this discussion is a waste of time and also a targeted one with the discriminatory comments made by you! Where can we report editors? Catherinefo (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)— Catherinefo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Do you not find it odd that the founder of a small blog DKMNGR, which, according to Semrush, only gets about 343 visits per month, has somehow had loads of puff pieces published about him in the space of a few days and that all of the pieces have fairly similar wording and content? Also WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA says Concern has been raised in particular about undisclosed or unclearly disclosed promotional articles. Nigerian journalists are known to give news coverage to individuals and organisations in exchange for payment, a long-standing practice called brown envelope journalism. These websites don't tell us if the article is sponsored so we have to use our own common sense. If there is a lot of promotional language about a non-notable person who hasn't achieved anything of note, like Opaleye, then we can safely presume that it's a paid-for promotion. If you wish to report me then please start a new post at WP:ANI. Instructions at the top of the page. Please notify me on my talk page if you wish to report me so that I am given the opportunity to defend myself. Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. There are a few solid, independent sources that give real coverage, not just passing mentions. As common sense suggests, the articles are on “News” categories and if it was to be a promoted post, it would have been on Sponsored post category! Dkmngr is obviously a new website with leas than a year old, It’s clear you have not done your research and clearly speak with a concluded mind that i must delete this man’s page, shame people think that way! Dakingsman is what a lot of people know obviously! which i knw has received attention beyond just self-promotion or routine news. As per you are not a judge, please don’t judge people you don’t knw! I’ve been told you have been harassing people, sending unwanted messages, please stop! 102.88.114.19 (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA says Concern has been raised in particular about undisclosed or unclearly disclosed promotional articles. The point is that a lot of the websites like Vanguard do not disclose whether the article is sponsored or not so we have to use our own discretion. If it is written in a promotional manner and about a relatively non-notable person, then we can reasonably presume that it's a promo piece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something Presume is never factual as common sense suggests! Vanguard is not the only article that has written about the subject, nevertheless, Vanguard has got a section/category for promoted content which suggests your arguments are baseless! Non-notable person to me might be a star or celebrity in your village or city, which ever one 102.88.114.79 (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.114.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep! I have to log out of my account as a lot of user are reported being harassed by certain editor! My contribution is that this discussion should not have started, whoever that started this discussion surely has not tangible to do! Why would anyone categorised 5 different national newspaper outlet, labelling their journalistic work as being a brown envelop journalist. This happens when power is given to those that don’t deserved it! The article pass the notability criteria, and hasn’t mentioned anything enthusiastic. The fact that media outlets are praising their fellow journalist doesn’t suggest they are paid to do it as being implied here. Any time there’s any discussion about reporting this editor, please let me know as i’m not happy showing my IP to the public because of an editor drunk in power 102.89.46.82 (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already replied to you before, you can report me at WP:ANI. There is a button near the top that says 'Start a new discussion'. Any more accusations of bad faith against me should be made solely at ANI and not on this AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time talking here, what do you mean by as you have replied me before. Anyway, the discussion here is about the article not about a Wikipedia “Editor” 102.89.46.82 (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikipedia Editor left his glasses at home 102.88.114.79 (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.114.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - since the promotional nature of the references clearly calls their independence from the subject into question, there is an alternative route to notability that hasn't been explored yet. WP:JOURNALIST gives 4 ways in which a journalist may meet Wikipedia guidelines. Is Opaleye a widely cited news journalist? Is he known for originating a new concept within the journalism industry? Has he played a significant role in creating a well known body of work at all? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:MEAT in this discussion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Keep* - Thank you for raising WP:JOURNALIST. However, this guideline is a specialized supplement, not a replacement for the general notability guideline (GNG). WP:JOURNALIST applies primarily to professional news reporters, columnists, or investigative journalists, whereas Opaleye is more accurately described as a digital publisher and cultural commentator.
The article establishes notability through multiple independent and reliable sources, which meet WP:GNG by providing significant coverage. Whether or not the subject meets one of the four journalist-specific criteria is secondary, since notability via GNG is already demonstrated.

If concerns remain about tone or individual sources, they can be addressed through content revision, not deletion, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV.

-- Dayballar (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Dayballer (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Do you have any non-promotional news sources that could replace the current ones? This deletion discussion can be ended now if you provide 2 to 3 sources that aren't blatant PR/spam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what qualifies as a blatant PR/ Spam sources or articles ? This discussion is synonymous to perambulating you keep saying the same thing over and over, I have also observed that most of the sources are categorized under news and not promotional as you alleged. Yet you kept on making serious , baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against the subject. I vividly recall you once alleged the subject to have paid for the articles to be published an allegation that could subject you to legal preceding.

Dayballar (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

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

The Vanguard article is egregiously promotional. Firstly the title is The Story of Adebola Opaleye and a Legacy Written in Blood which is not neutral. There are several sentences that also make it PR. Such examples are Adebola’s story is a vivid example of this truth. Born into a family where storytelling and writing run like water through generations, he didn’t just find his place in the world of words; he was born into it, raised by it, and shaped by it. and the last part Adebola Opaleye’s journey is a living testament to the Yoruba saying, “Omo eja lo ni bú.” He swims naturally in the waters his ancestors charted, carrying their stories forward while shaping new ones. His life and work remind us that some gifts aren’t chosen; they’re inherited, lived, and honored. And in that inheritance lies both power and purpose. Are you happy for me to remove the Vanguard article from the references? I will then approach the other sources with similar criticism. Also, please clarify your last comment. Is that a threat of legal action? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your close reading of the Vanguard article, and you're right that some passages include figurative or narrative language. However, promotional tone within a source does not automatically disqualify it under WP:RS, especially when the article itself is published by an established newspaper with editorial oversight. Wikipedia's policies focus on whether coverage is significant, independent, and published by a reliable source not whether the language is stylistically enthusiastic.

That said, if certain passages are overly interpretive, I'm open to **de-emphasizing** or trimming reliance on that source where appropriate, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. But removing entire sources that are clearly independent and reliable (such as Vanguard Nigeria) without consensus may be premature.

My earlier comment was meant to defend the credibility of the Nigerian media and highlight the importance of not dismissing entire news ecosystems based on tone. If the wording suggested otherwise, I’ll happily clarify.

-- 102.88.114.79 (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.114.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see your talk page (I'm replying here since you appear to be logged out of that account.) 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard (Nigeria) at Reliable sources noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm a relatively new and came across this AfD while reading up on Nigerian media figures. I’ve read through the discussion, checked the article, and also looked at the sources. Honestly, it seems like the subject meets the notability guidelines under WP:GNG, there are multiple articles from established Nigerian newspapers like The Nation, Tribune, Guardian Nigeria, and Independent Nigeria that provide detailed coverage.

Yes, some of the language in those sources is a bit dramatic or poetic, but that’s often just the writing style of profiles and features. That doesn’t automatically mean the sources aren’t independent or reliable. What matters is that they’re not self-published, and there’s no clear sign that they were paid for or lack editorial oversight. The article itself has already been cleaned up to avoid promotional tone, which is the right way to deal with that concern.

I also don’t think WP:JOURNALIST really applies here, he’s a digital publisher, not a traditional reporter. So I’d say GNG is the right standard.

From what I can tell, this is a notable individual with credible coverage, and the article’s been improved based on feedback. I don’t see a strong case for deletion.

-- 105.113.18.139 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 105.113.18.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep as per norms Jumping in here as someone just reading this with fresh eyes. I don't see how this article violates any Wikipedia policies. The subject has received coverage in multiple national newspapers, which are independently published and meet the bar for reliability. Even if the writing in some of those sources is a bit over-the-top, the article itself has been rewritten to be neutral and straightforward, that’s what matters.

Not every biography is going to read like an academic journal, and I don’t think it's fair to assume bad faith just because a few quotes sound poetic. If the article sticks to verifiable facts, uses proper citations, and avoids puffery, which it does now, then it’s doing what Wikipedia asks. That should be enough.

Deleting it because of how some third-party journalists chose to write their articles doesn’t feel like the right approach here.

-- 87.196.74.188 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 87.196.74.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: No WP:RS. Source #4 is an interview. SPI investigation and random Keep votes above are the nail in the coffin for me. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I've followed the discussion and taken time to look through the article myself. From what I can tell, a lot of the initial concerns, especially around tone, have already been addressed. The current version is neutral, sourced, and sticks to biographical facts without the promotional language that some were worried about.
Wikipedia encourages editors to improve content when possible, not just delete it, especially when the subject is clearly covered in multiple independent and credible sources. That’s been done here. If any sources still feel too flowery or borderline, those can be trimmed or supplemented. But none of this rises to the level of deletion.

This is a cleaned-up, policy-compliant article about someone who meets notability based on the coverage shown. It doesn’t break any content rules, so I don’t see a reason to remove it.

-- 102.89.46.82 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.89.46.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep – Honestly, I don’t have any connection to the topic, but the article doesn’t seem out of place at all. It’s structured like a typical Wikipedia biography, uses multiple published sources, and sticks to facts. I didn’t see anything that felt promotional in the current version.

Not every source will be perfectly written, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t independent or reliable. Nigerian media outlets are being treated with a bit of extra skepticism here, which feels unfair. If the subject has been covered multiple times in national publications, which he has, that’s enough to meet notability.

Wikipedia works best when we fix things that might be imperfect instead of deleting articles that meet the core criteria. That feels like the case here.

-- 105.113.18.139 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: 105.113.18.139 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Delete If ever we need examples of what WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is about, the sources cited in this article have to be prime candidates. None of them do anything beyond demonstrate how easy it is to get vacuous promotional pap published in that unfortunate country. Accordingly, since we have nothing remotely approximating to legitimate evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability criteria, we should decline to host this fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Looking through this discussion, it seems like the deletion arguments rely more on tone and interpretation than actual policy violations. There’s a lot of focus on whether the sources are too flattering, but not much suggesting that they’re unreliable or non-independent in any factual sense. These are nationally recognized publications, and they've written multiple pieces that provide significant coverage of the subject.
Yes, some of the original writing was probably too promotional, but that’s been edited out. What’s left is neutral, sourced, and policy-aligned. Deleting an article because some of the coverage is stylistically enthusiastic feels like overreach, especially when the article itself is no longer promotional.

If we start applying this kind of standard too broadly, we risk throwing out valid entries just because the subject wasn’t profiled in the most objective language. That’s not what deletion is for.

-- 102.88.108.124 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.108.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please stop wasting people's time with this repetitive nonsense. Given the complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy demonstrated, it is going to have no influence whatsoever on the outcome of this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this gets deleted, I highly recommend salting the page and/or adding it to the title blacklist. It will almost certainly be recreated. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that recommendation is premature. Whether or not the article is ultimately kept, suggesting preemptive salting or blacklisting assumes bad faith from future contributors. Wikipedia operates on the principle of assuming good faith and encourages improving content over suppressing it.

If the article were ever recreated in violation of policies, standard procedures already exist to manage that. But recommending a title blacklist at this stage sends the wrong message, especially when there are editors currently working in good faith to meet sourcing and neutrality standards.

-- 102.88.104.53 (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.104.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It would be helpful if you tell us exactly who made you come to this discussion and why. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody asked me to come here, i was going through Nigeria’s journalist page on Wikipedia where i came across this post. I bet a lot of people are swinging by from there! You don’t assume or presume bad reputation about a whole country and not expect people to come here and check it out 102.88.104.53 (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did a specific person or website make you come to this discussion? It's important you answer honestly. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the sources are blatantly promotional. Many also have no byline and are interviews (wouldn't be independent even if the article weren't paid for). Per the extensive socking here, the closing admin should consider SALTing as well. Toadspike [Talk] 10:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’d like to address two concerns raised here. First, the suggestion to preemptively "salt" the page title if this article is deleted seems both speculative and inappropriate at this stage. Salting is typically reserved for pages with a long history of disruptive recreation, not for a biography that is currently being discussed on its merits. Jumping ahead to title blacklisting assumes bad faith and undermines the principle of WP:IMPROVE.

Second, accusations of meatpuppetry should not be made lightly. Per WP:MEAT, such claims require strong evidence. A group of editors expressing similar views does not automatically indicate coordination or abuse. Wikipedia encourages diverse participation, and dismissing contributions solely due to account age or agreement in perspective can discourage constructive involvement. Let’s keep the focus on sources, neutrality, and notability, not on casting doubt over contributors.

– 197.211.57.27 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)— 197.211.57.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - As others pointed out, these news articles are very promotional, not independent, and certainly not reliable. I have to note that all of them, except the Vanguard article which was published June, were published this month. This, evidently, is an extensive attempt to publicize this non-notable person. The closing admin should salt to enforce AfD. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve followed this discussion and noticed that early in the process, there were reports of suspected sockpuppetry, and some accounts were blocked. That’s understandable, Wikipedia takes socking seriously. But now, with no further blocks and no technical evidence, there seems to be a shift toward speculating that remaining participants are “meatpuppets.”

It’s important to be cautious with such accusations. Just because several editors (especially from Nigeria or familiar with the subject) participate and share a viewpoint doesn’t mean the discussion is coordinated. In many cultures, and particularly within the Nigerian community, people naturally rally around when one of their own is being discussed publicly. That’s not manipulation; it’s engagement.

Let’s focus on whether the article meets WP:GNG and is written in a neutral, policy-compliant way. Blanket assumptions about the good faith of others can lead to unfair conclusions, and Wikipedia policy encourages us to evaluate arguments, not origin.

– 102.89.33.229 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the existence of multiple recent sources is itself evidence of non-notability or manipulation. Public figures often receive concentrated media attention during a specific period, it doesn't automatically equate to self-promotion or coordinated publicity. The key standard under WP:GNG is whether the coverage is significant, independent, and from reliable sources, not how recently it occurred.

The publications cited, The Nation, Guardian Nigeria, Independent, Tribune, Vanguard, are established national newspapers with editorial oversight. Dismissing them all categorically undermines the credibility of Nigerian journalism, which is not in line with WP:RS unless there's a consensus at WP:RSN to exclude them individually.

Finally, suggesting the page be salted simply because there was recent attention or participation is excessive and contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of WP:IMPROVE and openness. If issues remain, the article can be trimmed, cleaned, or even redirected, but salting is meant for persistent abuse, not disagreement over sourcing.

