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

Kieran Sells

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

WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as passing any Wikipedia inclusion criterion. The attempted notability claim here is that he was a production assistant on television talk shows, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but the sole footnote is a directory entry rather than anything that would build GNG.
This was also very likely a self-promotional autobiography, as it was created by a single-purpose account named "PhillyGuy23", while the subject apparently attended Temple University in Philadelphia and would have been exactly 23 years old at the time this got created.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much, much better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. A WP:BEFORE targeted search using Jimmy Kimmel and John Carpenter keywords doesn't turn up anything. Amazing that this survived 16 years, with nothing new being added. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J.M. Tory

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

Biography of a person not properly sourced as passing any Wikipedia inclusion criteron. The only attempt at a notability claim present here at all is that he's related to other people -- but notability is not inherited, so that isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. But there's absolutely no documentation here of him doing anything more than having brothers and sons and nephews, and the only sourcing on offer is from a user-generated genealogy site that doesn't constitute support for notability either. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yao Yuanjun

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

Typical case of WP:1E; otherwise non-notable. Schwede 66 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Schwede 66 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Event was highly covered and also pretty notable thanks to the Police dog. Subject was notable both in 2011(when he died) and 2021 (when the video of his police dog came out). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. - Amigao (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we have an article about the event. Or just add "Death of" to the title. WP:BIO1E does not suggest deletion, it suggests renaming or merging. We could add "death of" to the title.

What 1E says is this: 'When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. ... Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage.'

Nowhere here suggests deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support this, however the subject is also notable in the aspect of the story about his police dog Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that also kind of about the event though? I oppose deletion in any case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your opinion, but the subject gained significant coverage in two separate events which are interlinked:

In 2011 when he was killed in action(now, this itself would not guarantee notability, but it shows he has been covered for multiple events)
In 2021 when the CCTV-7 video went viral of his police dog waiting for him.

Either way, I would support keeping the article. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjoy

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

Cannot find any evidence of notability. Refs are non existent. Page is also written very promotionally Taksoh17 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Taksoh17 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - between a 404 page for Billboards, and unreliable and sketchy sources, nothing has been verified. Also, producers are so common that we rarely keep them after AfD. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Carter

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

Upon search, the subject does not seem to be notable enough per WP:GNG. The current references (specifically, from the Canberra Times) seem to be WP:BLP1E, and the rest seem to be primary sources. The article also seems overly promotional, and it also seems that the article creator has a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject with their edit history. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Environment, Oceania, and Australia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: This is an interview but gives some coverage [1], interview with the National Museum [2], media coverage here [3]. This is another interview but gives background on her [4]. The Canberra Times calls her position with the ACT Property Council as "influential", so I'm inclined to believe she's notable. Gender bias is also notable on Wikipedia and Australia as a whole is under-represented here, so these are also positives. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is entirely an interview, and there's no secondary coverage about Carter. The second source you mentioned is primary - it is a podcast. 3rd one is, as said before, WP:BLP1E because she only received notable coverage about herself leaving her job/position at the ACT Property Council. The fourth source is a summary of a podcast with Carter. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host for promotional autobiographies. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources. The first 2 sources look OK, but the rest are primary or profiles.Darkm777 (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, also note that 1 article links to this 2009 in poetry. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umair (music producer)

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

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

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

Khole Piza

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

References fail WP:SIRS so article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Iran, and Iraq. UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Idk why my csd was removed for no reason but I still support its deletion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent references that demonstrate the notability. Fade258 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 00:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Allen Cohen

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

The only reliable source is a former Forbes contributor (both of the Forbes articles were written by the same lady). The rest are not reliable sources. (Note that Yahoo is a syndication of LatestLY, which is WP:NEWSORGINDIA). 🄻 🄰 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and California. 🄻 🄰 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hughes

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite holding a faculty position and receiving an award, there is no significant coverage of Nigel Hughes in independent sources. The article relies mostly on university-hosted professional profiles, I could not find substantial third-party sources and article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Education, Archaeology, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep per WP:NPROF. He passes WP:NPROF#1 due to a high citation count in a low citation field with an h-index of 39 per Scopus and more than 10 publications with 100+ citations per Google Scholar. The award he received is a strong argument that he likely also passes WP:NPROF#2. Both of these are way beyond what is usually required in AfD to keep an article of an academic. Since we can apply NPROF, we do not have to consider GNG and after establishing notability, we can use professional profiles to write an article per NPROF and substantial coverage in third party sources is not required. It seems the nominator has not done a substantial WP:BEFORE and evaluation per WP:NPROF before nomination. --hroest 03:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide those links to verify your claim, so I can reconsider my AfD nomination? Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sure, here you go for Scopus and GS (he doesnt seem to have his own profile) and the award. --11:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
keep. Has honors. --Altenmann >talk 03:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wanted to note for the record that the first nomination was for a different Nigel Hughes. (This seemed apparent from the nominations themselves, but the logs preserved the first bit of both articles' wikitext, and they clearly reflect two different birthdates of two different people.) No opinion on the current article on the current subject. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that his citation count is sufficient to satisfy WP:NPROF#C1. He is also a Fellow of the Paleontological Society [5], which appears to be a selective elected position that gives him a pass of WP:NPROF#C3. And his Raymond C. Moore Medal gives him a reasonable claim to notability under WP:NPROF#C2. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hannes Röst [6] for providing those links. I’ve reviewed them and am now convinced to withdraw the nomination. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oyomevotu Obada

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

WP:ROTM businessperson., Fails WP:BIO. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also checked BBC nothing notable
Czarking0 (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and WP:GNG. Nothing much to establish notability. King ChristLike (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 10:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Does not appears to meet business person. I did not found significant coverage in reliable and independent references as well. Fade258 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, WP:TOOSOON. Secondary and significant coverage is lacking. [7], [8] only these two news coverage available in simple google search. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator has a history of promotional edits. Deb (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Martin (philanthropist)

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies (ANYBIO) Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and promotes his works with puffery (Wikipedia:NOTPROMO) --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. I searched for more coverage, but haven't found anything significant. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet WP:GNG, a lot of the coverage is about the nonprofit and not about him. --hroest 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mahmoud (military officer)

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

Per WP:BIO1E, this figure has only received coverage due to one event which he didn't have a significant role in, and likely wouldn't have been deemed notable enough to warrant a separate article (which is reflected in the article's rather small size and detail). Farcazo (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Bhagat

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

Non-notable person, we've been through this discussion numerous times elsewhere. Tulsi is not a notable person as an "activist" nor a Wikipedian, and this article conveniently leaves out their block and ban on this very project, for paid editing, among other things, which was only reversed 4 months ago. There are not generally "founders" of individual projects on Wikimedia - and all of the sources are either unreliable or nonsense. COOLIDICAE🕶 21:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some several Nepali-language reliable sources are translated into English for headlines as mentioned on Wikipedia:

"जनकपुरका 'तुलसी भगत' जसले विश्वव्यापी सम्मानबाट मधेश र देशको शान बढाए" [Janakpur's 'Tulsi Bhagat', who brought global respect to Madhesh and the country]. NewsBureau Nepal (in Nepali). 5 February 2021.
Joshi, Yagyaraj (13 February 2021). "मैथिली विकिपिडिया स्थापना गरेर जो विश्वका १८ योगदानकर्ताभित्र छानिए" [Selected among 18 contributors around the world who established Maithili Wikipedia]. Nepal Khabar (in Nepali). Retrieved 20 April 2025.
Tharu, Bunu (25 January 2021). "जनकपुरका युवा जसले मैथिली विकिपिडियाको सुरुवात गरे" [Youth from Janakpur who started Maithili Wikipedia]. Kantipur Publications (in Nepali). Retrieved 20 January 2025.
Kamal, KC (15 February 2021). "मैथिली विकिपिडियाका संस्थापक २१ वर्षिय नेपाली युवा, जो विश्वका टप १८ योगदानकर्तामा छानिए" [The founder of Maithili Wikipedia is a 21-year-old Nepali youth who has been selected as one of the top 18 contributors in the world]. ICT Samachar (in Nepali). Retrieved 20 January 2025.
Bista, Kamal (24 January 2021). "२१ वर्षीय तुलसीको मैथिली विक्सनरी सपना" [21 year old Tulsi’s Maithili Wiktionary dream]. Farakdhar (in Nepali). Retrieved 20 January 2025.</ref><ref name="Kamal">Kamal, KC (15 February 2021). "मैथिली विकिपिडियाका संस्थापक २१ वर्षिय नेपाली युवा, जो विश्वका टप १८ योगदानकर्तामा छानिए" [The founder of Maithili Wikipedia is a 21-year-old Nepali youth who has been selected as one of the top 18 contributors in the world]. ICT Samachar (in Nepali). Retrieved 20 January 2025.
Kamal, KC (15 February 2021). "मैथिली विकिपिडियाका संस्थापक २१ वर्षिय नेपाली युवा, जो विश्वका टप १८ योगदानकर्तामा छानिए" [The founder of Maithili Wikipedia is a 21-year-old Nepali youth who has been selected as one of the top 18 contributors in the world]. ICT Samachar (in Nepali). Retrieved 20 January 2025.

Absolutiva (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean all of the clearly copy-pasted press-release equivalent sources? Sure. COOLIDICAE🕶 21:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, just reliable news sources. So I decided to rewrite text so that it signifies the subject is notable and remains to exist on Wikipedia as a standalone article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I rewrite the text per request. (edit conflict) I added notable details in the article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for mostly the same reasons the nominator mentions. I don't trust any of the "sources" that are used to claim Tulsi is notable given this user has a very long history of UPE. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rarely comment on AFDs but given past history of Tulsi these sources presented by Absolutiva do not convince. I too share UPE concerns given these comments.--A09|(talk) 11:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A biased article (regarding the undisclosed block) can be fixed, and I think the wording issues (eg "founder") can be attributed to language barriers. The problem I see is more that out of the five sources cited, only one of them appears to be sufficiently major for it to have its own Wikipedia article (Kantipur Publications) - the other four are non-notable at best. I do not know whether such an article can be "saved" or not. Leaderboard (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Just another episode in the long-running endeavour by various individuals to leverage their Wikimedia experience and goodwill for money, fame and career. There's no meat here. Sources are not independent, reliable or significant. Also fails 1E. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Ghorbani

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

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

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

Tony Rotherham

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD'ed by User:NuanceQueen for the following reason;

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are no secondary sources available; all the ones linked here are dead links. Article repeats language used on the subject's promotional websites, which suggests WP:BLPCOI issues. A previous WP:PROD was opposed by individuals with a personal connection to the subject who willfully misconstrued Wikipedia's anti-promotional rules. (proposed by NuanceQueen)

Article has previously been at AfD so cannot be Prodded but I wholeheartedly agree with the Prod nomination so listing here as courtesy. CoconutOctopus talk 20:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. CoconutOctopus talk 20:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The last AfD for this article was 17 years ago, and since then little to no references have been added. Madeleine (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Zarzycki

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

Disputed Draftification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:NPROF. In an AFC review this was stated: "According to https://ludzie.nauka.gov.pl/ln/profiles/QAO46PMcoxU/publications he has a total of 8 publications; Scopus says 21 with 104 citations. This is far short of what we require to pass WP:NPROF. Note that being a Department Chair or Dean does not qualify him either." by Ldm1954, with whom I agree. This is WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, and Poland. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP created almost simultaneously in the English and Polish Wikipedias. At least for the English Wikipedia, he falls far short of satisfying any of WP:NPROF with a decidedly modest h-factor, publication record and no major awards. Originator (who uses two accounts, albeit acknowledging this) argued first that he passes WP:NPROF#C1, then changed it to a pass of WP:NPROF#C6 when he moved the page back to main after draftification. This despite an AfC comment that Dean's don't qualify and about publication history (subsequently removed by Laura240406 as AfC cleanup, but still there in the history). No attempt to repair other deficiencies to the article which are clearly tagged. While novice editors should have some leeway, it is not appropriate for them to make up their own interpretation of WP:NPROF.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation record on Google Scholar is difficult to separate from a different biologist with the same name but I agree that he appears to pass neither WP:PROF#C1 nor #C6, and we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion, in this regard, kindly see my comments below. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In Poland, the President grants the academic title of Professor. This is a significant academic achievement, often awarded to individuals who have made substantial contributions to their field of study. This is a definite WP:NPROF #2 and #4 pass and I think if a source can be provided in this regard, then this can be kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comment above, this source (see PDF) confirms it and this conferment is a clear NPROF#2 as being a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national level". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced by the argument brought forward regarding WP:NPROF. With regards to NPROF#1, his Scopus profile shows 21 total publications and a h index of 7 (note that there are at least 6 people publishing under the same name but I checked the publications and it seems Scopus has properly distinguished them). Based on his citation record, I conclude that he doesnt pass #1. With regards to NPROF#6 there is no evidence he held a post beyond Dean which does not fulfill #6. With regards to the document that Vanderwaalforces presented, I translated it and it seems to be the appointment to the post of "professor", this is however *not* what NPROF#2 is intended - these are major awards from academic societies or general awards like Fields Medals, Nobel prizes etc. One could argue that this may fulfill NPROF#5 since this is an appointment that (probably) not all professors get and is thus equivalent to a distinguished professorship at a US university and he thus he passes the "average professor test" since he is elevated beyond the "average professor". To me that is the strongest argument of all the ones I evaluated. However, I dont know enough about the academic structure in the country but I dont see enough evidence that this is indeed such an unusual occurrence to grant notability *on its own* in the presence of a weak citation record. In totality, both the content of the article and the additional arguments presented here have not convinced me that this a person that passes WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Comment. His article will remain on pl wiki, which considers habilitation sufficent for notability. I know en wiki does not. Interesting discrepancy, but that's wiki for you. I cannot find any other reasons to argue for keeping him, under en wiki rules (the claim that his book is an "important contributions" is cited to a routine government document justifying his promotion to the rank of professor and is in fact FAKE, since that document does not provide any justification - that falsificaiton of content made me withdraw my keep vote, since it is dishonest), although he does have the next "higher" level of academic degree (above) habilitaiton, i.e. the professor (as noted by Vanderwaalforces). Frankly, I'd support traeting that level as granting notability, but that's seems to be a dissenting view. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus is it fake? Ah. Please point me or rather direct me to where you made the conclusion from? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Junker