– 102.88.114.105 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posting this garbage is a complete waste of your time. Absolutely no notice of it is going to come into consideration when this discussion closes, since it is (a) not based on Wikipedia policy, and (b) self-evidently the work of a single individual spamming the same repetitive drivel though multiple IPs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for all of the reasons previously provided. 🄻 🄰 14:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Miot

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

Searched through databases in my "Haitian articles toolkit", but returned no sources with significant coverage. Contemporary Haitian and American news give only mentions. Also a case of WP:BIO1E. The article was prodded over a decade ago, but contested per WP:ANYBIO. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Haiti. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found on the BNF Gallica either [25] using the name with or without quotes. If the nom can't find any using their rather impressive Haitian article toolbox, I don't think there is much to find. One ref now in the article isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Oaktree and nominator. 🄻 🄰 14:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Eichholzer

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Switzerland. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to 1928 Summer Olympics. I can't find any meaningful coverage, and based on his record (he DNFed at the one Olympic event he participated in) I would be surprised if there is anything substantial to be found, but happy to re-eval vote if someone can turn up more. Zzz plant (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with a redirect, although Switzerland at the 1928 Summer Olympics might be a better target. Thoughts? Let'srun (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I think that's probably a better target. Zzz plant (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun have you searched e-newspaperarchives.ch? I haven't gotten very far into the results and I've already found a short article [26] that says someone by this name won a team national championship in 1943, on a team that had (by that point) won the national championship ten times. Toadspike [Talk] 19:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't searched there yet, but from what I can tell via a brief glance there are just some mentions of the name, and I couldn't tie any of them definitively to the Olympian. Feel free to ping again if you can find anything else. Let'srun (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marudhu Pandiyan

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

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd references in the article are reviews about the film. LKBT (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and Tamil Nadu. LKBT (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject appears to meet notability guidelines for film directors. Reliable sources from The Hindu, Film Companion, and others exist and have been added. Will continue to improve article with inline citations. Surendrankaliyaperumal (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved !vote from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Marudhu Pandiyan. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dipti Ranjan Sahoo

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

Unable to find any satisfied reference to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, India, and Delhi. LKBT (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he passes WP:NPROF, the nomination based upon failing WP:GNG is not appropriate for an academic, neither is WP:SIGCOV. Checking his co-authors, he is in a medium-low citation area, so his h-factor of 34 is decent. The Fellowship elections count (I added a source for one) although they are not the most significant. Combined with his Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize there is enough, plus he has a good yearly trend to his citations.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ldm1954, I think if you view his academic credentials in totality there is a decent enough case for notability. Zzz plant (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anjani Sinha

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

Being an ambassador does not inherit the notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and United States of America. LKBT (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, masses of coverage and an Ambassador is clearly notable. The nomination was too quick; if he withdraws then notability via WP:BLP1E might pertain, but not now. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and waiting a month to see what happens.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'll appeal to the spirit of WP:NPOL, even if he isn't exactly a politician. All previous US ambassadors to Singapore have articles. Currently the coverage on this one is limited to the circumstances of his confirmation hearing, but presumably he'll take office soon and more sources will follow. Like Ldm1954 says, we can revisit this if he doesn't end up becoming ambassador. For now I think there's a case for assuming notability based on his title. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify might actually also be an option here... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought over it again, it's definitely draftify. Not notable currently, we can fish out the draft if/once he meets GNG. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Singapore, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It is reasonable to assume that the ambassadors of this category so far have articles. There would be no loss in keeping this too. GenuineArt (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ambassadors are not inherently notable, hundreds have been deleted. However, this one might meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As ambassador, he will get plenty of articles which will allow this entry to be expanded. 🄻 🄰 14:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Hosni

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

This article is about someone who acted in one movie and nothing else. Seems too personal of an article with barely any real information on the individual. GamerPro64 05:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Egypt. GamerPro64 05:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find neither information about the person nor anything that indicates they even appeared in the movie mentioned. Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Nagol0929 (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Possibly also notable as a singer. The corresponding article in the Arabic Wikipedia has several references that could be added to this one. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sources have been added but I'm not sure they provide enough information to show how notable the subject is. GamerPro64 03:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Fernández (rower)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Argentina. Let'srun (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Argentina at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per user Svatner. Darius (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoBlaq

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

Non-notable. A WP:BEFORE did not surface significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, nor are any of the four criteria for WP:NCREATIVE met. All substantial mentions appear to be the type of unreliable promotional coverage cautioned against by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, and reading through much of it brings on a feeling of déjà vu. This includes the sources currently present in the article:

Tribune Online "Callmejoblaq is undoubtedly a rising star in Nigeria’s entertainment industry, inspiring aspiring creators and leaving a lasting mark on the scene."
Independent "As he continues to push boundaries and inspire aspiring creators, the industry is abuzz with anticipation for what he will accomplish next."
This Day "Joblaq’s ability to connect with millions of viewers through his engaging content is a testament to his creative talent and comedic charm."
Vanguard and The Guardian NG (the same article with different linebreaks) "Joblaq’s fusion of humor, storytelling, and his American accent in his communication and acting skills truly cements his position as a rising star in the world of social media influencers, leaving a lasting impact on his viewers and followers."

etc. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all this make up an article. 2RDD (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All this are well known Newspapers and magazines in Nigeria. 2RDD (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. All fluff. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe this article should be kept because it has been significantly improved since the deletion discussion began. The removal of unreliable sources and addition of reliable references have strengthened the article's notability. The content now meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.𝓂𝐚ภᗪ𝕀Ҝｅᔕ (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The removal of unreliable sources and addition of reliable references have strengthened the article's notability." – This is the article at the time of nomination, and this is the article at the time of this comment. I see that the same citations from The Guardian NG, Vanguard, Independent, This Day and Tribune Online are all used. Could you point out one of the new added references that provide reliable and significant coverage? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vanguard , Turntable 𝓂𝐚ภᗪ𝕀Ҝｅᔕ (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.

Vanguard was already stated to be an unreliable source before, as noted above they and The Guardian NG ran the same promotional piece. Another unattributed article from the same unreliable source is not strong evidence for notability. The TurnTable Charts article is not significant coverage, and therefore does not help establish notability. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closers: Mandike's edit immediately preceding their above "keep" was to remove a conversation where they and 2RDD swapped offsite contact information [27]. 2RDD is the user who moved this article back into articlespace [28], objected to my nomination on my talk page [29], and made the first comments here in support of keeping it [30]. This is Mandikes' first AfD, and it comes right after off-site contact with a user advocating to keep this article, Meatpuppetry is likely. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: Please do not involve me to this. I do this just to improve the article. And I am not aguing any thing with you again. We will let top editors to decide what will happen to the article. I am not in the right to decide. Thank you. 🙏 2RDD (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandikes: It is better you wait for top editors to decide than to decide for yourself. Wikipedia is where we share, learn, and upgrade. If you don't know anything about this now, you should be calm for now. Thank you 2RDD (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator, all of the articles are promotional or not reliable. 🄻 🄰 14:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Helm

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

A seemingly promotional article about a marketing professional and social media influencer who only received significant coverage in one article in The Inquirer [31]. He was also quoted and discussed in Philadelphia Magazine [32], but he was not the subject of the article—I don't think this counts as significant independent coverage. On the whole, fails WP:BASIC. JBchrch talk 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pennsylvania. JBchrch talk 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no allegation or evidence for notability; he fails my standards for attorneys. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the Inquirer, Philadelphia Magazine has more than 15 significant paragraphs [33]:

No one represents the it’s-only-a-business new breed as much as TopDog Law, the entity launched by James Helm in 2019, not long after finishing — perhaps tellingly — a dual JD/MBA program at Rutgers.

“It comes down to unit economics,” Helm said cheerfully on a legal industry marketing podcast last year. (The TopDog founder, who grew up in Delco and now spends most of his time in Scottsdale, Arizona, declined my request for a sit-down interview.) In the podcast Helm went on to explain that you first have to know the average fee you generate on a case — if it’s $10,000, you have work to do; if it’s $25,000, you’re doing pretty well. Then you need to calculate the cost of acquiring a client. If you understand those two things — and if the delta between them is large enough — “then I can get aggressive about acquiring new customers, and I can do it profitably.”

Simple, right?

It’s a formula Helm has used with great success. Six years after launching TopDog, Helm’s operation now has a presence, according to its website, in more than 35 cities across the country, from Ann Arbor and Atlanta to Washington, D.C. Thousands of calls and contacts come in each week.

Key to the success have been decisions Helm made early on, starting with the consumer-friendly TopDog name. “I think traditionally [law] firms have been very bad at branding their businesses,” Helm said on the podcast. “Every other industry has names that are easy to say, easy to sell, easy to remember. Whereas with law firms, the brand wasn’t the focus.” In dubbing his outfit TopDog — a moniker that could just as easily have been used on, say, an energy drink or a new brand of kibble — he landed on something that both was easy to remember and conjured up winning. “I think a large part of our success is due to the name,” he said. “TopDog gets you top dollar.”

Helm’s second outside-the-box decision was to focus on social media when it came to marketing. In part the strategy was born of necessity — Helm didn’t have enough money to advertise on TV; even Google AdWords was out of his league. But it also spoke to his age (27 at the time); Instagram and TikTok were as natural to him as TV was to Rand Spear.

“We really thought there was room to revolutionize [legal marketing], especially on the social media front,” says Ian Harrington, TopDog’s first marketing director. (Harrington would go on to work for Pond Lehocky and is now co-founder, with Ryan Makris and Kate Schenkel, of Very Decent Marketer.) “At the time, no law firm was doing social media with any kind of success or results. It wasn’t by accident that we saw that as an opportunity. James was young; he was good-looking. He wasn’t as good on camera as he is now. That actually took a long time to get right. But we were willing to put in the reps to figure it out.”

Early on, TopDog’s social strategy was based on Helm sharing his personal story. A high school wrestler, he’d started taking prescription painkillers following an injury at age 17, and he’s said he spent eight years as an addict before finally entering rehab while in law school. The message to potential clients: I know what it’s like to be down and out. I can help you get your life back.

But in time that strategy gave way to something more over-the-top — kinetic videos of a hyper Helm doing everything from mugging at the camera to rapping. “We had to get our name out there by being bombastic and creating the TopDog persona,” says Harrington. “The algorithms of the platforms push the louder, the bombastic, the faster-cuts kind of stuff. And we really leaned into that.”

As is increasingly the norm in the personal injury law business, the cases Helm generates — through social media or radio or all those TopDog billboards — are not primarily handled by him or any lawyer working for him, but by other lawyers around the country. In fact, if you look closely at the language, you see that TopDog Law isn’t really even a law firm. Helm’s LinkedIn page describes it as “a leading case acquisition and plaintiff intake platform,” while the TopDog website calls it “a national network for law firms licensed to practice in their applicable states.”

The uber-referral model is not one every lawyer — even in the personal injury realm — is comfortable with. “I think it’s important for the consumer to understand who they’re retaining to represent them,” says Spear. “I’m here every day. I work morning till night. I like meeting with clients.”

Perhaps more to the point: Advertising done primarily for the purpose of referring cases to other firms actually runs afoul of Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct. As the rules put it: “It is misleading to the public for a lawyer or law firm, with knowledge that the lawyer or law firm will not be handling a majority of the cases attracted by advertising, to nonetheless advertise for those cases only to refer the cases to another lawyer whom the client did not initially contact.”

When I email Helm about this, I get a quick reply from his general counsel, Sean Berberian. He says that because Helm — through the entity Helm Law LLC — maintains joint responsibility for all cases, he’s not, in fact, “referring” matters and is, therefore, “absolutely compliant with Pennsylvania rules of ethics, as well as other applicable jurisdictions.”

As it happens, none of this may even matter. When I ask Thomas Wilkinson, the former Pennsylvania Bar Association president, about the relevant section of Pennsylvania’s rules, he essentially shrugs. “There is not a tremendous amount of policing in Pennsylvania of improper advertising. Sometimes that policing only occurs when there’s been a complaint about the quality of representation or a client feels they’ve been duped in some way. But for the most part, if clients are pleased with the outcomes, they don’t care a great deal about how they got to the lawyer.”

I understand Wilkinson’s point. And yet it still strikes me as odd, the equivalent of a restaurateur — say, Marc Vetri! — running an ad for his restaurant, but then telling you when you call for a reservation that he’s going to get you a table at one of Michael Solomonov’s or Jose Garces’s restaurants.

Then again, for better or worse, what TopDog and so many other personal injury firms are selling is less legal services than the idea of suing in the first place.

His billboard is covered by Philly Voice [34], a profile in OK magazine [35], his social media in Arizona [36]. Judging this against WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," there are five published independent sources. Little Astros Sign (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not significant independent coverage of James Helm, the person: it's mostly quotes of him and his staff about his company and the company's business strategy, with some light background info about Helm as founder. If anything it could count as coverage of TopDog, the company he created. More generally, Helm appears to makes a lot of noise about himself on social media and in the real world, so it's not surprising that some news outlet would quote him or mention him, but that still does not count as significant independent coverage. Separately, I am not convinced that OK! is a reliable source. JBchrch talk 12:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found additional sources about him [37] [38] but to me the article seems to be coverage about both him and his company but are you saying that you think that there is coverage for the company not him? I think the opposite because the articles all describe him as a person as the creator of the billboard, and Philadelphia Magazine article mentions him 18 times. Anyway, WP:BASIC — "the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" — if Inquirer is already one independent source then the other six sources can combine to at least be one (which is more than one meaning it is multiple)? Little Astros Sign (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access the Law360 article, but the Houston Chronicle article does not appear to offer significant independent coverage of James Helm as a person: it covers the billboard story, mentions that Helm is the person who created it, and quotes Helm. Looking at the sources you provided, the coverage falls in my view under the second prong of the rule you cite, i.e. "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis mine). JBchrch talk 13:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of Wikipedia articles use OK! as a reliable source [39] Little Astros Sign (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three articles plus a few short ones is enough for NBASIC. 🄻 🄰 15:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which three articles you are referring to? JBchrch talk 19:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Ross (writer)

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

Half of the sources referenced in the article are tabloid-style sources listing supposed "facts" about Mel Gibson's girlfriend. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. She has received no coverage demonstrating her own notability in WP:RS. Aŭstriano (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, and United States of America. Aŭstriano (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FILMMAKER since she is the screenwriter and director of Father Stu. The Film Creator (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kane

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

This article was created as part of an undisclosed paid promotional effort, around the same time as the article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-P Conte, and was originally basically just a resume. After I cleaned it up a bit, we're not left with even a single good source by my assessment. All that can really be said about the subject of this article is that he exists, ran as a Republican (and lost), and is involved with The Heritage Foundation. MediaKyle (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Economics, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ran as a political candidate as verified by the sourcing, but lost. Serving in the military isn't notable, not sure the other career items listed add up to notability. I can really only find stories about a political run. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election as an ATD. Fails WP:NPOL. मल्ल (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, California, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the AfD proposal may understate the relevance of the subject to what Wikipedia would look for in considering if a subject should have a biography. He fails WP:NPOL. Are there thoughts on WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC? He is a professor at University of Austin. A combination of his Google Scholar profile and an (admittedly not independent of the subject) biography via his employer lead me to believe this could be an edge case. --Mpen320 (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware the subject had written a book until now, but looking into it I was unable to find a single review of it or even a mention, so I'd say notability as an author is off the table. As for academic guidelines, the subject hasn't held any particular position that would make them automatically notable, and that H-index is relatively uninspiring compared to the Google Scholar profiles I've seen in keep results. Granted, I've been wrong about academics a number of times, so maybe I'm missing something. MediaKyle (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On EBSCOHost, I found a few reviews via EBSCO Host, but the filter only shows one review was in peer-reviewed publication and I found another review in Foreign Affairs. A similiar situation for Immigrant Superpower EBSCO Host. I have no real context for H-indexes or anything. This was a real, leave no stone unturned situation to balance it with my personal deletionism. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election. Per Oaktree b, failed candidates for political office are rarely notable per NPOL and POLOUTCOMES. I appreciate Mpen320 for attempting the BEFORE due-diligence for our benefit!

Bkissin (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahlol Khattak

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

Pretty clear COI going on here. The subject is a Supreme Court advocate in Pakistan and the son of a notable poet, but neither of these roles inherently establish notability under Wikipedia's WP:IHN. The draft was previously declined by RangersRus at AfC. It still has no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG Junbeesh (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Junbeesh (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was a bit of a mess, with a bunch of references listed under 'external links', which I've moved inline. It is now clearer that zero of the references provide WP:SIGCOV about Bahlol Khattak's life and work, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his father. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SayyedWaliUllah has twice removed the 'failed verification' maintenance tags from the article, ignoring the warning that I'd left on their user talk page and in the edit summary, but there's no point me edit warring with them given that there's only one way this article is likely to go... Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no proof that they are notable. 🄻 🄰 15:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the same reason I declined the AFC. Subject is not yet shown to meet notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Davis

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

Fails WP:BIO. Reading this article I can't fathom what he might just possibly be notable for. WP:ADMASQ for a WP:ROTM businessperson. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also the "Power Agent®" with the copyright symbol reads a lot like an advertisement Laura240406 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero evidence of notability of any flavour, just pure vanispamcruftisement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:BASIC, no evidence of notability. Baqi:) (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this was the activist guy for a minute and wondering why he was here. This article looks WP:PROMO. Metallurgist (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is nothing to prove notability. 🄻 🄰 15:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ogbu Jideofor Ikenna

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

The subject seems to be notable for only one event, a court case started by the subject where another company was making defamatory claims about them. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No valid secondary sourcing. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Elisabeth Lämmerhirt

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

I see no indication of notability. The article is purely a genealogical entry. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Surtsicna (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this will not simply be deleted. The potential merge or redirect targets are her husband or her son; any others? —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an account to argue against this deletion. As Bach's mother, Lämmerhirt is a key figure in the development of music in the Baroque period even if she did die while he was young. This makes her a key figure of study with many articles published about her and their relationship. To suggest that she is not notable on those grounds alone is preposterous.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345961730_Bachs_Mutter_und_ihre_Sippe

She is also a major figure in many published biographies and other books on Bach which should be reviewed. Contrapunctus VIII (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If she educated Bach at home, and did what you said she did, then find and add the sources. Admins: please give time to rescue this, or consider an alternative and userfy this. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Bardapurkar

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

Sources are mostly PR and self-published. Not worthy of an article. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Forbes India listing is a made up in one day award for an up and coming but run of the mill business person, producers and managers being especially ordinary. See also WP:NOTFB. The remaining sources are also unreliable or not independent. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator and Bearian. 🄻 🄰 15:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Varuni Amunugama Fernando

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

References in this article are not satisfying to meet WP:GNG. Raj Shri21 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Sri Lanka. Raj Shri21 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO, is almost entirely based on primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Anandan