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

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

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

Slavik Pustovoytov

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Social media popularity and a minor film role aren't enough for notability. Mooonswimmer 17:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable contributions to social media culture. --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chee

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Malaysia. UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veer Kataria

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

Lacks notability. Not a single independent coverage about the subject. Few press release and rest are primary sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Punjab. Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete :~~ Lacks notability and seems he is impersonating someone.
- If this page gets deleted kindly delete his wikidata and igbo
TurbanGuy (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Completely a non-notable article with no reliable news sources.Almandavi (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability, no reliable sources. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 13:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Routledge

AfDs for this article:

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

If not WP:BLP1E, then WP:BLP1E-adjacent. Was in the news once because he went to Kabul in August of 2021, and again because he went back to Afghanistan in 2023 and got arrested.

He is listed as an author but the only source I can find on the internet about him writing a book mentions it in passing. Having 171,000 subscribers on YouTube is probably not enough to meet notability requirements on its own.

I don't think this meets WP:N. —tony^{st (talk)} 01:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —tony^{st (talk)} 01:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is definitely not a WP:BLP1E, since as you say, there are at least two notable events -- two being a different and larger number than one, and explicitly not the focus of this policy. There is not a "WP:BLP2E" policy. Without even doing a WP:BEFORE search, in the currently-existing article there are a variety of sources that satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV:

Wallen, Joe; Sabur, Rozina (2023-04-01). "British self-styled 'danger tourist' captured by Taliban secret police". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
"Tourist stranded in Kabul says he has 'no regrets' in Afghanistan collapse". NZ Herald. 2 November 2023.
"British College Student 'Lord Miles' Claims He's Stuck in Afghanistan". Vice. 16 August 2021.
Hardy, Jack (August 16, 2021). "British student stuck in Kabul after 'danger tourism' stunt backfires". The Telegraph.
"'If I die, It'll be funny I think': A student named 'Lord Miles' is live streaming from Afghanistan after getting 'stuck'". The Daily Dot. August 16, 2021.
Ball, Tom (August 15, 2021). "British student on holiday in Afghanistan 'accepts death'". The Times. Archived from the original on August 15, 2021. Retrieved August 15, 2021.
"UK student who travelled to Afghanistan for holiday evacuated". BBC News. 2021-08-17. Retrieved 2021-08-17.
"Two of three British men being held by Taliban allowed call to families". BBC. April 2, 2023. Archived from the original on April 2, 2023.

Looking him up on a web search, I see that he was also in the news last year, apparently for going on some sort of bigoted tirade on Twitter (see [9], [10], [11]). While I do not think acting like a racist knob on the Internet is noble or worthy of celebration, the man would seem to clearly meet our notability guidelines. jp×g 🗯️ 01:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Travel and tourism, Internet, Afghanistan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I appreciate that it is galling that a self-aggrandising twit like this can make himself notable just by being a nuisance but if he has done so then we have to accept that it is valid to have an article about him. He seems to be over the line for notability even if not by much. A greater concern is what we are not saying about him. His book is published by a neo-Nazi publisher but there is nothing about his links to the far-right in the article. Maybe this can help? That links him to Andrew Tate and covers his praise for the Taliban. There are also plausibly RS sources talking about his idiotic "jokes" about nuking India here, here and possibly also here although that last one seems to be region blocked for me. Finally, I don't think that we should be giving his full name as "Miles Arthur Le-Vesconte Routledge" when the source is clearly sceptical of that (and might not even be RS) saying "Miles (who also calls himself Miles Arthur Le-vesconte Routledge)". --DanielRigal (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E, not once but twice. Self aggrandising publicity seekers do not have notability. Notoriety s not the same thing at all. Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is a legitimate biography encapsulating different aspects of life, including a businessman, an explorer, and an imprisonment. I don't see the urgency to delete the article, I feel the request is bias. Cltjames (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Skotidas

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference currently in the article is Olympedia, which is not a IRS, and all I could find elsewhere were mentions. Let'srun (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. Let'srun (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greece at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Fencing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greece at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Fencing: No SIGCOV. Not notable enough to merit his own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dasey

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

That's biograme is merely sourced, it's known that he works as journalist that's all there no reasons for meeting notability guidelines The Wolak (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and News media. The Wolak (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trap Lore Ross

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

Obviously AI generated article not in encyclopedic tone. It reads very promotional and puffery. Subject might be notable, but this is not an acceptable article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the main editors contributions, I see several good articles and even a featured article. Yet, this really reads to me like an obvious example of AI generated text which confuses me. I don't want to accuse a productive and experienced editor of using AI, so I really apologize if that's not the case. Sources are pretty poor and some seem entirely unrelated to the text it describes, like the opinion piece from Defector describing him highly negatively used as a reference on the sentence "His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary." RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not even sure how to address this tbh, but no, it is not AI written. I use grammarly often to sort out better sentences structure. In your defence, someone once told that only AI uses the word "delve". Feel free to check the factuality for each sentence using the inline sources, so you can be sure that: The article does not include hallucinated information or fictitious references. As for copyright violation, use Earwig.