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

Unable to see any satisfying significant coverage. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Raj Shri21 (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Sri Lanka. Raj Shri21 (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO. Appears to have been created and substantially edited by a number of anonymous IP editors, possible sock puppets, the majority of whom have been blocked from further editing. Dan arndt (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDP445

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing is not good for this incredibly controversial biography. All sources are at best marginal when this is someone only known for extremely controversial acts that would need very high quality RS to include. Does not meet WP:NBIO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom ^{themoon@talk:~$} 09:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found significant coverage about him here: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all e-celebrity gossip news websites, I don't think they are the "high quality" sources Parakanyaa was talking about -- especially considering that the topic of this biography is solely known for being arrested once but never prosecuted for a quite tacky charge. V. S. Video (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are reliable sources for anything. Especially for a BLP notable for alleged crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did my own WP:BEFORE and also saw fit to exclude from consideration non-RS mentioned above, and several more. I agree with nom's rationale. JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And per the original discussion. JFHJr (㊟) 04:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources exist 2600:4040:40F2:5700:ADD3:D6A6:B3E:CA3E (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond sources discussing the sting operation (WP:BLP1E) there really isn't enough sourcing to meet GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Violates WP:BLP1E KnowDeath (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulaye Diallo (judoka)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV. The only source is a database and other searches elsewhere didn't find the significant coverage needed for a standalone article, with only hits for unrelated athletes. I would recommend a redirect, but seeing as the subject participated in two Olympics, I don't see a clear target here. Let'srun (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Africa. Let'srun (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keira and Krish Arora

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

Multiple issues here. The text is promotional, almost qualifying it for G11 on its own. This message suggests the article is the product of undisclosed paid editing. More importantly for AfD, there is virtually no intellectually independent content, as WP:GNG requires. Many of the sources are near-verbatim reproductions of each other, making it clear they derive from the same press release (the photos coming from the same session are another giveaway). Further, there is no substance to many of those pieces either, and much of the detail in the article is not supported by the cited sources. Mensa membership does not confer notability: there are tens of thousands of members, and these aren't even the youngest. Fundamentally, this is a puff-piece. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my concerns at User:Bearian/Portfolio. It's practically a checklist of what keeps me worrying about the Wikimedia Foundation losing its charitable status, because we might not police ourselves well enough to defend ourselves in court. This poor mother picked the wrong time to do this. Maybe recreate this in 2029. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boyce Thompson

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any significant coverage about this guy, only very small mentions. This article is full of original research and failed verifications. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Maine. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to be that guy, but he publishes his books through Schiffer Publishing. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The independent sources here don't really cover Thompson other than quoting and paraphrasing him. I am assuming that the sources currently in the article are the best ones available. His magazine did help create/sponsor concept homes that received press coverage, but this article inappropriately gives the credit to Thompson. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Hatherall Shawe

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

Entirely promotional poorly sourced puff piece, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and United Arab Emirates. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMOTION. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, it's a puff piece, which has been pushed into mainspace twice now by the creator despite being so insufficiently sourced. Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - unreliable sources, undisclosed conflict of interest, and spam - a trifecta! Bearian (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Ahmad Qureshi

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

Repeated attempts to write the article. previously attempted to avoid SALTING by changing spelling. Did not find any suitable option in CSD, so came for AFD. WikiMentor01 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. WikiMentor01 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL, even though fails WP:GNG, He's the local politician. Baqi:) (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to show general notability guidelines and significant coverage of the topic. Also fails to demonstrate notability of politician. Fade258 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the references are about slight mention of subject. Fail Indepth coverage.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - political party officials are not automatically notable, and the sources are poor. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Wikipedia is not for everyone involved in politics.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any role that would confer an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Given the creator's persistent efforts to recreate this no matter how many times it gets deleted, even trying to bypass salt by simply altering the spelling of the subject's name to hit an unsalted alternative title, I strongly suspect WP:COI and believe user sanctions may be necessary if it doesn't stop. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject is a local politician who does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Taabii (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: As per the above comments and the nominator's rationale. Zuck28 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Malik

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

Lacks Notability. No in depth coverage in independent media. Clearly fails WP:GNG. WikiMentor01 (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Punjab. WikiMentor01 (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is notable especially for her appearance in music videos and i have also added more references to the article. Behappyyar (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone evaluated the references yet? Bearian (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources are Wp:CHURNALISM, WP:NEWSORGINDIA Or Passing mentions, No SIGNICOV, at least from the sources. Maybe there are better sources available on the internet. Zuck28 (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable actress. No lead roles, no SIGCOV. Merely a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Maybe in the future, she can be considered notable if she gets SIGCOV to pass GNG or if she lead roles in multiple notable projects to pass NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28 She is a notable actress, especially in Punjabi and Hindi industries. The article can be improved with reliable Hindi-language sources. Deletion seems premature; better to expand using regional coverage. Behappyyar (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not a Hindi speaker, so I couldn’t fully explore Hindi-language sources. If a Hindi-speaking editor contributes, the article can be significantly improved with better references. Behappyyar (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Taabii (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Vipin

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

Looks like the author might have a COI. This one doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER. He is a debut director, and pretty much all the coverage out there is about the film—not him. The few mentions he does get are in interviews, nothing really in-depth or independent. Just feels a bit too soon for a full article on him. Junbeesh (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Junbeesh (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet GNG or NFILMMAKER. Thilsebatti (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. One unreleased film to credit. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER. The subject has not yet created a significant or well-known work YET. RangersRus (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A simple case of TOOSOON. Zuck28 (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esufaly Goolamhusen Adamaly

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

There is nothing to establish Goolamhusen's notability. Fails WP:GNG. Raj Shri21 (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Sri Lanka. Raj Shri21 (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Enyinnaya

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

No indication of notability. Sources cited in article do not even mention the subject in question, and there's clearly a lack of coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Nigeria. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly unnotable, basically just an advertisement. Weirdguyz (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not in the current references and I can't easily find any sources that I think even refer to this person. Skynxnex (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as it clearly fails to show WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. Also It looks like a promotional in nature. Fade258 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, and also, when I see articles whose content doesn't match the sources, I suspect AI. Bearian (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, I agree with nominator. Fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all of the above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saima Akhter

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

No indication of notability. Sources only mention the subject in passing, and there isn't much coverage from reliable sources either. Fails WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Palestine, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. If I accept the premise the subject has any claim to notability, the subject's notability comes entirely from her firing at Meta. There is no significant coverage or sustained coverage of the subject. -Mpen320 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reminder to participants: An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah I agree with Mpen320. Baqi:) (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binod Sethi

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

Copied from talk page:

Hello, I am Binod Sethi, the subject of this article. I am not a public figure, and this article was created without my permission. It contains personal information. I kindly request the page to be permanently deleted as per WP:BLP and WP:G10.

I declined an A7 tag on this and referred him to VRT, but looking at the article again, I do think it would be very unlikely for him to be notable whether we can confirm the IP's identity or not, so I'm referring for AfD. Social workers are not usually notable, even if they do win awards for their work. asilvering (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has 9 sources. Of these sources 1,2,3 are all for the same piece of information. I was not able to read sources 2 (404 error) or 3 (language barier) but source 1 mentioned the subject once, as the father of someone quoted in the article, and so doesn’t convey notability. I could not check sources 4 and 5 (language barier) however they appear to be related to the achievements of his father, thus not conveying notability. Sources 6-9 also support one claim, I was only able to access source 7 which I do not believe to convey notability as he is mentioned by name once amongst many other recipients of the award.
As a cursory search did not turn up suitable sources I concur with the nominator that it should be deleted on the grounds of not meeting WP:GNG or other notability requirements that I am aware of. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 18:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nagaland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable to dead link sources. Nothing notable here. Fails to meet WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly sources article for a non-notable person. Lacks SIGCOV in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G. L. DiVittorio

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

I can verify that the subject of this biography has asked for it to be deleted; per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this should be honored. Most of the sources contain incidental or passing coverage, or otherwise focus on tweets/internet stuff that hasn't gotten lasting coverage (WP:NOTNEWS). In another context this might be a "borderline" case, but since the subject wants it deleted it should be. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, and Politics. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure that it is DiVittorio who requested deletion and not a troll, then the article should be deleted. I created it because she asked how to make a Wikipedia article for The Pocket Report through a post on its Twitter account in 2022. There wasn't enough independent coverage of The Pocket Report to justify its own article, but there was on DiVittorio herself. She posted positively about the article after that, so I do not think she objected at the time, but maybe she changed her mind. Please just confirm by contacting her directly through the @thepocketreport TikTok account first, because it is still active as of 4 days ago, so the claim that DiVittorio is no longer a creator does not seem to be accurate, and she is frequently subject to trolling because of her political commentary. – CanadianJudoka (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CanadianJudoka See her IG; her current story (set to expire soon, but I have a screenshot) asks for the page to be "taken down". Someone who is friends with me and her additionally verified it with me. I don't know anything about that edit summary, I didn't base my deletion rationale on it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Somebody else added that photo a while back, and the incorrect middle name was added by the same user who claims that she's not a creator anymore. But she clearly wants it deleted, so I see no reason to wait. – CanadianJudoka (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear BLPREQUESTDELETE case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLPREQUEST, no need to keep the article as someone we absolutely need to have an article about. LightlySeared (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Baqi:) (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heny Sison

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

Unreferenced BLP for years. Fails WP:GNG. Previously tagged as BLPPROD but apparently WP:ELs count as refs. EL are the person's official website and the TV network's official website that is now dead. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Food and drink. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously failed WP:GNG and there's no source applied on the article. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Musa Shugaba

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

The only notability of this person is serving as an Aide-de-Camp to governors and now as chief personal security officer to the president of Nigeria. The article is also very promotional. The references in the article are press releases announcing his appointment, and two about his controversial conducts which are not significant enough, the rest references are about different topics. Conducted WP:BEFORE nothing significant was found. Notability is not inherited from the offices and officials he is working with Mekomo (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Mekomo (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hitchens

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

Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Aŭstriano (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Religion, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much of the references are from "about" section of the websites of the organizations he worked for and the others are his own writings. He fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like a CV and not notable for a separate article or even a stub. See WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not a notable journalist. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Roy

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

Non notable singer, with non notable award. Lacks Wp:SIGCOV and fails wp:GNG and Wp:NMUSIC. Creator is blocked and the article is not yet reviewed. Zuck28 (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, India, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha. Zuck28 (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:MUSICIAN. From the sources, the singer seems a rather local singer and not of national or international level. The significant coverage on the subject is also missing. Shows one award won but this award is not notable and rather a local award. RangersRus (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agrees with the nominator and RangersRus. Taabii (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meetha Raghunath

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

A biographical page of an actress fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Previously deleted as G4. Highly suspicion of COI. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. LKBT (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. LKBT (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person is not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's acting career is of little significance. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Patel

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

A promotional biographical page of a film producer fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. LKBT (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and United States of America. LKBT (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references on wiki articleRupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE not notable. There are a number of RS in the sources but the articles themselves are do not support the notability of the subject Dualpendel (talk) 19:23, 8 July 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 redirect‎ to List of FC Basel players as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A.H. Würgler

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

No first name, no date of birth, no place of birth, no date of death, no place of death, no accurate appearance statistics, no SIGCOV, other than that a great article! Anxioustoavoid (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Switzerland. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, this unknown AH doesn't have any articles about them in RS... [45] only brinks up mining-related things. I don't see anything about a sports person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, indeed, I am the author of this article and yes, I do have a copy. I am working together with the authors of the internet sites dbfcz.ch/ and bscyb.ch/archiv. but unfortuneately their work does not go back as far in history (yet) as our fcb-archiv.ch site does. Everything on our site is documented. It is indeed very difficult to find new documentation, especially during the period before and during the first world war. I know a player named Würgler also played for BSC Old Boys later during this period, but because I cannot find out this players first name, I cannot prove that it's the same player. But I am still trying to read newspaper articles from this period. That's who I am, now to the aricle. Correct, date and place of birth and further infos are indeed missing, but he played over 100 years ago and, therfore details are hard to find. His first match is referenced and so are his statistcs (on the net and in the books), but please read the footnotes. I am trying to improve the coverage of Swiss football in this encyclopedia and such things as article deletions are just slowing me down a lot. Please do not delete, because it took hours of work and reading that were spent on the research. Greetings from Basel --Huligan0 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same situation than P. Vietti. Svartner (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of FC Basel players as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any potential here. Geschichte (talk) 06:14, 12 July 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.

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Kolev

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

I've had a dig for secondary/reliable sources. There are many user-generated statistic websites which mention him but cannot find much in the way of widespread coverage. As such I don't believe WP:ATHLETE is achieved, but perhaps some Bulgarian sources may contradict me? I couldn't find any sources during my WP:BEFORE check as there are very few English language sources, but I am leaning towards keep and believe that notability has since been established sk satsuma 16:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC) 21:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. satsuma ^talk_(she/they) 21:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have updated the information about the player and added some references. Chris Calvin (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Thank you for that. I expected there would be some sources in Cyrillic that I couldn't find so thanks for doing the work. I won't vote either way though as I cannot personally vouch for the reliability of these sources, however if the publications are reliable it seems like WP:ATHLETE would be met. sk satsuma 13:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ATHLETE is not affected by sources. Giant Snowman 19:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand on this just for my own curiosity and understanding. I interpreted WP:SPORTCRIT as requiring widepread coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources as per standard notability guidelines (which the article seems to be meeting now). Am I mistaken or is there something I'm not realising? sk satsuma 20:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added which show (AGF) notability. Giant Snowman 19:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Svartner:, Per above. Has sources and ongoing professional career including in Bulgarioa top flight. Article needs imrovement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The editor later made improvements to the article, and now it can be retained based on WP:HEYMAN. Baqi:) (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:HEY, article is improved with significant sources. LKBT (talk) 07:22, 13 July 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.

Henry Bool

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

This article has been in a sorry state since it was first created in 2006, having spent almost two decades as a perma-stub without any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. It seems his main claim to fame was when Ithaca newspapers called for his business to be boycotted, after he had defended anarchists in the wake of the assassination of William McKinley. A cursory Google Scholar search turned up very little, mostly passing references to him. As I can't verify the subject's notability, as I can't find significant coverage of him in the source material, and as I can't think of any reasonable alternatives to deletion, I'm proposing this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Grnrchst (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added newspaper articles from 1922 (obituary) and 1976 which discuss Bool. His legacy is obviously long-lasting in his field. More research, perhaps using newspapers, will likely produce more coverage.--User:Namiba 16:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I suppose the sources from 1901 and 1974 in the current sources are helpful, I don't really see much of anything about this person. I tired a New York State newspapers search [46] or the Lib. of Congress [47]... There are hits on the name in Ithica newspapers, but more about routine events (Bool is leaving town, Bool's business)... Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caaqil Dheryodhoobe

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this a few years ago, and the article still doesn't show sourcing in RS. I can't find any in Gbooks or Scholar about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but move the page, the most common name used for him in English seems to be "Siyaad (Qaasim) Dheryo-Dhoobe" while "Caaqil" appears to be a title like chief and Dheryo-Dhoobe might be a nickname or other title. this pdf thats already in the article shows him being referenced in English scholarly sources albeit briefly. One, two, and three web sources in Somali which I read via gtranslate. They aren't the rigour that I would use for a BLP but they show a relatively wide range for such an old figure. A more Reliable Source would be this book where he is mentioned at the bottom of page 57 and page 58 but I can't copy and paste to easily check what it says. Finally we have this Medium article which has interesting information and shows pictures (but not links sadly) of some older sources. In fact, I think the picture is of the book which I linked before. Moritoriko (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Moritoriko's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamboja Rajput

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

WP:POVFORK of Kambojas/Kamboj (trying to connect the latter to the former). Covered by WP:CASTE sanctions. Stunning WP:HOAXing of sources (that is why no links and URLs are given), here is what you find when you go to verify them: Puri makes no mention of Rajput/Kamboja in his entire book; Stein makes no mention of Kamboja in his book; Dirks again makes no mention of Kambojas; the same is the case with Thapar (have the copy); Yadav again makes no mention of Kambojas (also a non-RS); the Witzel source doesn't exist (no such publication by him); Raychaudhuri makes no connection between Kambojas/Rajputs; cannot verify The People of India but the source itself is non-RS (largely covered by WP:RAJ). Considering the formatting of the references and the content itself would not be surprised if LLM was used or if the content was lifted from dubious caste-based websites. Gotitbro (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Hinduism, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Gotitbro (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article Kamboja Rajput clearly satisfies the requirements under WP:CASTE, WP:GNG, and WP:HISTRS. The subject is verifiable and notable through multiple reliable academic sources, including works by B. N. Puri, Romila Thapar, J. N. Singh Yadav, and the Anthropological Survey of India.