Anyway, AfD are normally based on policies, so you need to indicate in your nom the policy that you think this article is violating. Have a read through Wikipedia:Deletion policy and if you change your mind, you can withdraw the nom.

Also please when you tag an article, it is better to add more details in the page talk so editors know what to fix. Good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the above, and while I will believe you on not writing the entire article with AI, it has the exact same non-encyclopedic tone of AI. If I would ask a LLM to write an article, I would get an indistinguishable result in prose. I do believe the article contains citations that do not match the actual sentences. Another example is the sentence "He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues" is completely unrelated to the two citations, one which seems to just be a page with an embedded video? If he has covered the evolution of hip-hop culture, the source does not explain it.

I did not explicitly link anything but my reason for nomination is WP:ATD-E "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion". I am not arguing against the notability about this person, only that the quality of the article is so poor that it's not worth keeping in this state, especially considering it's a biography of a living person. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw when you say “ Another example is the sentence” you know you are talking about the same example?

I replied below to your accusation of fictitious citation. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by, but Grammarly uses AI now so that is likely why it might appear AI-generated. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources at the end of that sentence says:

“ Up next for TLR ... deep dives into NBA YoungBoy and Quando Rondo. Who knows, there may be one of Boosie too!!!”
“ You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating. “ the article continues to describe what he does

so I am not sure how you are not able to verify the sentence. It doesn’t need to be verbatim or paraphrased from the article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up two different sentences that do not have truthful citations. I will go through them in detail, since you seem to be confused.

"He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues."

No source mentions him covering "the evolution of hip-hop culture". It is entirely possible that he has done this, but it's not sourced.

"His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary."

Indeed, the Defector source has the text "You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating.", but it's preceded and followed by a extremely negative opinion on this person. The source argues that people like him are "provocateurs" and their work is a form of cultural "exploitation". The author is basically arguing that he what he does is more akin to "exploitation" than "cultural commentary". RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see GNG, source 2 is a RS, it mentions the person... 5 and 7 are the only other RS, that briefly mention this person, mostly re-quoting TMZ or talking about a documentary this person made. I can't find any sources either, these are all TMZ or other gossip sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you looked to the sources in the article and found one is RS and dismissed TMZ? Why? Looking to WP:PRS, it doesn’t not dismiss TMZ + notability is not decided by the sources in the article as the article was not updated since 2024. If you look now all these are sources about the person:

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TMZ is not a reliable source, low quality at best. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:TMZ&redirect=no. I would prefer a better site. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the comments the nominator is not contesting the topic notability but first started by saying the text is AI like, then moved to saying that the prose quality is so bad that the page need to be deleted. Changing the goal post makes this nom really hard to address but going by typical AfD noms:

notability is met in the article and more sources can be found outside the article
accusations of using AI to write the article is not a cause to delete an article (you can take to me to ANI or the village for discussion), and
the prose is excellent, every line is sourced, grammatically sound and the text can be understood.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the text is AI like, then moved to saying that the prose quality is so bad that the page need to be deleted"

These mean the same thing. AI-like text is just a specific form of poor prose. I am not moving any goalposts. WP:TNT mentions that articles that could meet notability requirements are routinely deleted for being poor quality such that an entire rewrite from a red link would be preferable to having a blue link.

The prose is not "excellent" (as it reads like AI prose), a text being understandable does not mean that it's encyclopedic in tone. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per lack of reliable sources and what Oaktree b wrote. TMZ is one of those unreliable sources that turn out to be reliable sometimes: it's produced by a guy whose tag line is "I'm a lawyer." AI has its uses. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Della Valle

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

Lack of wp:SIGCOV and fails Wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Italy. Zuck28 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPROMO. One more business man who tells us what he has, but not how he got there. Honorary degree, honorary citizenship. He's a billionaire and "vice-chairman of the Tod's Group, of which his brother Diego Della Valle is chairman." So what? — Maile (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sources and fails notability guidelines. --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hilariously bad puff piece. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer Wikina

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

Sources made up of interview, primary source and passing mentions thereby failing WP:GNG Mekomo (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Fails WP:JOURNALIST and no secondary sources. --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG King ChristLike (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Üyar

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

Previously deleted and salted at Emir Uyar... still doesn't seem to have significant coverage with most publications writing about his relationship with Adriana Lima. Hmr (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Turkey. Hmr (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Obvious blatant circumvention of salt. Aintabli (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support salting this too for obvious reasons. Aintabli (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Abul Kashem Mia

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

Passing mentions only, need evidence for WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory also, not every person deserves a article unless their contributions are detailed and in-depth sources, even 1, must be cited, not just name but also birth, birth place, education and position in work/jobs. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ejaz

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - This can be Keep on the source mentioned.([12]]) Dv24mail (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep, plus most sources are about passing mentions anyways, if articles with somewhat in-depth sources are deleted, then articles with just passing mentions will also surely be deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Rajput

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

All sources are unreliable. An article in Indian Express is dead link. Non notable. Afstromen (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an abandoned article which was created in 2012. Notability tag which was inserted in 2013 shows that there is no new coverage about the topic. But her work as a voice-dubbing artist is impressive. AndySailz (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I found that her work as a dubbing artist is good but there isn't any significant coverage about her in reliable and independent references. Fade258 (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks notable coverage, despite being working as a dubbing artist for a lot of work, and even the first citation of Indian Express is dead.Almandavi (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Bhatt

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Absolutely non notable Afstromen (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though his extensive career as a voice-dubbing artist but still fails to pass the notability standards due to the lack of significant coverage about him in reliable and independent references. Fade258 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur that he has accomplished much as a voice-dubbing artist; yet, it still does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. AndySailz (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - working dub actor, but ultimately run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails notability because no significant coverage in independent sources, not even a single organic news reference is there.Almandavi (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Babaria

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

He has only one news source (Tribune). Filmography is totally unsourced. No significant news coverage. Afstromen (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to show WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:NACTOR. Fade258 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Awana

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

He doesn’t have significant news sources. His filmography is totally unsourced. Non notable in my point of view, please share your thoughts on this. Afstromen (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Adedeji Tukur

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

Fails WP:BIO. Likely UPE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not satisfying WP:SIGCOV, and it fails WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability under either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Deb (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doar family

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

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

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

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

Anshuman Magazine

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

Mentions, interviews, and unreliable sources (mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA) is all I can find. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Kumar (actor)

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

This article doesn’t have even a single source. I checked on google for this actor and there is not even a single reliable source available. Absolutely non notable in my point of view. Afstromen (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from Artists as no indication this individual is a visual artist. Jahaza (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This unreferenced article indicates the weak references that do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. AndySailz (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slaughter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johannes Hoffmeister (philosopher)