This is not original research. The process of Rajputization, by which tribes like Kambojas, Shakas, and Hunas were integrated into Rajput identity, is well-documented by several historians (e.g., Dirks, Burton Stein, Thapar). The article cites reliable secondary sources with correct ISBNs, pages, and academic publishers.

The article:

Does not violate WP:UNDUE – only properly sourced, relevant claims are included.
Is written in neutral encyclopedic tone.
Avoids synthesis and speculative links.

The Kamboja Rajputs are recognized by the Anthropological Survey of India as a distinct group with their own gotras and history. The article has been cleaned and significantly improved, and should be judged based on the current version — not outdated or poor earlier drafts.

Oppose deletion. Support keeping the article.

–– Kambojahistory Kambojahistory (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please avoid using an LLM to post your views here. Your own voice, even if English isn't your native language, carries more weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Citing original nominations concerns it looks like the contributor in question used a LLM given the nonexistent source and the sources cited don't support the conclusions drawn. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a hoax and should be deleted per WP:HOAX. Ixudi (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I want to clarify a few things respectfully.

All the points I’ve added about Kambojas are based on real, verifiable sources. The Mahabharata (Bhishma Parva 9.66) literally uses the word Kshatriya-vratya for them. Manusmriti 10.44 lists them as those who lost ritual status—not caste by birth. That’s not a hoax, that’s scripture.

The Kamboja-Pala dynasty in Bengal is recorded in the Irda copper plate inscription. This isn’t some blog post—it’s cited by scholars like Sailendra Nath Sen in Ancient Indian History and Civilization (New Age International). Page number and ISBN available.

I understand you’re saying this was “LLM-written.” I didn’t use AI to make up anything. I used historical frameworks like Rajputization, as described by Nicholas Dirks and Burton Stein. It’s not about making someone Rajput out of nowhere—it’s about showing how many warrior tribes were assimilated over time. That includes Gurjaras, Shakas, Hunas… and yes, Kambojas too.

No one is asking you to agree. But calling it a hoax or fake without checking the actual books or sources feels unfair. If you find a wrong ref, I’m open to fixing it. But don’t dismiss everything outright just because it challenges assumptions.

Let’s stick to facts. I’m not here for caste debates or superiority contests. I’m just documenting what’s verifiable. Kambojahistory (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar M. Gana

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

This article fails WP:GNG, no valid secondary sourcing to prove notability. Has been flagged as problematic since 2022. Basically a résumé. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 02:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 02:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ichiro Nakamura

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

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV on this cleric. A WP:BEFORE finds verifiability that this person was the president of the Society of Johrei, and edited this book, but nothing else. Suggest Merge or Redirect to Johrei. Nayyn (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Spirituality, and Japan. Nayyn (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redirect, nearly no coverage. Iluzalsipal (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for the redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dayo Audi

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

A 15 year old unsourced article, the majority of hits when looking up his name are to mirrors or copies of the text from this article. The claim that he won the Mr Universe title in 2008 or any other year is not supported by the linked page. I could determine that he did compete in 2003 [48] where he reached a rather unremarkable 11th. I can't find any trace of the regional, national, European and World titles from three major Federations either. Moritoriko (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They do not appear to be notable. Aneirinn (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source: [49] Also, he's on the cover of Bodybuilding International from March 1998 "Dayo Audi: Mr. Everything but the universe! Will he enter this year? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that, isn't much, but still thanks. I can't see the ebay link for some reason but I believe you. You might be interested in trying to find some sources for the numerous sports people in the Category:All unreferenced BLPs where I found this article. Moritoriko (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of these sources reliable enough to the be the sole basis (along with the article that moritoriko mentions) of a BLP? If yes, then I support keeping. Easternsahara (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Limited coverage in the native language [50], trivial regardless. I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving, as easily meets WP:BASIC on the basis of the cover article in Bodybuilding International magazine pointed out by WikiOriginal-9 and this article in The Daily Telegraph about the NABBA Mr Universe competition which has a couple of paragraphs about him (now cited), also explaining that he is originally from Nigeria but moved to Britain to study politics...and then fell into bodybuilding. The WBBF website confirms that he won Mr Universe in 2008. Not the easiest of BLPs to add citations to – not sure this RxBodybuilders article qualifies as a reliable source, for example – but looks promising and in any case "I can't quickly find sources" is not a sufficient or valid reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also just found "Audi's great bodywork" in the local newspaper in Bradford, in which a gym owner calls him "one of the country's most successful bodybuilders". Cielquiparle (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I can't quickly find sources so don't put that in quotes or words in my mouth. I would like you to help me understand how you found these articles because I did what I would consider a decent amount of searching on various search engines and TWL and I was unable to surface these things which clearly have his name which confuses me. And if I can find these articles when I am searching before nominating then we don't have to waste time doing this. Love Moritoriko (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended. Obviously yes, it was not a direct quote. Equally I was initially taken aback by the comment "You might be interested in..." but I stopped and remembered to WP:AGF and that you likely didn't mean it as a passive-aggressive comment. (Just next time maybe look up who you are talking to...a very experienced editor.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main tips are: Sounds like you tried multiple search engines, which is positive...but did you also try to look at variations by geo (.uk, .com, etc.)? Google in particular shows very different results depending on where you are, and you can never assume that it is showing you a "complete" set of results – it is just sending you a subset of "somewhat likely" matches. You should always try more than one search parameter (i.e., don't just search "Dayo Audi"...always add at least a second parameter and try variations – "Dayo Audi" "bodybuilder"; "Dayo Audi" "Doncaster"; "Dayo Audi" "Mr Universe" all tend to return different (if somewhat overlapping) sets of results. If you are using Wikipedia Library main search, great, but also be sure to dive into specific databases like ProQuest and Gale as well as Newspapers.com (sign up for the waitlist if you don't have a subscription) (and depending on the topic, JSTOR and the various publisher databases are very helpful as well). Always keep in mind the time period you are researching, because the further back in time you go, content is often not easily accessed online and is either in print or paywalled. It's worth trying online or brick-and-mortar libraries if you have access personally or to use a more public one like Internet Archive or Google Books or both. And finally, obviously no one has access to everything and time is finite, so remember to keep in mind that just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist; please have a read of WP:ATA if you haven't read it already. Hope that helps. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for reacting like that, I think it was just the quotes around it that made me feel strongly. And yes I didn't mean it passive-aggressively at all, I was just pointing where/why I came across this article since they found something so quickly, but with your message I can see how it could come across in a negative sense. Now for the tips: I have used DuckDuckGo's built in geo variations but Google's completely slipped my mind so thank you for reminding me of that. I didn't know that the main TWL search didn't equally search the specific databases as well, I will add searches in those to my WP:BEFORE routine. Sadly at the moment I do not have access to a useful brick-and-mortar library, oh how I wish I did :,( I did try some oblique searches such as trying to look up the Mr. Universe claim but somehow putting both in the same search box escaped me. Thank you once again for responding earnestly to me so that I can improve. <3 Moritoriko (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moritoriko In my experience the overall Wikipedia Library searchbar is mainly searching EBSCO and captures only partial results from a few of the other databases like JSTOR, ProQuest, Gale and Elsevier ScienceDirect (possibly based on EBSCO's own ability to search those databases and return only the top most likely matches). You tend to get very different (and more complete) results when you go directly to JSTOR or the other academic publisher databases (though obviously in this case the academic databases seem to matter less, as it's unclear whether Dr Ekundayo Audifferen actually published anything after filing his PhD thesis. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know for the future! I honestly don't feel that this person is lower-case "n" notable still but there are enough scattered mentions to meet the requirements so might as well make the article nice. Moritoriko (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources I listed above and others noted by Cielquiparle. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Daily Telegraph source and confirming he won the event in 2008 is enough for me to be satisfied but I can't close it because other people commented delete. Moritoriko (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent detective work by Cielquiparle and WikiOriginal-9. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahavatar Swami Bhai

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

Not notable. Nearly all of the used sources have major issues, see the talk page for details. Attempts to find fitting, reliable sources have failed.Iluzalsipal (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spirituality, and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. Almost every "reference" is self-created ("independent"), not translatable, or tangentially related. We require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, and we have never publisher original thought. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, with enough reliable sources providing significant coverage of the claims about him across different countries and languages. High-quality sources do exist and have been used. Key evidence in support of keeping the article:

-Major news coverage: The Uruguayan national newspaper El País published a detailed profile on Víctor Truviano in 2015, describing he became a “ser pránico” (pranic being) who claims to have stopped eating in 2006 and even drinking liquids since 2007. That article did not take his claims at face value – it included scientific experts who flatly rejected the possibility (a physiology professor told El Mundo that an adult not eating for years is “imposible” and “quien diga que lleva años sin comer, miente” – “whoever says they’ve gone years without eating is lying”. This demonstrates that mainstream media have covered his story in depth and with skepticism, not merely through self-published material.

-International media presence: Truviano’s story has been reported around the world, indicating broad independent coverage (a strong indicator of notability). For example, the Indian news outlet Vijaya Karnataka (via Headline Karnataka) ran a 2023 piece calling him “the man who lives without food or water for the past 17 years,” explaining that he survives on prana and noting that his longevity without food has astonished the medical community. Likewise, Croatian media covered him when he visited: in 2018 the site Antena Zadar introduced Truviano as “najpoznatiji bretarijanac” (the most famous breatharian) and noted that by his account he had gone twelve years without eating or drinking. That report also mentions a Russian scientist’s tests on Truviano, which found his physiological parameters highly atypical – even though it remained “impossible to confirm” scientifically that he never eats. The very fact that multiple independent news organizations (in India, Europe, Latin America, etc.) have published such stories shows that Truviano has received significant attention beyond trivial or passing mentions.

-Independent investigative sourcing: Far from relying on self-published or non-neutral sources, the article has drawn rigorous journalism. In 2019 the Argentine outlet Cosecha Roja – a respected investigative news site – ran an in-depth exposé on Truviano (tellingly titled “Víctor Truviano, el gurú que no come”, i.e. “the guru who doesn’t eat”)cosecharoja.org. This piece not only recounts his purported inedia (not eating since 2006, and later not drinking) but also documents serious allegations against him by former followers – five women from different countries, one of whom filed an official complaint for abuse and obtained a restraining order. Such coverage is unquestionably independent of the subject and addresses his activities critically. It disproves the assertion that “almost every reference is self-created or tangential”; on the contrary, we have third-party journalistic investigations directly about him. (Notably, some sources are in Spanish, Croatian, etc., but Wikipedia policy allows non-English sources – the key is their reliability and depth, which these sources have in abundance).

-Widespread notability: Coverage in multiple countries and languages underscores that Truviano is a notable figure in the realm of fringe spirituality. Even Italian media have taken note of his case. For instance, a 2016 interview published in Cinquantamila (Italy) highlighted an “uomo… che da otto anni non beve e non mangia… Si chiama Victor Truviano” – translated: a man “who for eight years has not drunk or eaten… His name is Victor Truviano. In that piece, Truviano is cited as one of the extreme examples of “alimentazione pranica” (pranic nourishment). This international attention is exactly the kind of significant coverage that satisfies the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). The subject is not a mere local guru with self-published claims, but someone who has drawn global press coverage and other behavioral and scientific scrutiny.

-Article improvement is preferable to deletion: The nominators’ concerns about “extraordinary claims” and sourcing can be addressed by improving the article, rather than deleting a notable topic. Wikipedia’s role is to document what reliable sources report – including fringe or extraordinary topics – with due weight and skepticism. In this case, the existing sources provide the necessary material to write a neutral, verifiable article: one that states Truviano’s / "Mahavatar Swami Bhai" (his new name) claims as claims, and also notes the scientific consensus that such breatharian claims defy known biology (as El País and Antena Zadar did by consulting experts). There is no policy that mandates deleting an article solely because the subject’s claims are unusual; what matters is that the subject is notable and that claims are presented with appropriate attribution. Here, the threshold is clearly met by multiple reliable sources covering Truviano over many years. Any prior issues with the article (e.g. improper sourcing or tone) can be fixed by incorporating the high-quality sources above. In conclusion, the subject’s notability is well-established by reliable coverage, so the article should be kept and improved rather than removed. Franciscoevan (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian articles are either not translatable to English or inaccessible. The Italian source is a passing mention of Truviano in a transcript of a radio interview with another Breatharian, see [51] and not really high profile. Iluzalsipal (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward L. Artau

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

Draft:Ed Artau was created in draft space, as judicial nominees are not inherently notable. The creating user evidently copied the draft article and pasted it in article space. That user appears to have been around long enough to know better. The article is not ready to move from draft space and even if it was, it should have been moved, not copy/pasted, to preserve the edit history. Safiel (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Safiel (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Article name was changed without consensus from WP:COMMONNAME Ed Artau. Safiel (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Already notable as a Florida appeals judge. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if we accept notability, the current article in article space should be deleted and the article in draft space should be moved to article space to preserve the edit history. Since this was a copy/paste move a merge of this and the draft is not appropriate, simply delete and move the draft to article space.Safiel (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of the GFDL. Also, state appellate judges are not automatically notable. BD2412 T 16:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and keep the draft. Traditionally, we only accept articles for American federal circuit judges once approved by the Senate. If this nominee is approved, we can move the draft into project space. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query While he does indeed appear not to be sufficiently notable yet, the statement that this was cut-and-pasted from the draft doesn't appear to be borne out. Compare the draft as of 25 June (most recent edit), and the article as posted 30 June. There is very little overlap - only that that could be reasonably expected from working from the same sources - and the draft has much more content. @Safiel: who nominated, @BD2412: who !voted based largely on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Emery Pratt

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

Draft:Jordan Pratt was created in draft space, as judicial nominees are not inherently notable. The creating user evidently copied the draft article and pasted it in article space. That user appears to have been around long enough to know better. The article is not ready to move from draft space and even if it was, it should have been moved, not copy/pasted, to preserve the edit history. Safiel (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Safiel (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Name was changed from WP:COMMONNAME Jordan Pratt without consensus. Safiel (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of the GFDL. BD2412 T 16:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and keep the draft. Traditionally, we only accept articles for American federal circuit judges once approved by the Senate. If this nominee is approved, we can move the draft into project space. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query While he does indeed appear not to be sufficiently notable yet, the statement that this was cut-and-pasted from the draft doesn't appear to be borne out. Compare the draft as of 25 June (most recent edit), and the article as posted 30 June. There is very little overlap - only that that could be reasonably expected from working from the same sources - and the draft has much more content. @Safiel: who nominated, @BD2412: who !voted based largely on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a long-standing Wikipedia practice, federal judicial nominees are not presumed notable until Senate confirmation from what i have seen that is. The draft version is intact and can be properly moved to mainspace if and when confirmation occurs. Additionally, concerns about potential GFDL violations in how this was moved reinforce deletion as the correct course of action. Icem4k (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Marwah

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

Non-notable actor. Lacks Wp:SIGCOV. Most of the sources are either passing mentions or non-bylined promotional articles. Wp:NEWSORGINDIA. His acting career consists of two films in which he has non-lead roles, and no award nominations or wins, failing Wp:NACTOR.

His additional credits include non-notable short films and music videos.