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

Notability assessment Xpander (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Germany. Xpander (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Xpander1, you have created this article as a translation of the de.wiki article and then you yourself have nominated it for deletion 3 minutes later, with this "Notability assessment" rationale. I am not understanding what you are seeking to accomplish by these steps and such a non-specific rationale? AllyD (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep until rationale for deletion is advanced. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I just had translated the page, that it got blanked here by User:Onel5969 (on notability and verifiability grounds), therefore I thought I'd bring the page here so that it's better assessed by reliable consensus. If this rationale is not sufficient, then I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Xpander (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So based on this, we have two articles, the original Johannes Hoffmeister on which the article text was reverted, and this new Johannes Hoffmeister (philosopher) which was created to open this discussion. A bit messy, but the AFD rationale is effectively then Onel5969's comment on the other article "Restore redirect - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Also, zero sources to satisfy WP:VERIFY". AllyD (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ACADEMIC 1.c. as per the festschrift Johannes Hoffmeister zum Gedächtnis (1956). Jahaza (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made Johannes Hoffmeister a disambig, but the philosopher is probably the primary topic, at least for now. Jahaza (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a significant figure in Hegel scholarship, overseeing some enormous works (his work was apparently also important for non-German-reading Hegel scholars). There's biographical discussion (in German) in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A history merge is surely appropriate here... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn, thanks for providing the new sources. I've added those to the article. By WP:HISTMERGE do you suggest that the page-history would be merged with Johannes Hoffmeister (currently a disambiguation page)? If so histmerge suggests that in case that "only one editor has written all of the content" a histmerge is not necessary. What's more is that the aforementioned page was originally created as a redirect to Hans Hoffmeister (water polo) which is a totally different topic, that content-wise is also not relevant. Best. Xpander (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair enough -- I'd misunderstood the situation! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Cohen Biden

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

Doesn't appear to be independently notable from her husband or father-in-law. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, South Africa, and United States of America. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notable only from Husband and inlaws fails WP:BASIC Destinyokhiria (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Joe Biden, or any other appropriate target. Not in the least notable. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liaan Ferreira

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

This article has been flagged for multiple issues starting in November 2024 without improvement. Having performed a WP:BEFORE I an unable to find references that show that they pass WP:NACTOR. Awards are stated in the article as facts, most are unreferenced. I have examined 100% of the current references and find that none contribute to WP:V of WP:BIO, and I have flagged those I found wanting. My conclusion is that they are decent actor, but a jobbing, WP:ROTM actor, and that we are WP:TOOSOON in their career. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Film, Entertainment, and South Africa. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Taylor (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only two people with an article with a primary topic. The other two listed are a non notable musician and a non notable character. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Music, Mathematics, Disambiguations, Australia, and United States of America. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all DAB entries need to be articles themselves. It is plausible that someone searching for "Angus Taylor" might mean either the Magic Gang musician or the Halloween character, so merely hatnoting between Angus Taylor and Angus Ellis Taylor would be insufficient. That said, the Halloween character link should be through a redirect to section per MOS:DABREDIR. I'll do that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. Preimage (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dab with four valid entries (one without his own bluelink but nevertheless passing WP:DABMENTION). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pucky Ali

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. His work is also non notable. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I have checked on google for this actor and found nothing reliable. Afstromen (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not inherently notable by inheritance. Fails WP:NBIO. AndySailz (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Most online search results are about his brother Lucky Ali.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that this actor is notable per Wikipedia criteria WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from Artists as no indication this individual is a visual artist. Jahaza (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An alternative to deletion would be to create a personal life section on the father's article (Mehmood (actor)) that covers his children and, of course, any other pertinent information that typically go in such sections. Then this could redirect there, along with any of the siblings, if they are not independently notable. Offhand it looks like Ginny Ali redirects to Ginny Aur Johnny, a film that Mehmood set up as a vehicle for her. And on a side note, the father's article needs some editing for tone - it's decidedly non-neutral, to say the least. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mehmood_(actor)#Personal_life. I've gone ahead and created that section and did a little pruning for tone - I removed some of the unsourced claims and some that were sourced to a site that the Indian film taskforce has judged as unusable. Offhand I'd recommend looking at the kids' pages - some of them didn't look much better. A few looked to have been in the same boat, where their main claim to fame was being his kids. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Jeanningros

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

Fails WP:GNG. She briefly went viral during Pope Francis's funeral, but other than that... she's just a nun. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Christianity, Europe, and France. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous independent in depth coverage here[13], here[14] and here[15]. Pope Francis mentioned her in print[16][17] and she's been mentioned in books about Francis[18][19]. Additional coverage here[20]. Jahaza (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's worth noting that all those sources only mention her in relation to Pope Francis (or she's mentioned by Francis himself). I still fail to see what would make her notable in her own right, regardless of her connection/friendship with the late pope. Luxic (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Menon (coach)

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

No evidence of significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Yes there is some coverage when he died, but that doesn't make up for the fact that he didn't generate coverage at any point in his life, playing internationally for a minor cricket team or coaching similarly minor cricket teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cricket, and Singapore. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the subject had been in minor teams, it is all relative. He coached Singapore's team to win its first gold at an international competition, and Malawi's authoritative figures credited the subject for the growth in the sport in the country since he joined them. Given that there are sources being used over time in the article already, it is likely that there was coverage of the subject, just not found or used, i.e. [21], [22], [23] – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}

Keep The person was notable, so was his death. Article needs to be kept as RobertSky described.2400:74E0:0:4329:65B5:51AA:A95C:49C (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issues described are about article quality rather than notability. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. I'm saying that I don't believe sufficient sources exist to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have sufficient sources and notability. If it needs to be significantly redrafted, that's what should happen, it shouldn't be deleted. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Uwaibi

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

Fails WP:BIO. WP:ROTM business person. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Business, and Nigeria. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, nothing notable here. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are definitely WP:ROTM. I see someone who could be notable if they have SIGCOV sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Oladele

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

Flagged and failing WP:GNG since October 2024, with no edits to improve it in the intervening period. Fails WP:BIO. Looks like WP:BLP1E based on the grift for which he was jailed in 2020. Otherwise WP:ROTM grifter and pastor 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Nigeria. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG King ChristLike (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (radio presenter)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD, the article was recreated last November. Notability was tagged and concerns discussed on the talk page. The tag was removed with a recommendation it go to AfD if concerns remain. I have reviewed all the sources on the page. Although there was an attempt to add volume of sources to address notability, none of these do, in fact, demonstrate notability as they are primarily just programme listings and announcements, which lack independence, and we have a selection of self published sources in there including IMDB and Flickr. I'll add my source analysis in a collapsed form to the nom. We require significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. None of these sources meet that.

Analysis of all sources

Energy Fm Not independent. Advertising his upcoming show N
Radio Rewind The site describes itself as The BBC launched Radio 1 and Radio 2 in 1967. This unofficial website rewinds to the beginning. It is a WP:SPS and not a reliable source. Cannot be used for notability. N
Dublin Live On the morning of September 1, 1989, presenter Gary King introduced listeners to the first taste that would be Atlantic 252. - passing mention. Not SIGCOV N
BBC Programme Index also [24] - Primary, not independent and a passing mention N (2 of)
Oban Times Link inaccessible, but appears to just be a programme listing. ? but almost certainly N
[25] also [26], [27] IMDB is a WP:SPS - self published source. Cannot be used for notability. N (3 of)
TVRDb listins also [28] - Primary, not independent and a passing mention N
[29] He takes over from Gary King, who is to remain at the station until the end of the year, when he leaves to pursue other projects. - Passing mention, not SIGCOV and not independent. Primary news reporting too. N
Radio Today 1 Award nomination. Primary news reporting but if he won the award that would be significant and would lead to more coverage. N but if he won then ?. It seems he didn't.
Radio Today 2 Reporting the programming announcement. Not independent of Blue Revolution, and primary N
Radio Today 3 Gary King and Paul Hollins are now listed as covering the shows on the Smooth Radio website. Passing, and primary news reporting N
Radio Today 4 ... whilst Gary King and Gold mid-morning presenter David Andrews get a regular show Passing and primary news reporting N
Radio Today 5 Gary King was installed as the new presenter, which many in the industry assumed was a temporary move. Passing and primary news reporting N
Radio Today 6] London: Gary King - just a listing. N
Radio Today 7She takes over from Gary King, who will present Smooth’s new, national early breakfast show from Monday to Friday - Passing, primary news reporting N
Radio Today 7 Former Radio 1 and Atlantic 252 jock Gary King is to host Cashtime on the UTV Network from tonight. Passing mention, not independent and primary. N Note that all Radio Today would count as one source for WP:GNG but is moot here.
[30] Chrysalis' speech station LBC 97.3 is to launch a weekday hour-long quiz show, and has poached Magic 105.4 DJ Gary King to take the reins. passingmention, not independent and a primary source. N
The Guardian In other changes to the schedule, former BBC Radio 1 and Key 103 presenter Gary King is the station's new mid-morning host Passing mention, and primary reporting N
[31] WP:SPS Self published and it is just a photo. N
Blue Revolution Employee team profile. Not independent, primary. N

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK I can see from the source analysis that a lot of them give a passing mention. But surely because there is repeated, at least partially independent, mentioning of him presenting on national radio, that proves he is notable? I think the repeated mentions by RadioToday and Dublin Live as well as listings are, taken in totality, evidence of his notability? I know it's a nail-biting decision on this one as to whether notability is established but because King isn't the head of Blue Revolution and other presenters with similar careers and Wikipedia articles (like Toby Tarrant) whose Wikipedia articles show arguably slightly less notability than Gary King's have remained up for years, surely the rules should be interpreted a loosely than you have interpreted them? That's might of point view anyway. Jw93d59 (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has numerous independent references and I don't see how anyone can argue that someone who has presented on national, semi-national and local radio stations, and also worked on national television programmes and channels, for decades is not notable. Rillington (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This editor was WP:CANVASSED to this discussion [32] owing to statements previously made on the talk page and in their !vote to the last AfD. I propose we repair the canvassing by pinging in all other editors involved. Bearcat, Phil Bridger, Funky Snack, Ldm1954, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Let me know if I missed anyone. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes so Rillington did say that Rillington would advocate for the page's retention, should it go to AfD a second time. I think Rillington would have to this very discussion anyway. Jw93d59 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but have a read of WP:APPNOTE which is part of the canvassing guideline above. If you ping past commentators to a discussion you should ping them all, and if you leave them a note, it should be a neutral notification. Not to worry. I understand you haven't done this all before, and the matter is repaired now as I have sent a ping to everyone else. But be aware of that for the future. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As well as being independent, references must also be secondary and reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. That is what the General Notability Guidelines say. As per my source review (collapsed above) we don't have any such sources. On Wikipedia radio and TV presenters, as well as journalists and other media figures, are not considered notable just for doing their job. They become notable when someone starts to write about them (and not about programming). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established by sources that glancingly mention him — it's established by sources that are about him. Radio hosts, national or otherwise, are not automatically notable just for existing — they become notable if and when they're the subject of coverage and analysis in third-party sources independent of themselves, not just because you can find their name in program schedule listings and staff directories self-published by their own employers. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jw93d59 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheed Sabur

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources are not providing significant coverage of the subject. The Dhaka Tribune offers only a brief background and a quote from the subject. The Daily Star article is not independent; it is entirely promotional. It even includes lines like “Zaheed believes that there are no shortcuts to success,” which suggests a sponsored angle. Fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. GrabUp - Talk 08:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Somajyoti ✉ 08:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained to you previously, if you think an article is eligible for speedy deletion, you should specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion you think applies. If you just don't think the subject of this article is notable, it's best to just say "delete". Speedy deletion has a very specific meaning and only applies when one of those criteria is met. MCE89 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I forgot. Thanks. Somajyoti ✉ 20:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I nominated this article five years ago (the result was delete), and my opinion remains the same. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sufficient notability to justify inclusion. Perhaps if more RSes could be found to bolster inclusion that would change things but that is not the case. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas El Maliki

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Contesting Deletion

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

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

Addressing Systemic Bias

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

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

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

Contesting Deletion

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

- International Tournament Participation: Kings League World Cup 2025.

- Top 15 Streamers Worldwide: ranked at 12.