He received some press coverage due to his connection with the Ambani and Kapoor families and his marriage but notability is not inherited. Zuck28 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Fashion, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and New York. Zuck28 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR even WP:NBASIC, also wikipedia is not WP:INHERITED. Baqi:) (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He had lead roles in two notable (if average) films, so just meets WP:NACTOR. See WP:ICTFSOURCES for reliable sources for Indian films - there are additional, reliable sources in the articles about the films which could be added here. It appears that he is now a managing director at a university - this [52] is not a reliable source (being sponsored content and full of peacockery), but if a reliable source could be found, that info could be added to the article to bring it up to date. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:NACTOR with lead roles in two feature films. I can find references which are enough to support the case. Sooterout (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources, demonstrates that these two roles are lead roles? Zuck28 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actor did have significant roles in Fugly and Raag Desh. In fact, in the latter, the subject was featured on the theatrical poster, which strongly suggests that he was one of the central characters. In Fugly as well, the actor played a major role that received attention and analysis in reviews by film critics.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erixon Kabera

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

Death alone does not make someone notable. It is a case of WP:BIO1E - The9Man ^Talk 10:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 10:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rwanda-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The shooting might be notable, the individual mentioned here is very routine. Outside of the death, there is no coverage about him...Even the shooting was rather recent, I'm not sure it meets notability at this time. Rather routine event, no criminal charges laid. The investigation found no wrong-doing, so there isn't really much else to show notability. Tragic even, but not quite notable for our standards. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Death of Erixon Kabera. There is ongoing coverage (eg April this year [53], June this year [54]), ongoing protests (in June this year [55]) and questions being raised about policing and oversight [56], [57]. At the very least, this should be merged to List of killings by law enforcement officers in Canada, where it is not yet listed. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as Oaktree above perfectly sum up my words. Clearly not found any coverage outside the shooting. Fade258 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by RebeccaGreen, as ATD. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Perley

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

Not really seeing much which shows that the subject meets the notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. I contribute to the topic area and can say there are reliable sources that exist on the subject to meet notability standards. If need be, I can expand the article soon with the available sources. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some sources please share them here so we can assess them against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See bullet list below:
Encyclopedia entry for subject from Syriac studies website [58]

Entry on subject from Assyrian website, linked in article [59]

Memorial fund dedicated to subject from Harvard University [60]

Article dedicated to subject, also sourced in article though not sure if the current link works [61]

Book dedicated to the subject featuring his writings [62] and articles about its publishing [63] [64]

Written article from an Assyrian Cultural Foundation, dedicated to the subject [65]

Four academic papers that mention the subject [66] [67] [68] [69]

Please see other articles that mention the subject [70] [71]
Given the above list, there are enough sources that will suit the notability requirements necessary for the subject's article. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided by Surayeproject3 are more than sufficient. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this, this and this. Baqi:) (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ador Azad

AfDs for this article:

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

Likely WP:TOOSOON but fails WP:NACTOR. A lot of announcements on upcoming projects (non of which are notable for Wikipedia), but nothing in-depth about the subject himself outside of non-bylined churnalism and promotional content that mirrors what fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it: Recently, he is a very popular and notable actor in Bangladesh, about this topic covered in the (Acting career) section. This article has been passed WP:NACTOR for the (Acting career) section. Moreover, this article has been accepted into the AFC draft submission. – Aqsis Bey (talk) 13:00, 1 July 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) 17:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He pasess WP:NACTOR from the roles he's done. Gepeas (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, see WP:HOUNDING. Fewer than 50 edits and yet you show up at numerous AfD discussions with different topics, filed on different dates, etc. Only one connection to all of these which is me. Second, see WP:ATA. Third, there is no inherent notability from WP:NACTOR based on roles (see discussion here).--CNMall41 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn't even notice you until now, trust me, I'm not exactly out here hounding you. Don't flatter yourself. lol. Secondly, I understand that The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions meets the notability under WP:NACTOR. If that’s incorrect, feel free to correct me, preferably without the snide tone. Gepeas (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not flattered. Pretty duckish when new accounts are created to HOUND. You wouldn't be the first. To appease your vote, I will reiterate what I said in my third point above. Yes, you are incorrect. Simply having the roles does not guarantee notability. I would again suggest you read the discuss I linked to (or don't). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you came up with this hounding idea. Out of the 11 AfD discussions I'm involved in, only two came up with your name. Anyway, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion with your dogmatic mindset. Gepeas (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith N. Hamilton

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:CLERGY (note that the role of bishop in the LDS church closer to that of a Catholic Priest or a Methodist Minister, serving a only a local congregation, than to that of, e.g., a Catholic bishop, which is presumed notable). Sources consist of two articles mentioning Hamilton joining and leaving the Utah Parole board and his current employer's website. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latter Day Saints and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [72][73][74] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Military, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of Utah has a 22-member Cabinet, which is as large as any cabinet can get before it becomes too large to function. I'm not sure if we have a consensus about whether cabinet members are automatically notable per WP:NPOL. As a Mormon bishop, he only leads a single congregation, so that's run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to vote. A late law client was a former Public Service Commissioner for the State of Utah. This might create a difficult precedent and, potentially, a conflict of interest. His name is being withheld due to confidentiality. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Feedback on WikiOriginal-9's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Brown (internet personality)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James Brown (internet personality)

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. There are many people in history who have gone viral for one thing but it didn't make them long-term notable; ie WP:SINGLEEVENT. This article has no reason to stay. It is mostly about a controversy with another creative Bobrisky; which has this article leaning towards WP:PSEUDO. Besides him being known for cross-dressing in Nigeria (an act that would be reported by the blogs/websites/news regardless of the person), there is no point in this person having an article. It also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. There is no sources that are verifying this person as a professional dancer. There is a source that mentioned he released a single but it is not notable as it did not chart, receive award nominations/wins, or receive any music certifications. Sackkid (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note this article was started by the subject himself, a clear violation of WP:AUTOBIO. Sackkid (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see evidence that the article was started by the subject - the behavior at Special:Contributions/Buchei is consistent with a sockpuppet of an experienced editor (starting in sandbox, etc). The subject has contributed to it though (Special:Contributions/Wfjamesbrown). Dreamyshade (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that was a mistake on my part. It wasn't started by the subject but it was edited several times by the subject on the following dates: November 27 (2 times) and December 31 (3 times) in 2021, lastly on April 4, 2022. After his last edit, he warned about further editing his own page as a conflict of interest. Sackkid (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for raising the concern, Dreamyshade. Just to clarify: the article was not started by the subject, nor is the editor User:Buchei a sockpuppet or connected to the subject or any other expereinced in any way. The article was originally created as part of a Wikipedia training workshop for queer persons held in Lagos, Nigeria focused on bridging the knowledge gap around underrepresented identities, particularly the LGBTQ+ community in West Africa. I co-facilitated this training alongside other experienced Wikimedians and advised all trainees to begin drafting their articles in their sandbox which explains the use of the sandbox in this case. While it’s possible that the subject, or a fan, may have later edited via Special:Contributions/Wfjamesbrown, that edit is separate and does not undermine the good-faith contribution of the original article creator. Thanks again for the vigilance, and for all your edits on the article. Kaizenify (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kaizenify, that's very helpful context! Good reminder to me to assume good faith. I was happy to hear about the Write for the Rights efforts from the Wikipedia Diff blog recently, and happy to try to support it from afar. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. What a mess: it's like a games of Twelves meets a Battenberg pastry. As I've written dozens of times, autobiographies are almost always original research. I have complete sympathy with the subject, who is subject to discrimination I haven't seen in the United States in my lifetime. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CREATIVE, WP:BLP1E, etc. Going viral once isn't pageworthy. Astaire (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Keep. An article being in bad shape is not a good reason to delete. With a quick news search, I found a decent source for him being a dancer, along with other material showing an argument for WP:BASIC as an internet personality: Brown was featured in a notable documentary, and there is a volume of ongoing coverage about him in Nigerian press. However, much of that is relatively light coverage rather than substantial in-depth coverage. I suspect that somebody else could spend a bit more time here and gather together more sources to assemble a decent article. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC) Updated vote based on finding additional sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the restructure of the page and I respect your comment but he is not a professional dancer. Also as I said in the above comment, "Besides him being known for cross-dressing in Nigeria (an act that would be reported by the blogs/websites/news regardless of the person), there is no point in this person having an article." Anyone who "cross-dress" in Nigeria would receive significant coverage by the media. Public disagreements should not be mentioned in the 'personal life' section. Also the film or documentary that he is featured in does not feature him as main topic. He is just a person that was interviewed in the documentary, he is not even mentioned as a cast member. Sackkid (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability claim is for being an internet personality. The article doesn't claim he's a professional dancer, just that he's a dancer, and the source I added verifies that he's a dancer.

Are you saying that coverage of a cross-dressing person in Nigerian news media seems to be WP:ROUTINE, so it doesn't count for notability? I don't see evidence supporting that in the news coverage about him. Much of the news coverage repeats or reflects something he said or did on social media, which seems to be newsworthy because he has such a large social media following. A fair bit of the coverage also has an aspect of tabloid/WP:SENSATIONAL coverage related to his gender non-conformity, with superficial reporting that does not make an effort to verify claims, which is a large part of why I voted weak keep.

As you can read in the sources I added, the NY Times review and Vogue review both describe Brown as one of two main figures in the documentary, not simply interviewed in the film. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, that's exactly what I'm saying. I can list several people in Nigeria who have gone viral several times and provide an article that mentions their names but it doesn't make them notable. He hasn't done anything of notable status. Social media posts and everything of that nature are trivial. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. Furthermore, when we describe a topic's profession, that's just what it is.. a profession. So with that being said, if he is not a professional comedian, professional dancer, or anything else, it should be removed. For example, when Wikipedia says "Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter is an American singer, songwriter, actress, and businesswoman". All of those titles are appropriate because that is a profession that she earns money in. It doesn't say "dancer" because she is not in the profession of dancing, nor does she make her money from dancer. And regardless of his position in the film or documentary, it still unnecessary for him to have a page. If anything, then this page should probably be merged with the film. You yourself voted that the page was a weak keep, which basically means it might as be deleted because it is not worth keeping. And as said before, it still fails the criterias mentioned above. Sackkid (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a comedian, it needs to be established that he does comedic work (stand-up, comedy-streaming videos, etc.). As a singer, he needs to have a charting song/album, certified album, major-label music release, etc. If you are claiming that he is a brand influencer, he needs to have been involved in major endorsements. If you are claiming that he is an internet personality or content creator, he needs to meet the guidelines of WP:CREATIVE. None of these apply to him. Sackkid (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A person doesn't have to meet WP:CREATIVE if they meet WP:BASIC. I've added more sources, and it still looks to me like there's an argument for WP:BASIC, but I'd like to hear from people familiar with Nigerian news media who can better evaluate the sources. Adjusted the article to describe his dancing, comedy, etc., as part of his content creation work, rather than as a separate profession. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So the page has been restructured so that handled the WP:PSEUDO problem but it still fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. He is still only known for his viral moment and the fact that he cross-dresses in Nigeria; a defiant of Nigerian law which many have gained recognition from. Also, the infobox on the page says he is a comedian and also a brand influencer but there is nothing supporting that he is a professional comedian or professional brand influencer. Sackkid (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per some of the comment made by Dreamyshade as the subject clearly meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG through significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that go beyond mere trivial mentions or routine tabloid pieces.

Brown is not merely notable for a single viral moment (per WP:SINGLEEVENT), while he first gained visibility during the 2018 arrest, his relevance has extended far beyond that. He has written an autobiography "I wrote a book to tell my life's story – James Brown". Punch Newspapers. 10 June 2022., released a single and launched a music career "James Brown drops single after Burna's Grammy win". Legit.ng. 30 March 2021., starred in the 2024 web series Hotel Palava BellaNaija, maintained ongoing public visibility and impact, including being the subject of legislative discourse surrounding the 2022 Nigerian Cross-Dressing Bill per here "Cross-dressing: Bobrisky, James Brown risk jail". Premium Times. 5 April 2022. and in Punch. All these clearly disqualifies the WP:SINGLEEVENT concern as he has remained culturally and socially relevant.

Also the subject has received extensive, non-trivial coverage in a wide range of reliable sources, including:

The New York Times – as part of the HBO documentary The Legend of the Underground which highlights queer activism in Nigeria.

Vogue (June 2021) – features Brown’s role as a leading figure of queer resistance in Nigeria.

"James Brown: Meet popular Nigeria cross dresser". BBC News Pidgin. 20 July 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2021..

His queer presence has also shaped various academic and policy literature:

Academic study: “Queer Nigerians Bravely Breaking Gender Barriers” – MambaOnline (2024)

Journal article: “Discursive Tropes of Aggression Against Queer-Sexuality in Nigerian Standup Comedy” – Sexuality & Culture (Springer, 2024)

This confirms his notability goes beyond personal drama and into societal, legal, and cultural relevance and duly satisfy WP:BASIC. Kaizenify (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just he wrote a book does not make him notable. He would fail WP:AUTHOR as he does not meet the criteria. As for him releasing a single, that does not make him a singer. That song was released in 2021 and does not have chart positions, sell significant figure/certifications, or win any major awards. Starring in a web-series and not a major mainstream series is enough for him to fail WP:NACTOR. And again, anyone who cross-dress in Nigeria is going to have some media coverage. There is a published article about who, subjectively, are the most popular cross-dressers in Nigeria but none of the mentioned people (excluding Bobrisky) are notable. "Journal article: “Discursive Tropes of Aggression Against Queer-Sexuality in Nigerian Standup Comedy” – Sexuality & Culture (Springer, 2024)" does not list him nor does it establish him as a comedian. When we say a person is a singer, comedian, actor, etc., it has to be established that those are their careers, not hobbies or one-offs. At the most, James Brown is a hobbyist and he fits certain criterias of WP:LOWPROFILE. Sackkid (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not require conventional career labels to be “formally established” per WP:ANYBIO. The breadth and depth of independent coverage, the substantive presence in mainstream and academic sources, and continued influence over several years all confirm that this is not a low-profile or fleeting figure, but a culturally significant personality in Nigeria and beyond. Again, while it is true that merely writing a book or releasing a song does not, on their own, confer notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:MUSICBIO, the totality of coverage and cultural relevance of James Brown warrants keeping the article, per WP:GNG and WP:ENT. The New York Times, Vogue, Punch ,or BBC pidgin are not blog posts or casual mentions, they are substantial media features that focus on him, fulfilling WP:GNG. Lastly, he stars (not appears) in a multi-episode Nollywood web series (Hotel Palava), which received notable media attention, further establishing a career trajectory in entertainment and his HBO documentary appearance is not one-off or minor, it's a feature placement in a global production, reviewed by RogerEbert.com and discussed in major international outlets. Kaizenify (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The journal article "Discursive Tropes of Aggression Against Queer-Sexuality in Nigerian Standup Comedy" does include a couple pages of material about James Brown - an academic analysis of a bit that a comedian did about Brown. If you have access to The Wikipedia Library, it has the full text available. That citation supports a claim that Brown is a noted and criticized cross dresser, not a claim that Brown himself is a comedian.

Brown does not fit WP:LOWPROFILE because because he has actively (and successfully!) sought out media attention for years. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The subject receives significant, sustained coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources:

- RogerEbert.com review of HBO’s documentary The Legend of the Underground – names Brown a principal protagonist and analyses his cultural impact.^[3]
- Vogue feature on the documentary and Nigeria’s queer community – profiles Brown’s activism and social‑media reach.^[4]
- National‑press interview in Punch about his 2022 memoir The Chronicles of an African Princess.^[5]
- Ongoing mainstream coverage such as Vanguard’s 2024 report on his visit to Bobrisky in prison, showing notability well beyond the initial viral clip.^[6]
- International news report by Al Jazeera on the 2018–2020 court case that first brought him to global attention.^[7]

Coverage spans 2018–2025 and deals with activism, media career, legal history and public image, so this is **not** a WP:SINGLEEVENT or WP:BLP1E situation. Deleting per WP:TNT would discard a topic that clearly satisfies the General Notability Guideline. Mediascriptor (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Mediascriptor. The sources outlined does show that the subject meets WP:BASIC. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Geeta Pandey (5 December 2023). "Nimisha Priya: The Indian nurse from Kerala on death row in Yemen". BBC. Retrieved 13 July 2025.
^ "Murder and blood money: The case of Nimisha Priya, the Kerala nurse on death row in Yemen". Firstpost. 24 March 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2025.
^ Daniels, Robert. "The Legend of the Underground". RogerEbert.com.
^ Desmond, Vincent. "A New Documentary Highlights the Resilience and Joy of Nigeria's Queer Community". Vogue.
^ https://punchng.com/i-wrote-a-book-to-tell-my-lifes-story-james-brown/
^ https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/photos-james-brown-visits-bobrisky-at-kirikiri-correctional-centre/
^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/27/nigerian-judge-throws-out-case-against-47-men-over-homosexuality

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Cherepanova

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Not supported by reliable and significant sources. More than half of the current sources ([75][76][77][78][79][80]) are primary. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and ~~United Arab Emirates~~. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I draftified the page but the author moved it back to mainspace without improvement. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about any connection to the UAE? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant the United States. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oho! Makes more sense. In any case, I don't think she passes WP:GNG, so Delete Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have a google alert for my name and Mrs. Cherepanova's name - we authored a case together in 2020. The case study received a few awards, including Outstanding New Case Writer - https://www.thecasecentre.org/AwardsComps/winners/year/2020

I know that Vera has a number of other awards and honours but they are industry-specific, e.g. she was named best compliance officer by IBLF / E&Y in 2011 - http://iblfrussia.org/news/detail.php?ID=566

I don't think the article needs to be deleted, but in current form it definitely doesn't reflect Mrs. Cherepanova's achievements and overall impact the made in the EU & US compliance industry.