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

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

Update:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josh Gannet

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources lack independent depth, and the article reads like WP:PROMO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See this deletion log also. & the provided sources [ SonicScoop, SongChecks, Mixonline] are primarily interviews/industry publications that not provide independent coverage per WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SonicScoop and MixOnline are fully independent publications. Would alternate or additional sources help correct the issue? The article is not intended as promo and appears to read similarly to other Wikipedia pages regarding other notable recording/mixing engineers. 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed what I am guessing may have been the offending sections. Please advise if any additional changes are necessary 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources included and tonal revisions made 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly some WP:COI editing going on with @Konakaimusic and 148.74.79.119. The Music Connection and Songchecks sources don't name any authors, and do little more than reprint his press releases. I don't see any actual in-depth journalism there. Rift (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
148.74.79.119 and Konakaimusic are both me… edits were made from 2 different devices and one wasn’t signed in to Wikipedia. Is that not permitted? Additionally, subject is interviewed about his work in several podcasts, however they are predominantly audio/video. Are those site-able references? Konakaimusic (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Gurusamy

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as the subject is only a member of a state legislature, not the federal legislature of India DankPedia (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. DankPedia (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid reason for deletion. All members of state or provincial legislatures are notable. WP:NPOL says: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." LeapTorchGear (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LeapTorchGear (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of legislative assembly are notable. This should be on the Wikipedia.Almandavi (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State legislators are state-wide legislators, this should be kept speedily. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL a State legislator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I had hoped you would read guidelines more closely after WP:Articles for deletion/Hubert Corsi. WP:NPOL#1 specifically states that Politicians [...] who have held [...] (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. As a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, he meets that criteria. Now onto WP:NOPAGE, because this article as is likely would not surpass it. It is notoriously difficult to conduct searches on Indian topics (use of non-Latin script, webpages often not indexed on Google, etc.). As I've worked on articles for Tamil Nadu politicians in the past, I know the state maintains an archive of previous members' who's whos at [33]. S. Gurusamy's is located on page 342-244 here. It will still be quite thin after I add from it, but better than before. Curbon7 (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, his name in Tamil is "செ. குருசாமி"; perhaps this could help in finding further sources. There seem to be more than a few people with this name. Curbon7 (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional source with more info: [34]. He apparently changed his name to "S.S. Gurusaamy" on 27 April 2008. Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated article with sources I've found. Curbon7 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article notable per WP:NPOL Squawk7700 (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NPOL. MarioGom (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An elected member of the legislative assembly fully meets WP:NPOL.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Meets WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NPOL, lack of WP:BEFORE and WP:Competence is required. I think this nom meets SK#3, "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided." Cavarrone 04:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person pretty obviously meets WP:NPOL as a state legislator. More sources could be included to bolster it but this seems to be a simple case of lacking WP:BEFORE. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhin Hossain Prince

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Tagged for lack of notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 04:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 04:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not a notable politician WP:NPOLITICIAN WP:N Beylarbey
Delete - Per Nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Kumar (mountaineer)

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

Fails WP:NBIO, created using WP:LLM with only one source that is PRIMARY (self-published). All others are mostly WP:TIMESOFINDIA that has no url/links. Agent 007 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Bihar. Agent 007 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond the fact that this seems pretty likely AI-written, it is also created by a blocked user, and it is an orphan. Ré union! 18:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable IAS officer, couldn't find anything in my BEFORE to satisfy GNG or ANYBIO. I have similar concerns about the listed sources being AI generated and being mis-represented (which is what lead to the author's ban, more on that) but just want to clarify of the above !vote that the article was not created in violation of a block or ban, and being an orphan can be remedied and not a valid reason for deletion. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, that's true, I forgot to mention that it also pretty obviously fails WP:GNG. Ré union! 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dang, reading the other comments further damn this case for deletion. It would fail WP:GNG under normal circumstances but the other circumstances around it further bolster deletion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Brestin

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

Fails WP:BIO. Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits unilateral return top Draft. WP:ROTM author. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Christianity, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet WP:RS standards and at least half are just profiles on non-independent sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple independent sources covering Brestin's work, namely, a 2010 review of her book in the journal Death Studies; a 2019 Publishers Weekly book review; and a bit of analysis of her 2002 book by Kathaleen Amende in Desire and the Divine: Feminine Identity in White Southern Women's Writing (Louisiana State University Press). There's also an interview with Today's Christian Woman magazine she did alongside a co-author, though I'm not sure how much that factors into WP:NAUTHOR. These sources have been added to the article. Best, Bridget (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jude Tanner

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

Doesn't meet GNG. Indication of importance is described as winning a Tony award, among others. This person did not win a Tony award -- their company was one of about 50 companies listed as having a co-producer credit for a production which won a Tony award. TonySt (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. TonySt (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To start the discussion, needs participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Beavis

AfDs for this article:

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

Second AfD -- the first one reached a Delete concensus. This began as me trying to do a cleanup of sources and to improve the article as per WP:BEFORE but the more I worked in it the more I realized it does not meet WP:N. Sources cited are mostly WP:TRADES or WP:PROMO (in some cases actual straight-up AI SEO spam articles).

Ground News aggregate (duplicate of a UFV source)
Investers Hangout -- Very obvious AI SEO spam article
Testimonial for SEO platform that was being used as a source? This is the only source for the "Publications" section. Testimonials are inherently not independent or credible.
Daily Hive "Branded Content" -- this is a paid advertisement

Most of the articles I can find on this person appear to be the result of intensive SEO efforts rather than genuine significant coverage in independent secondary sources. The secondary sources that I've been able to find only write about him in the context of being the founder of a marketing agency. As detailed in the original AfD, the trades industry awards or "top" listings referenced in the article are not automatically noteriety claims. TonySt (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. TonySt (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is absolutely PR/vanity spam about a non-notable person. COOLIDICAE🕶 17:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the nominator that the mentioned 4 sources are not appropriate, however the remaining sources are OK. For example these sources have enough coverage and don't look like PR or paid placement:

-aldergrovestar.com

-bcbusiness.ca

-sauder.ubc.ca - A university website, can't be paid placement

-alumni.ufv.ca Alumini website, cant be paid

-bcbusiness.ca 30 under 30 This type of coverage can't be paid

-mnbc.ca Award win coverage, can't be paid

Also, the original AFD was in 2022 and the majority of sources cited are after 2022, so that result is irrelevant by now. Rubenpurer (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a new source I have Found:

Canadian SME Small Business Magazine Page 41-43 Rubenpurer (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we discuss and evaluate the sources sent?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Some coverage [35] and here [36]. Lots of coverage in the Aldergrove Star, that's probably the best one. The article needs a rewrite, badly, but AfD ain't clean up Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azeko Tahiru Salifu

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

Non-notable bureaucrat failing WP:ANYBIO or the WP:GNG who does not otherwise meet WP:NACADEMIC. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Ghana. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry O'Hagan

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

Being one of the secretaries of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone, doesn't confer notability on its own per WP:NOTINHERITED, and his actions listed in his article appear to be fairly minor. He is mentioned just once in O'Neill's Dictionary of National Biography entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hunt (editor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandeep Bhargava