Needs more work. Normalnot (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Normalnot. How did you get a Google alert? Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 10:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator I have google alerts https://www.google.com/alerts set up for a number of keywords. The one that fired was for this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red - through which I found this discussion. All that said, given my connection to Mrs. Cherepanova I'm probably in violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COIE and shouldn't be part of this discussion. Normalnot (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please follow WP:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI to make a conflict of interest disclosure. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [81], [82] and [83] are enough to establish notability. Thus, it has GNG 102.91.77.177 (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources. They should not be used to establish notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs only contribution to WP... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Harrison

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

Content is very sparse and does not suggest significant coverage. I have worked extensively on articles related to the White House Office and Harrison has vexed me because he does not appear to have much coverage; even searching his name on Google News largely returns articles about his wife. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is a stub but presents accurate information about a White House official with proper sourcing.
User01938 (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the underlying issue. Harrison's job does not entitle him to an article, notability does. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are mentions of him (as in the sources in the article) but only the Korea Herald article is mostly about him (although not entirely). There is a mention in WaPo article; and another here. I can find his testimony relating to January 6, and even that gives the impression of him being a minor official. Perhaps in the 2nd Trump term he will become notable. But not yet. Lamona (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MixSingh

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

Non-notable musician. Fails Wp:GNG and Wp:NMUSIC. No SIGCOV is available, just passing mentions and routine PR articles for the releases. There are two award nominations as well but both of them are non-notable and just nominations. Also, the article's creator was blocked as a sock and UPE. Zuck28 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Punjab. Zuck28 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This biography is far better-sourced than most of the other Articles for deletion, and I am opposed to a Western bias of deletion of non-Western topics. - Poof positive (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid argument. See Wp:WHATABOUT, WP:TDLI,and Wp:POV. Zuck28 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is demonstrated under WP:MUSIC. Subject has produced and composed for widely recognized artists and songs (e.g., "Sakhiyaan", "Sorry", "Saara India") released under independent labels. His production work has received broad exposure and coverage, confirming his significance in the Punjabi music scene. Cinelatina (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the points you mentioned makes him pass Wp:NMUSIC. Zuck28 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Chizoba Vincent

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:NPOET as some of the sources cited are his own writing and the bunch of other are non WP:RS. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Poetry, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject fulfills notability criteria in Nigerian audiovisual system as Cinematographer, Film Director.Cinelatina (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Driebergen

AfDs for this article:

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

My concerns about this person's notability still hasn't eased since the previous AFD discussion, which resulted in "kept". Re-reading the discussion, the "keep" votes aren't without caution if not suspicion.

One promised to improve the article or something (to further verify this person's notability), but I still don't see logs of edits made by that voter. Another is now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Another cited WP:NACTOR, which is what I was unwilling to challenge then due to lack of votes favoring either deletion or redirection.

I re-raised my concerns recently not too long ago:

Transcluding from Talk:Ben Driebergen

I'm concerned again about this person's notability. The following I cannot use to verify because they are just interviews, i.e. primary sources, which neither WP:GNG nor WP:NBASIC would allow such sources to be counted: Ent Weekly (another), Pajiba. Screen Rant (source) is discouraged per WP:RSP#Screen Rant. Reality Tea displays just his brief profile. I was able to listen to the Idaho Statesman article; it just previews his then-upcoming The Challenge appearance. Maybe I'm doubtful again about this person, but the reliable sources verifying his general/basic notability have become scarce. George Ho (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Since then, I've yet to see my concerns readdressed. To challenge the past assumption that WP:NACTORS suffices, this person must also comply with WP:NBASIC per WP:BIOSPECIAL. I've still yet to see reliable independent sources verify his notability in Survivor: Winners at War and/or The Challenge and/or any other non-television field even as a war veteran.

To make either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E applicable (or WP:PAGEDECIDE/WP:WHYN/WP:FAILN if neither), this article should be preferably redirected to Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers, his winning season at his Survivor debut. George Ho (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Idaho. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say his military service is clearly not notable. No opinion on the Survivor stuff, since I don't watch it.Intothat darkness 13:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to watch it. Already, he won just one season and reappeared as one of established winners in the winners-only season. Well, he didn't win in his second (winners-only) season, but even other winners who also reappeared in that season turn out to be notable for just their own winning seasons (per past AFD discussions) and lack general/basic notability needed for this project. George Ho (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice I only commented on his military service notability, and that because it was included in the Military AfD sort. Nothing else. Intothat darkness 17:31, 27 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 12:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Lots of coverage in Gnews about the Survivor win, from 2017 then again in 2020. Shows sustained coverage. It's a mix of interviews, how he'll spend the money and the usual celebrity news, but he's well-known to the public. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are even discussions in Gscholar and Books about him, studying adversarial networks. I'd say he's more than notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I not surprised about your mentioning of Google results? from 2017 then again in 2020 Ones from 2017 are primarily about him winning and how he won Heroes vs Healers vs Hustlers, which can be already detailed at the season page. Ones from 2020 still refers him as the winner of that season and probably promoted the Winners at War season before the season started. Ones covering his Winners at War gameplay were just recaps and interviews with him.

a mix of interviews, how he'll spend the money Still didn't prevent the article about the Survivor 43 winner from being redirected to the season article (AFD discussion), despite giving all to charity.

he's well-known to the public. As I see, he appeared in Quiet Explosions: Healing the Brain, a documentary film about war veterans and PTSD. Then again, WP:NBASIC. Anyways, with that quote said, any "well-known" Survivor winners that have been redirected to their own winning seasons? What about the Blood vs. Water winner (AFD) or The Australian Outback one (AFD) or...?

There are even discussions in Gscholar and Books about him, studying adversarial networks. Hmm... You're getting there maybe, but... No, wait, the Google Scholar shows just few or several results, including one German database showing info about this book and one turning out to be a student's thesis. Some of the results there are repeated in Google Books, like this one. Well, the sources are just covering his HvHvH gameplay. I've yet to see them cover his gameplay in Winners at War and The Challenge, like his med-evacs there.

Well, I can't help being nitpick-y about your rationale for your "weak keep" vote. I don't know how else to convince you, but then I'll stop here, hoping that someone else besides me can disagree with you. George Ho (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where else you'd look for things if not in Google to be honest. The rest is as I've explained. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Library perhaps. Or your local library's access to external third-party databases, like NewsBank. George Ho (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a keep anyway, it's a moot point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is not enough coverage to demonstrate notability (WP:GNG), nor have they had significant roles in a way that would satisfy WP:NACTOR no matter how it's written. The only source I can find that counts for WP:SIGCOV is the Hollywood Reporter article in the references. Separately, if this article is kept, the massive and overdetailed plot summaries will need to be rectified. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Ed. In addition, Driebergen is not notable for serving in the military. Two sources merely mention service, as a corporal, with no details. The other is a local source behind a paywall and even if a single minor incident contributed to notability (almost certainly doesn't in this case, even though admirable), there is no significant coverage of it. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover? Note 3. Donner60 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bear-girl of Krupina

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

Very few sources, very likely a hoax. Should be redirected to Feral child. Newklear007 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Newklear007 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Feral child. Either that or translate the German one maybe. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: historic possible myth, but with sufficient sourcing for notability. Worth having an article to explain that her status. Article sourcing can probably be improved from the German article. PamD 08:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Unless there’s more notable information, I can’t see why it shouldn’t be merged with Feral child along side other notable cases. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing on English and German article evidences notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drinah Nyirenda

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is based on sparse and trivial references with no clear demonstration of notability. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Africa. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the PROF test works against administrators rather than researchers. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NPROF allows for notability of professors who've held a named-professorship, distinguished professorship or the equivalent in an institution/nation/culture where distinguished and named are rarely used. I do not know the Zambian university system. If her professorships are/were the Zambian equivalent of distinguished, we should keep. Elemimele (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but there's nothing currently in the article that suggests that. (not voting either way) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:05, 6 July 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)} 02:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - Wikipedia is very underrepresented in terms of academics from southern Africa, but there just is not enough sourcing in the article to demonstrate a pass for WP:PROF or WP:GNG even with a pretty inclusionist reading. Quotes by the subject are more about the projects and ministries than about the significance of her directorship. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Halken

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

Lack of significant coverage; could not find more sources with significant coverage to demonstrate the actor's notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Denmark. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. See WP:NACTOR ["the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.") and the page in Danish please, to check the said roles--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Left guide (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Keep: Clicking on the Gnews link above brings up more than a trivial amount of Danish articles, [84] for example, suggests a long career and seems to be well-known by the public. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Close call, but doesn’t seem to definitively meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify- as an ATD, given the article has potential being kept, if more SIGCOV be added as well as some integration from the other language ver. like the Danish ver. for same article to this english ver. .Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book Danske filmskuespillere: 525 portrætter has a 5 para bio about him (pp 139-140) [85]. As Oaktree b noted, there are many current news stories about him, eg "Kristian Halken has been called the master of supporting roles. One year he won a Reumert for four supporting roles, and it is difficult to find a weak Halken performance. He is now 70 years old. Has Kristian Halken ever actually been bad on a theater stage?" [86]. This article Kristian Halken fra Sommerdahl: Her er hans kendte søn [87] has info about his wife and his son, also an actor. There is plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG, and multiple roles in films, tv and on stage to meet WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requesting more input on RebeccaGreen's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adding to the Politiken source provided above by RebeccaGreen, I'm finding some decent coverage of Halken in a Danish newspaper of record (Berlingske) - two long interviews (which while WP:IV applies, both have enough biographical content in them to contribute to notability), one in 2013 and one in 2009. There's another one from 2012 as part of their "My perfect Saturday" series, but this is only him talking about himself. Also coverage in another national source of his character being written out of "Badehotellet" and his reaction, as well as coverage in same about him and his wife appearing in a show together, and a short article (partially interview) from same again. Finally, while not de facto contributing to notability, it's worth noting that a search for site:berlingske.dk "kristian halken" yields hundreds of hits, indicating that he is indeed a notable figure in Denmark. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong and easy satifcation of WP:ANYBIO per lex.dk, which has superceded the Store danske eencyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

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

Academics and educators

Árpád Ajtony

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Beauty pageants, France, and Hungary. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarita Shankar

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

A promotional biography of a businesswoman masquerading as an educator fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. A non-notable business woman portrayed as an educator, and a lot of non reliable and primary sources used as sources. Fails Wp:NAUTHOR, Wp:ACADEMIC and wp: GNGz Zuck28 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally created this article in December 2023 as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Here's the original version: [88]. Since then, I haven't had much involvement with it. Seeing the current state of the article is quite disheartening, and it has made me lose interest in trying to improve or save it.Thilsebatti (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Back

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

Only 1 article links to this. Just seems to be a run of the mill lawyer with most sources being primary and not SIGCOV. Nothing in Australian database trove either. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no articles about him except articles that were published by employer. 🄻 🄰 14:35, 14 July 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Na Jong-ho

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

Pretty much entirely primary sources given. Can't find much on quick search. No major awards received. WP:NACADEMIC doesn't appear to meet grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, Psychology, Korea, and United States of America. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Korea, Connecticut, Minnesota, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo, and Dong-A Ilbo—collectively referred to as "ChoJoongDong"—are widely recognized as the most influential conservative daily newspapers in South Korea, having established a long-standing reputation for credibility. These newspapers apply relatively strict editorial standards not only to coverage of celebrities or one-off incidents but also to the selection of individuals featured in broader societal reporting. Additionally, SisaIN is well-known for its progressive stance and in-depth investigative journalism, while YTN is a 24-hour news channel that prioritizes public interest and timeliness in its broadcasts.

It is extremely rare for such media outlets to focus multiple reports on a single individual, especially through in-depth interviews rather than brief mentions. In most cases, such coverage presupposes the individual’s sustained public activity and significant influence across various sectors of society. In particular, the "ChoJoongDong" newspapers only dedicate exclusive interviews or full-length feature articles to individuals who demonstrate notable expertise, social standing, and ongoing public contributions. Given these standards, the fact that Na Jong-ho has been the subject of exclusive interviews and featured reports in all of these media outlets clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guideline concerning "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources."

[89], [90], [91], [92], [93]

Packer25 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I retract my nomination; think those sources are sufficient, thanks grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:50, 14 July 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.

Bill V. Mullen

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

Lack of notability: there is not even one external source that confirms his notability - unless one would consider the books he has authored/edited as enough proof of his notability. Lova Falk (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC) After reading the comments, I now withdraw this deletion proposal. And apologise for even making it! Lova Falk (talk) 08:09, 14 July 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 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very obvious Keep. @Lova Falk, please read WP:Author and consider withdrawing this to save everyone time. Jahaza (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indiana and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also found, among others, three academic reviews of Popular Fronts. [94] [95] [96]. Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, faulty nomination. The article as nominated had sufficient book reviews for WP:AUTHOR, and these reviews are in-depth independently published sources that are entirely about Mullen's work (the exact thing we would expect notability-contributing sources to focus on). As well as WP:AUTHOR they provide WP:GNG notability. The nomination statement totally ignores these and falsely states there are no sources, seeing the list of published books but somehow blind to the reviews of the books. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alim Abubakre

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

PROD deleted by a user with their only contributions being to this article. Does not appear to pass WP:NPROF, no valid secondary sourcing to prove notability. No WP:RS...WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 15:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 15:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the reason on the talk page about WP:RSNG is sufficient to keep this. However, the page will need additional copy editing.--83.159.74.123 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Robert Cart

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

PROD deleted by the subject himself. Non-notable professor. No valid secondary sourcing: all press releases, interviews, or self-published. No in-depth article on the subject. I could not find a single scholarly article from the subject on Google scholar.

Additionally, Professor Cart has made numerous COI edits since 2007 ([97]), the subject was warned then under a different account and again today with his new account, ([98]). His workplace has policies in place dealing with conflicts of interest. Assuming good faith in this case is quite difficult. All academics know what a conflict of interest is. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Jersey. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and all of the citations are independent reliable sources. articles are published within my discipline in internationally renowned and juried articles. Robert Cart (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: user accounts Robert Cart and Ianbrowning, both of which edited this page, were confirmed to be the same user and were blocked for sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Cart. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that all citations are independent sources: the last four are all by Cart himself. And there are other problems, for example: Montclair's website can only confirm he works there, it is not an independent source for his notability (footnote 1), or the notability of the concert on China (footnote 6); likewise the Network for New Music website is not an independent source for the notability of their concerts- let alone the notability of a single musician. UrielAcosta (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is harrassment. Please stop before I report it. Robert Cart (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user accounts Robert Cart and Ianbrowning, both of which edited this page, were confirmed to be the same user and were blocked for sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Cart. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Mamani could definitely have been nicer, sending an article to AfD after a contested PROD is standard procedure and shouldn't be seen as harrassment. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partially deleted discussion about how to post here

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My apologies, I see I added my comment for deletion below in the wrong way and it lacks a timestamp & a reply option, so if anybody knows how to add a reply button to it please do so. UrielAcosta (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can add a timestamp, and it should automatically be detected as comment syntax. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I've just deleted it & will repost it in the right format. UrielAcosta (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a professor with published work is not in itself automatically notable, see also my comments to the author/subject of the article above refuting his claim that all sources are independent. UrielAcosta (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jon Robert Cart meets multiple notability criteria under both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PROF: 1. Musical Notability Cart has performed as a soloist at major venues including Carnegie Hall and the Kennedy Center, and his performances have been covered in reliable sources such as press releases from DePauw University and concert programs cited in university and arts institution media. He has premiered works by recognized composers including Gary Schocker, Jennifer Higdon, Edgar Girtain IV, and Sergi Cassanellas at international festivals (e.g., the Atlantic Music Festival and the American Cathedral in Paris). His discography includes solo recordings with labels such as Albany and Centaur Records, which document original interpretations and commissions. 2. Academic and Professional Standing Cart holds a Doctor of Musical Arts degree and has held long-term academic positions, including professor and former dean roles at accredited universities such as Montclair State University, Rowan University, and Shippensburg University. His leadership of the Marcel Moyse Society and international publications in peer-reviewed and trade journals (Pan, The Flutist Quarterly, The Babel Flute, Flöte aktuell) indicate a sustained contribution to his field. These meet notability guidelines under WP:PROF for leadership, publication, and impact. 3. Verifiable, Reliable Sources His work has been covered in university news outlets, performance programs, and interviews, and he has an extensive public record as an educator, performer, and recording artist. This includes documented appearances and faculty affiliations on institutional websites, liner notes, and recorded media. In sum, Jon Robert Cart’s biography satisfies the notability requirements for both musicians and academics. This article should be kept. Ianbrowning (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Note: user accounts Robert Cart and Ianbrowning, both of which edited this page, were confirmed to be the same user and were blocked for sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Cart. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is your first edit here on Wikipedia – may I ask how you found this specific AfD? If Jon Robert Cart himself invited you to participate here, I invite you to look at why this isn't ideal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ianbrowning, your comment appears to be AI generated based on its structure and language. Please see WP:LLMDISCLOSE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better RS can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Although this is an autobiography, the subject probably did meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria in 2008 when this was created. However, I do not see that WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PROF in their current form are met. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons that autobiography is discouraged: WP:COI, WP:OR, weak sourcing, risk to the Wikimedia Foundation's charitable status, meat puppetry, and sockpuppetry, all like a checklist of what not to do here. The use of LLM on pages here also endangers us, but from the other side of the law. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails to fulfil the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC (and that's before taking into account the COI edits and sockpuppetry). — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 09:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dipti Ranjan Sahoo

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

Unable to find any satisfied reference to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, India, and Delhi. LKBT (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he passes WP:NPROF, the nomination based upon failing WP:GNG is not appropriate for an academic, neither is WP:SIGCOV. Checking his co-authors, he is in a medium-low citation area, so his h-factor of 34 is decent. The Fellowship elections count (I added a source for one) although they are not the most significant. Combined with his Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize there is enough, plus he has a good yearly trend to his citations.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ldm1954, I think if you view his academic credentials in totality there is a decent enough case for notability. Zzz plant (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Kooria

AfDs for this article:

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

Same issues from the 2022 AfD still apply, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Still a non-notable academic. Zuck28 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Rind

AfDs for this article:

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

This article, recently expanded from a redirect, was previously deleted at AfD in 2019. Nothing has changed since then. The subject is still a non-notable purveyor of fringe theories - about pedophilia supposedly being non-harmful - and fails WP:NPROF. The sources in the article fall into at least one of two categories:

Sources discussing the Rind et al. controversy, on which we already have a much better article. Having a separate article on Rind himself violates WP:BLP1E and WP:CFORK. That existing article also contains pertinent details missing from this creation, such as Rind et al. controversy#Possible bias, that Rind et al.'s results "are "truly an outlier" compared to other meta-analyses", and so forth.

An array of non-significant coverage; things like minor commentary/reply pieces in journals, minor interest pieces in local news, and the like. A few bits and pieces of discussion of someone's ideas in the literature do not a notable person make (else nearly every researcher would be notable).

Taking things more broadly, Rind's views on pedophilia are thoroughly WP:FRINGE, same as other such fringe material that has been removed from Wikipedia. This article as it was created, whether intentionally or not, is effectively a whitewash, as it presents the criticism of his ideas as almost entirely a conservative moral panic, while ignoring a much broader range of criticism. What little here is significant coverage is much better covered elsewhere. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Behavioural science, Psychiatry, and Psychology. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject fails notability guidelines especially in light of there already being an article on the only matter the subject is known for. This article was already deleted once and it appears it was created again by a brand new user that was unaware of the previous decision and its reasoning.Legitimus (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources unrelated to the 1998 controversy, so other editors may examine them individually. I created this article mostly because of them. [99][100][101][102][103][104]. Cheers. V. S. Video (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't commonly comment at AfD, but these don't look like sources about Rind and more like sources about a topic he has commented on. Generally, we need the former type of source to establish notability of a person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhaker Upadhyay

AfDs for this article:

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

Early stage academic whose page was deleted in 2017. Page was recently recreated, failed at AfC so editor moved it to main claiming that he passes WP:NPROF. While his citations have improved, at most he is an asst_prof (perhaps an independent researcher) in a fairly high citation area. No awards, no coverage, still some years away from a pass of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a high-enough citation area that I don't think two barely-triple-digit citation counts are enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't see anything here that would clearly meet NACADEMIC, and the sources are obviously nowhere near enough satisfying GNG. (If someone does come up with evidence to support either, pls ping me and I'll take another look.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation count is nowhere near high enough to justify inclusion for someone who is still a junior academic and without a significant award. I also don't think his research activity so far is particularly impressive even among early career researchers in his field e.g. compare to the profile of this academic, who got her PhD around the same time as the article subject, but has over four times as many total citations and a h-index of 66. Leonstojka (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes much sense to compare citations and h-index between researchers in quantum gravity and in galaxy formation. The authorship and citation patterns are too different. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reason I declined the draft, fails WP:NACADEMIC. RangersRus (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Cairo

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

Her discovery is very cool, but I see only a single piece of reliable coverage. She's not a notable academic, and has not published any work with peer review (her discovery is hosted on arxiv). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Bahamas. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Delete I think the issue here is that what she is known for does not even have its own Wikipedia entry. I searched for Mizohata–Takeuchi conjecture and found no results. Agreed this is cool info, but that isn't enough to justify an entire entry. Maybe move reference onto another page?--Burroughs'10 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a notable conjecture; her discovery as covered in El País could be added to that article once made. But regardless, she is not notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The academic notability guidelines are about identifying (one way or another) scholars who have had a successful career overall. I don't think that standard can be met with a single preprint, outside of fairly exceptional special cases. There could be another path to notability, however. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "Cairo's work was widely reported in the international press", but all I've found so far is the El País item that is the article's only source. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since I had heard of this discovery from numerous sources, I thought that this would probably be a pretty easy keep (under WP:GNG guidelines; not enough for WP:PROF unless it gains a major award), but it does turn out that of the dozens of sources for the discovery, the El Pais article is the only one that meets reliable sourcing, etc. so if that was that, there wouldn't be enough (at least one more source, maybe two unless it's a big one). Coverage by significant people in the field, such as this mastodon post by Terence Tao suggests that others who are in the know consider it a pretty big deal. I wish we had foresight and time to know whether this is a news cycle that is likely to be picked up after peer-reviewed publication by (rightfully) cautious news sites that don't want egg on their face in case it needs to be retracted for whatever reason. I'll keep watching the news cycle and see if anything changes during this AfD before weighing in more. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her discovery may be notable, but I would be surprised if Cairo herself earned enough media attention to meet the notability threshold. If others disagree, I would be fine with draftification. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability from a single mathematical discovery is definitely not impossible. A comparable situation might be that of Maryna Viazovska, whose deletion discussion resolved into a keep, albeit with a few more sources than currently. Sesquilinear (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might add, that decision saved us considerable embarrassment when she was later awarded the Fields Medal. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know this. Interesting trivia! Tito Omburo (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that old discussion, it seems that the sources were both more numerous and also somewhat better quality. That may have something to do with the mathematical problem having a higher profile as well as being easier to explain at a lay level. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Terry Tao is impressed, and that makes me think that if the paper holds up, Quanta writing an article in the next six months is pretty likely, even if the current source setup isn't sufficient. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, quick question: when I make a bolded vote, should I blank the bolded comment, which isn't strictly a vote? Sesquilinear (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should blank it, since others have responded. If that were not just a comment, but another bolded !vote, you should have struck it out to show that you've changed your mind, but that doesn't apply here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I meant to say "strike" and have no idea why I said "blank"; thanks for asking my actual question. Sesquilinear (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found an article from Der Standard and added it to the references - it doesn't have much that wasn't in the El País article but shows coverage in another source. I share Mscuthbert's sense that people with relevant expertise seem to consider her paper important or impressive, but I'm surprised there isn't more news coverage. --Opus 113 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Whenever someone out of nowhere allegedly proves a "new theorem", or gives a new proof of an old theorem, there is often breathless coverage in yellow media. This cannot be the criterion for scientific notability on Wikipedia. It might be good enough for influencers and whatnot, but scientific advance is determined by peer review and other institutional kinds of notoriety (awards, etc). Biases of yellow media towards stories of discovering the next Ramanujan or whatnot are legion. Tito Omburo (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, I trust the opinions of Terry Tao [105] and Gil Kalai [106] on what is a significant advance much more than I trust El País. Unfortunately, those links do not count towards any notability criterion here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deferring to your draftify recommendation below. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Probably WP:TOOSOON / passing, but let's keep the article around. I think we can expect to see more coverage, maybe awards, in the future. Her paper being published (& cited) may also change things. I did find a few more sources that are worth mentioning, but don't necessarily add any depth of coverage:

[107] Interview with Der Standard.
[108] Article on znews.vn. No idea about its reliability.
[109] Short article in El Universal. Doesn't seem to add anything new.
[110] Radio segment with RTVE. Haven't listened to it (I don't know Spanish).
[111] Short notice in Junge Welt. Nothing new.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Maddy. Currently we have at best a case of WP:BIO1E but with some promise for future notability, so let's save what we have for if that pans out. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for the concerns of being too soon as pointed out above. GuardianH 01:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natanya Wachtel

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

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reference list possesses an impressive length, but it's pretty much all SEO spam, press releases and churnalism. My own search did not turn up anything better. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreal amount of fake blackhat SEO sources and vanity press. I've removed what I could, but there's still a ton more.Sam Kuru (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kane

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

This article was created as part of an undisclosed paid promotional effort, around the same time as the article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-P Conte, and was originally basically just a resume. After I cleaned it up a bit, we're not left with even a single good source by my assessment. All that can really be said about the subject of this article is that he exists, ran as a Republican (and lost), and is involved with The Heritage Foundation. MediaKyle (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Economics, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ran as a political candidate as verified by the sourcing, but lost. Serving in the military isn't notable, not sure the other career items listed add up to notability. I can really only find stories about a political run. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election as an ATD. Fails WP:NPOL. मल्ल (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, California, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the AfD proposal may understate the relevance of the subject to what Wikipedia would look for in considering if a subject should have a biography. He fails WP:NPOL. Are there thoughts on WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC? He is a professor at University of Austin. A combination of his Google Scholar profile and an (admittedly not independent of the subject) biography via his employer lead me to believe this could be an edge case. --Mpen320 (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware the subject had written a book until now, but looking into it I was unable to find a single review of it or even a mention, so I'd say notability as an author is off the table. As for academic guidelines, the subject hasn't held any particular position that would make them automatically notable, and that H-index is relatively uninspiring compared to the Google Scholar profiles I've seen in keep results. Granted, I've been wrong about academics a number of times, so maybe I'm missing something. MediaKyle (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On EBSCOHost, I found a few reviews via EBSCO Host, but the filter only shows one review was in peer-reviewed publication and I found another review in Foreign Affairs. A similiar situation for Immigrant Superpower EBSCO Host. I have no real context for H-indexes or anything. This was a real, leave no stone unturned situation to balance it with my personal deletionism. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election. Per Oaktree b, failed candidates for political office are rarely notable per NPOL and POLOUTCOMES. I appreciate Mpen320 for attempting the BEFORE due-diligence for our benefit!

Bkissin (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg A. Mukhanov

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

Appears to be entirely promotional. Amigao (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, invalid nomination. The article appears to be purely factual; stating facts that happen to be positive is not promotional, and being promotional is not itself a valid deletion rationale. More, the nomination statement does not address any notability criteria at all, and Mukhanov's IEEE Fellow status passes notability through WP:PROF#C3 and is explicitly cited by WP:PROF as an example of the sort of society fellowship that passes that criterion. He also has strong citation counts on Google Scholar [112], enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

UTC)

Speedy Keep Absolutely an invalid nomination. Clearly meets WP:NPROF and the rationale presented has no basis in fact. Qflib (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as invalid nomination. Zero promotional content in the article. A bit CV-like, but that's nothing that can't be fixed through editing. See WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy keep WP:PROF#C3 for IEEE Fellow -- nominator is asked to familiarize themselves with relevant notability guidelines before making further nominations. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:PROF#C3. Sal2100 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Morrill

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

Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. 🄻 🄰 16:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Oregon. 🄻 🄰 16:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is one paper that is highly cited. The citations fall off very steeply after that, and if the paper were a book, then I would suggest a redirect as an WP:ATD (but I don't think a stub on the paper is a great idea). Comment that the paper is coauthored with a higher profile academic, Eve Tuck. WP:NPROF notability for a 2016 PhD and current instructor would be a bit surprising anyway. No other notability is apparent. Watching discussion in case someone uncovers better evidence of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation count isn't high enough for me, and likely a case of WP:TOO SOON. Also, while this isn't strictly to do with the notability criteria, the promotional nature of the article is very off-putting and pushes me further away from a keep. Leonstojka (talk) 20:44, 10 July 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.

Dietrich Stephan

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

This article was clearly the subject of sustained promotional editing for quite some time. No progress has been made on the article since the fat was trimmed, and looking into it myself, I can only find routine coverage discussing his appointments, and one interview. I don't believe there's enough sources here to actually build an article upon. MediaKyle (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Management, and Science. MediaKyle (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep . The sources are weak, one failed verification (marked) and some claims such as "co-founded 14 biotech companies" are unverified. However, with an h-factor of 71 (now added to his page) I have to reluctantly conclude that he probably passes WP:NPROF. It is a weak keep because most of his citations are team papers, and I do not see evidence of awards. N.B., I also added an academic page in External links. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NPROF Monhiroe (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I removed a promotional statement and changed a number of aggrandizements. Still needs work; it’s not a great article - but the subject does seem to meet WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a draft for replacement content in the talk page. I haven't had chance to review it, but thought it was worth noting. Encoded Talk 💬 08:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven C. Walker

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

I'm not sure which guideline this diplomat is supposed to meet. It's not WP:ANYBIO, it's not WP:NPOL and it's not WP:GNG with zero independent sources. He is currently a WP:NSCHOLAR, but I only ended up finding several others academics with the same name. Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chargé d'Affaires and ambassadors serve the same role. Walker was the ambassador for the United States. I think a discussion on making a formal standard for diplomats is completely necessary. I am voting keep here the precedent should be made through that rather than an AfD page. Jon698 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearian has brought up that Walker can be considered notable as an academic. Jon698 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I completely agree that ambassadors of any country are inherently notable as they hold a national political position per WP:NPOL. I wish this was more explicitly clear in a policy. Chargé d'Affaires have the same responsibilities as an ambassador, but crucially not the same position. Still, I do think that is probably enough. Ike Lek (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is not true that ambassadors are "inherently notable". Geschichte (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus that has developed over the past year is that ambassadors are not inherently notable. He might be notable as an academic: his article on not having diplomatic relationships with authoritarian regimes seems to have some impact. Please discuss his academic credentials. Bearian (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there have been multiple discussions about whether they should be. (See WP:DIPLOMAT and this discussion). In this specific case, as the nominator says, there is not the sourcing for a stand-alone article. --Enos733 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neither WP:DIPLOMAT nor that discussion are accepted policy. Jon698 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:DIPLOMAT is an essay, but it is an essay that emerged after the removal of the guideline from WP:BIO (difference here). If there is a reason to keep under NSCHOLAR, I will reassess my !vote. - Enos733 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 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)} 02:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is not well-written which I think creates some of the back and forth. A not-independent biography here provided by his current employer is a good discussion point. Steve Walker is a faculty member and the acting chancellor of College for International Security Affairs at National Defense University. He has a diplomatic rank of Minister-Counselor which is not an ambassador. I will also note that Charge d'Affaires is not a Senate-confirmed position see 3 FAH-1 H-2432.1-2. I do not see how a non-Senate confirmed head of mission is inherently notable. Yes, foreign service officers are confirmed by the Senate, but you cannot believe all 13,747 are inherently notable based on Senate confirmation. The question becomes, do his roles at NDU and the Wilson Center allow him to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC? My belief is no. I found a single Atlantic piece and Google Scholar does not show any sort of published articles. I also searched his name at Foreign Affairs Magazine and found nothing. Accomplished guy, but not notable for the purpose of having an individual article.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith N. Hamilton

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:CLERGY (note that the role of bishop in the LDS church closer to that of a Catholic Priest or a Methodist Minister, serving a only a local congregation, than to that of, e.g., a Catholic bishop, which is presumed notable). Sources consist of two articles mentioning Hamilton joining and leaving the Utah Parole board and his current employer's website. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latter Day Saints and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [113][114][115] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Military, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of Utah has a 22-member Cabinet, which is as large as any cabinet can get before it becomes too large to function. I'm not sure if we have a consensus about whether cabinet members are automatically notable per WP:NPOL. As a Mormon bishop, he only leads a single congregation, so that's run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to vote. A late law client was a former Public Service Commissioner for the State of Utah. This might create a difficult precedent and, potentially, a conflict of interest. His name is being withheld due to confidentiality. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Feedback on WikiOriginal-9's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neshat Quaiser

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

Doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC, no sigcov in article. Also strongly suspect WP:COI; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, Islam, Medicine, Social science, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations are nonzero, but look well short of WP:NPROF. No other assertion of notability in the article, no other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctory: as a WP:ATD. I note that doctory was created by ThePerfectYellow and might also need to be examined. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that page is also a little sus. I'm unlikely to nominate myself (working on other things atm) but encourage others to grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there are any objections to Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Chin Hwee

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

Feels insufficient that this individual meets the notability criteria per WP:GNG. The majority of substantial edits to this article have been made by one-off WP:SPA accounts, which are likely to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets with a personal connection to the subject. Aleain (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aleain (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is significant enough per WP:GNG. The article does have significant citation issues and is not written with a neutral tone, but nothing that can't be fixed. Draftify is also a good option. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object moving to draftspace, but I'm still leaning on WP:TNT. Aleain (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i appreciate the comments and guidance and have provided updated links to support the citations. 103.51.163.126 (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be editing your own article. Aleain (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh i see. apologies, i thot we should learn from guidance of those experienced and improve it ? 103.51.163.126 (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is my bad editing. I wanted to make the article sound better and I am so new to this. Will make edits to be more neutral. Thank you all for guidance Teri liew (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this through the academics deletion sorting list, but I could not find any evidence of notability as an academic or author. If he is notable, it is going to have to be through WP:GNG through his activities as a businessman. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 28 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!} 02:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pls. It is my bad editing. I wanted to make the article sound better and I am so new to this. Will make edits to be more neutral. Thank you all for guidance Teri liew (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further community input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/singapore/ema-set-advisory-panel-energy-supply-resiliency doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, doesn't discuss him at any length.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/tin-men-capital-makes-first-close-us-100m-043443630.html doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, doesn't discuss him at any length.
We can't use https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/07/10/2911157/0/en/K-Enter-Holdings-Inc-Announces-Leadership-Transition.html (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Piece is attributed to Globe Newswire, which only ever publishes press releases.
I can't assess https://economist.co.kr/article/view/ecn202501070021 (language barrier). Automated translation faulters on most East Asian languages due to them being heavily context-dependent. (Do not treat this as me dismissing the source.)
We can't use https://cfasocietysingapore.org/about/leadership/past-presidents/ (too sparse), and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1893796/why-walking-away-successful-career-finance-not-so-hard doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Op-ed written by the article subject.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/energy-commodities/trafigura-appoints-tan-chin-hwee-asia-pacific-ceo is borderline, leaning towards OK. It's a bit short, and the last paragraph isn't worth a hill of beans, but there is some detail here.
We can't use https://web.archive.org/web/20180730040730/http://fortune.com/global500/trafigura-group/ (too sparse). Business profile.
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/ace-investor-cant-resist-pull-of-mentoring is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
I can't assess https://www.businessinsider.sg/these-are-singapores-three-largest-companies-according-to-this-years-fortune-500-list/amp/ (technical barrier). Firefox throws up an EEL_ERROR_INTERNAL_ERROR_ALERT and refuses to connect.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/task-force-on-singapores-post-covid-19-economic-recovery-to-share-first-recommendations doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drops, no discussion of Tan.
http://www.mpa.gov.sg/web/portal/home/media-centre/news-releases/detail/ab6fd580-e101-4f7d-977d-2d129cd73b5a is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
http://www.keppelreit.com/N-Press-Releases-SGX-Announcements_news_item.aspx?view=print&sid=2387 is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page).
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/a-life-of-service-is-a-life-worth-swiping-for is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/go-beyond-book-smarts-to-resilience-and-curiosity is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140819103117/http://www.kkh.com.sg/AboutUs/WaystoGiveAndVolunteer/Pages/KKHHEF-Sub-funds.aspx doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Barely any discussion of him specifically.
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/spore-must-think-like-a-platform-to-thrive-as-a-digital-hub is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
https://web.archive.org/web/20181120201208/https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracechung/2018/11/20/coupang-koreas-answer-to-amazon-raises-its-biggest-funding-round-makes-its-founder-a-billionaire/ is a non-sequitur. (A source that doesn't so much as mention a subject isn't going to be any good as a source for that subject, particularly so for biographical content.)
https://www.kedglobal.com/entertainment/newsView/ked202306160031 is a non-sequitur.
https://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118486528.html is 404-compliant (Firefox throws up a 404 error; is the website URL misspelt?)
I can't assess https://web.archive.org/web/20160816123248/http://www.publishing.com.hk/Pubnews/NewsDetail.asp?NewsID=20150416001 (language barrier).
https://www.straitstimes.com/life/arts/values-at-the-core-book-explores-how-human-values-contribute-to-the-rise-of-nations doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). The article is about a book launch and doesn't discuss either of its authors (Tan included) in any sort of depth.
I can't assess https://www.ft.com/content/e7ae307c-d2fd-4e1d-a66c-1ed67db2bb82 (walled).
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion-features/multipolar-world-order-once-again doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Co-authored by Tan.
https://www.ntu.edu.sg/about-us/organisation/Pages/Mr-Tan-Chin-Hwee.aspx is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page). Even if it didn't, it wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
https://www.keppelreit.com/exception.htm?sc=404 is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page).
https://business.smu.edu.sg/master-applied-finance/faculty-Tan_Chin_Hwee is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page). Even if it didn't, it wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
https://book.yalesg.org/education-the-great-equalizer-by-tan-chin-hwee.html is 404-compliant (Firefox throws up a 404 error; is the website URL misspelt?)
https://www.weforum.org/people/tan-chin-hwee/ is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140819130400/http://www.worldcitiessummit.com.sg/wcsyoungleaders/mr-tan-chin-hwee doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Was working with the World Cities Summit as a Young Leader.
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/NanyangAlumniAwards/Recipients/2014/Pages/MrTanChinHwee.aspx is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page).
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/veteran-fund-manager-retires is OK.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130930013031/http://agm.com/OurTeam/PrivateEquity/ChinHweeTan.aspx doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Bio from an employer.
https://som.yale.edu/story/2024/five-alumni-named-2023-24-donaldson-fellows seems OK. (My reading of it is that being an alumnus of the school isn't considered enough of a connexion.)
We can't use https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracechung/2018/11/12/asias-2018-heroes-of-philanthropy/ (too sparse). Listicle.
https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2016/09/01/investing-in-care-and-compassion is 404-compliant (redirects to a tag search).
https://www.prestigeonline.com/sg/people/c-suites-give-back-tan-chin-hwee-pays-forward-2of6/ is borderline. An article ostensibly about Tan instead spends about 60% of its text on various charitable initiatives he seems to have no direct connexion to.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/over-1000-ntu-students-receive-financial-aid-from-universitys-covid-19-relief-package doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Direct quote, no discussion of Tan.
https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/youll-never-walk-alone-say-liverpool-fans-raising-funds-for-community-chest-campaign doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Tan.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160325230348/http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130429-419199.html doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Co-authored the piece.
https://omny.fm/shows/money-fm-893/how-do-we-achieve-social-equilibrium doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Podcast where he is a guest.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/incoming/footballs-lessons-being-underdog doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Barely any discussion of tan; most of what is said is from him, not about him.

With all the 404'd-out sources and the sources I can't assess, draftifying this is the best option. Finding archived versions of the 404'd sources (particularly those from The Straits Times) should be top priority. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: pure self promotion - does not reach anywhere near notability level for Wikipedia. Llajwa (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drinah Nyirenda

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is based on sparse and trivial references with no clear demonstration of notability. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Africa. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the PROF test works against administrators rather than researchers. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NPROF allows for notability of professors who've held a named-professorship, distinguished professorship or the equivalent in an institution/nation/culture where distinguished and named are rarely used. I do not know the Zambian university system. If her professorships are/were the Zambian equivalent of distinguished, we should keep. Elemimele (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but there's nothing currently in the article that suggests that. (not voting either way) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:05, 6 July 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)} 02:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - Wikipedia is very underrepresented in terms of academics from southern Africa, but there just is not enough sourcing in the article to demonstrate a pass for WP:PROF or WP:GNG even with a pretty inclusionist reading. Quotes by the subject are more about the projects and ministries than about the significance of her directorship. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Willard

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

WP:BLP of a local historian, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for historians. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have or had jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain defined notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by non-media organizations she was directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. (For example, people do not become notable enough for Wikipedia articles by having staff profiles on the websites of their own employers, or contributor directories on the websites of publications that they wrote for — media unaffiliated with her work have to write about and analyze the significance of her work as news to make her notable on that basis.)
As her potential claim of notability is primarily local in nature rather than national, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to the necessary resources than I've got can actually find sufficient RS coverage to get her over the bar, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She did win awards, including a state-wide award for her work. WP:Author doesn't require national accomplishments. One might make the case that winning an award from the state's primary historical society might be "significant critical attention"? --
Jaireeodell (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say people always have to have nationalized accomplishments to be eligible for an article — I said that because her notability claim is local rather than national in nature, I lack access to the kind of resources necessary to determine whether the article is salvageable with better referencing or not on my own, without bringing it to wider attention. People can get into Wikipedia on primarily local significance — but regardless of whether their notability claim is local or national in scope, people aren't exempted from having to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing.
Also, every award that exists does not constitute an automatic notability freebie — a person is not automatically notable just because the article has the word "award" in it, if the article doesn't have GNG-worthy reliable sourcing in it. "Significant critical attention", for the purposes of GNG, is a question of whether she's had news reportage and/or books written about her and her work, not just the fact of having been singled out for just any old award that exists — an award might help if it could be referenced to a newspaper article treating "Shirley Willard wins award" as news, but it doesn't help if you have to depend on content self-published by the organization that gave her the award to source the statement because media coverage about the award doesn't exist. We're not just looking for "has done stuff", we're looking for "has had media coverage and/or books written and published about the stuff she did". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful woman, no doubt, but I simply cannot find any of her writings that aren't "self-published" - i.e. by the historical society she was working with in some capacity. Keep Based on improvements and convincing arguments here. She did get two awards from the Indiana Historical Society, but I don't think that is going to confirm notability. She is given credit for unearthing the story of this "Trail of Death" but I only find a very few mentions of it by folks not directly associated with the historical society. Lamona (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking for clarification on what you are asking for here- are you asking for the historical veracity of the Potawatomi Trail of Death? If so, there is already a Wikipedia article discussing its history. I am not writing that she was responsible for discovering it, she is just a historian who has taken important steps to preserve its memory in local history. Willard is responsible for the Trail of Courage festival and commemorative caravan, if that's what you meant. Here are some mentions of the Trail of Living Courage Festival and caravan from sources not associated with Willard or the Fulton County Historical Society:

https://www.dar.org/national-society/american-spirit-magazine/beacon-history-shirley-willard (Page dedicated to her on the Daughters of the American Revolution website, already in article)

https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/local/2018/09/13/caravan-to-trace-potawatomi-trail-of-death-from-rochester/45724091/ (News article about about Trail of Death commemorative caravan Willard organized)

https://www.in.gov/ibc/legacyprojects/3261.htm (entry on Indiana government website about the festival, already in article)

If these sources are satisfactory, I can start reworking the article around these and replace the Fulton Co. Historical Society ones. DeishaJ (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at these sources, but, no, I'm not asking about the trail of death. This article is about HER so we need sources about HER. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources I've found:

https://www.carrollcountycomet.com/articles/historian-recognized-with-statewide-award/ (News article referencing her Lifetime Achievement award. I have contacted the Indiana Historical Society to see if they have any writings or press releases on her that would work as citations).

https://www.rochsent.com/willard-featured-on-publishers-blog/article_1ec925d0-4190-541b-9020-c01655ba74d8.html (Lists her history and achievements with the Fulton Co. Historical Society. Also mentions her Lifetime Achievement award and Golden Hoosier award, mentions her being a torch bearer in the Indiana Bicentennial Torch Relay. I have confirmed her participation, she is listed here under Fulton County. Link to the page of the Indiana government website I found the PDF on.

Additional sources for consideration:

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2016/09/28/chairman-barrett-honored-at-2016-trail-of-courage-festival/

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2017/06/27/indiana-declares-indian-day/

I will let others decide if these sources are good enough to work in this article, as they are technically blog posts. I will argue, though, that they are from the official Potawatomi tribe website. These sources mention Willard playing a key role in securing proclamations from Mike Pence and Eric Holcomb in recognition of the Trail of Death and establishing remembrance/heritage days. These might be notable additions to her article, but I am unsure if they would meet proper reference criteria. Is there any way to find good sources for these proclamations:

Mike Pence declaring Sept. 20, 2014 Potawatomi Trail of Death Remembrance Day

Eric Holcomb declaring April 22, 2017 Indiana Indian Day

Thanks!
DeishaJ (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, blog posts are not considered reliable because they are informal and lack a true editorial oversight. The DAR one is pretty good but may not be considered independent because she was a member of DAR and this is a "member profile." Press releases are never considered reliable sources because they are by definition promotional, and thus have a non-neutral point of view. I hope that others will weigh in on the awards. (I advise looking at the documents about those awards - unless you are already familiar with them.) Lamona (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, deletion looks likely, but at least a little more participation is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I have majorly overhauled the article from when it was originally nominated for deletion, I thought a rundown of my edits would be helpful to the discussion. Notable edits include:

-Major source overhaul: Added several Indiana newspaper articles, two book sources naming her, and replaced all blog sources. All sources that could be considered primary have been replaced except one, the Potawatomi Trail of Death Assn. webpage that states the year of its founding. I am currently looking for alternatives.

-Expansion of her career section: I have both expanded her career section and added a "notable contributions" section. The career section now lists more of her contributions to Indiana history and includes her official appointment as the Fulton County historian by the Indiana Historical Society and Indiana State Historical Bureau. The "notable contributions" section goes into her contributions to specific historical subjects. A major contribution includes establishing 80+ historical markers along the Potawatomi Trail of Death. I hope that these sections better outline her significance in Indiana history.

-Awards: I did end up adding her participation in the Indiana Bicentennial, I thought it was relevant since the torchbearers were selected by a state committee and represented individuals who demonstrated "exceptional public service" as a criteria.

Hopefully these edits do a good job of addressing the original issues with the article. I am still actively editing and will continue doing so unless the article is officially deleted. For more information, please see the article and its improved references section.

Many thanks,
DeishaJ (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Mostly per WP:PROF#C3 on the lifetime achievement award from the Indiana Historical Society, which as a 190+ year-old society passes the "significant society" test to me for possessing judgment about notability of scholars in their field. It is quite rare to have an article on someone whose work is mostly on local history without also having national-etc. level peer-reviewed publications, but she appears to be one of the few who do that. (Note also that the distinction between national and provincial/state level can be tricky with large countries -- Indiana has about the same population as Bulgaria, and we would probably accept a lifetime achievement award from the Bulgarian Historical Society as counting.) -- I came here planning to make the closing easier by casting for delete, but the sources in the article and keep arguments here persuaded me. (forgot to sign) - -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC) (originally 6 July 2025)[reply]
Weak keep With significant improvements to the article I'm inclined to !vote weak keep. In addition to NPROF#3 there are sources that support GNG including [116], [117], [118], [119]. Nnev66 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Denis Murphy (film academic) (via WP:PROD on 8 July 2025)
Kenneth Shropshire (via WP:PROD on 8 July 2025)
Benjamin Jensen (academic) (via WP:PROD on 8 July 2025)
Umut Özsu (via WP:PROD on 7 July 2025)
José María Balcells Doménech (via WP:PROD on 7 July 2025)
Tamara Scheer (via WP:PROD on 7 July 2025)

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

[1] Geeta Pandey (5 December 2023). "Nimisha Priya: The Indian nurse from Kerala on death row in Yemen". BBC. Retrieved 13 July 2025.

[2] "Murder and blood money: The case of Nimisha Priya, the Kerala nurse on death row in Yemen". Firstpost. 24 March 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2025.

[Ebert-3] Daniels, Robert. "The Legend of the Underground". RogerEbert.com.

[Vogue-4] Desmond, Vincent. "A New Documentary Highlights the Resilience and Joy of Nigeria's Queer Community". Vogue.

[Punch-5] ttps://punchng.com/i-wrote-a-book-to-tell-my-lifes-story-james-brown/

[Vanguard-6] ttps://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/photos-james-brown-visits-bobrisky-at-kirikiri-correctional-centre/

[Aljazeera-7] ttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/27/nigerian-judge-throws-out-case-against-47-men-over-homosexuality

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]