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

Not a single source which talks about the subject to define his notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not pass WP:NBIO, WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though the article of the profile seems to be notable but lacks reliable news references. hence notable citations needed.
Delete: [37] - 404, [38] - There is nothing to say about Sandeep, [39] - Why this article added as reference?, [40]- Same article as 'The Hindu'. I can't even see the subject's name in any citation. B-Factor (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles from Economic Times, Hollywood Reporter, The Hindu, and Financial Express are all legitimate and verified. However the links previously posted took the reader directly to the main home page of these news sources and not to the relevant article about Mr Sandeep Bhargava, leading to confusion. This has been fixed and the relevant articles with the accurate links have now been added. Kindly check. Anusha Ananth Kumar (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTCV. Charlie (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have fixed the article with the relevant and credible sources talking about Mr. Sandeep Bhargava. Kindly peruse. 202.72.225.101 (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have added relevant and verified sources and references, please note. Anusha Ananth Kumar (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While there is a consensus to Delete, there was reportedly a problem with links with the sourcing so I'm relisting in case this correction changes any arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Collins (taxi driver)

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

fails WP:GNG; appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS per @162 etc.: Joeykai (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Joeykai (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, I have to agree. This doesn't measure up to WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 162 etc. (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I would have been very leery of taking a taxi driven by a nonagenarian. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three reliable sources, including BBC. Unique among cabdrivers. Received award. "His new-found fame led to widespread media interest." There's no good reason to deprive readers of this information. WP is most useful for articles about relatively obscure but still notable people. Station1 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the sentiment, but the word WP:notable is where the disagreement is. Even if you think there is enough to establish notability, then we fall into the realm of WP:BIO1E: his notability is only due to one "event", which is living so long and still doing his job. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside whether or not a long recognized career is an "event", WP:BIO1E considers whether there should be an article about the person, the event, or both. It doesn't contemplate no article at all. Station1 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 22:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devdutta Manisha Baji

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. I removed a ton of unsourced content but even what is left is just mentions and a lot of those are WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CNMall41,
Firstly, thank you for reviewing the page. Every notice is a new learning experience for me, and I have carefully gone through your comments.
- Please forgive me if I have not used the correct Wikipedia technical terms. I usually use generic terminology to convey points, though I do try to follow Wikipedia guidelines as best as I can.
Regarding the Devdutta article: I won't claim he is notable without basis, and though I wrote the article, I’m not approaching it with bias. I would like to present a logical, reference-based defense for my work. Beyond that, you all are the experts, and I trust your decision.

Let me address the points one by one:

1. WP:NEWSORGINDIA

Since I don’t know the subject personally, I cannot confirm whether he or his production houses paid for the articles referenced. I used sources that I found available online. Therefore, I have no comment on their promotional nature. If you have any suggestions or tools to help identify whether a link is paid/promotional, that would be really helpful for my future articles.

2. Removal of Unsourced Data

Yes, he is also a singer. I found his name listed on the music apps I use, and also in Wikipedia film tables where he is credited for singing. However, I remember a previous admin mentioning that a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for another Wikipedia article. So, I didn’t cite them. And since platforms like Spotify or JioSaavn are not accepted as references, I couldn’t use those either. Thank you for cleaning up the unsourced information. It would be great if you could guide me on how to properly cite chartbusters or music credits.

----

Defense Based on WP:NMUSICIAN

I’ve reviewed the WP:NMUSICIAN guidelines, and I believe the subject meets the criteria for notability for the following reasons:

a) WP:MUSICIAN - Point 2

This mentions having a single or album on a national chart. His song “Raja Ala” from Pawankhind was a chartbuster. I’m slightly confused because, in India, songs are mostly part of film soundtracks, unlike in Hollywood where albums and movies are more separate. Still, this subject has composed music for high-budget Marathi films, and several of his songs have been popular.

b) WP:MUSICIAN - Point 3

This point seems a bit biased, as it references RIAA certification and Yahoo Music ratings. Indian music directors typically aren't evaluated through such systems. How, then, can Indian subjects qualify under this criterion?

c) WP:MUSICIAN - Point 4

Again, this seems tilted toward Western norms. Indian music directors primarily work in film, and their recognition usually comes through movie soundtracks, not necessarily through concerts. Concerts are secondary.

d) WP:MUSICIAN - Point 5

I believe the subject qualifies here. His music albums have been released under Zee Music, a reputed label with over 10 years in the industry. Zee itself is a well-established brand.

e) WP:MUSICIAN - Awards (e.g., Grammy, Academy)

This also feels biased, as these awards are region-specific. In India, we have our own recognized awards like Filmfare and state-level honors such as Nandi Awards. The subject has received several regional awards and was also nominated for Filmfare Marathi, which I’ve mentioned in the article. Therefore, I believe he satisfies this condition too.

Finally, I’d like to share that I’m just a movie buff. With the rise of OTT platforms, language barriers have started to fade, and I’ve found myself exploring cinema beyond my native language. I initially began writing about Telugu movies, but then I found inspiration in my mentor and brother @Jayanthkumar123, who was actively contributing articles for Telugu cinema. Later, I saw @DareshMohan bro contributing valuable content for Kannada films.

That’s when I realized there’s a real need to work on communities like Marathi, Odia, Punjabi, and Bengaliwhere even native-language contributors are very few. I wanted to help bridge that gap and bring more visibility to regional cinema and artists who truly deserve recognition.

Regarding the issue of paid articles: it’s evident that well-established personalities or large production houses can easily pay to get featured in newspapers and portals—eventually leading to the creation of a Wikipedia article even before the film’s release.

On the other hand, subjects who lack financial resources and media exposure often have their pages deleted for “lack of citations.” This feels like an unfortunate imbalance, and I hope we can find fairer ways to address it.

My final input regarding this article is that the subject is notable. He has composed quality music and has several popular songs that have performed well on music apps within the Marathi industry. He is regarded as one of the top music directors in that space.

My suggestion would be to remove any unsourced content and improve the article in alignment with Wikipedia guidelines. Beyond that, I leave the final decision to the experienced editors—admins, rollbackers @Ab207, and others in the community hierarchy.

Thank you for this opportunity to learn and grow. Every review is a valuable learning experience for me. - Herodyswaroop (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
>His song “Raja Ala” from Pawankhind was a chartbuster

Please give reliable sources for this statement, as it helps to prove notability. Review [[WP:CHARTS]. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" is part of WP:NMUSICBIO — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability as singer or musician. As a soundtrack composer, his films doesn't seem notable and sources are unclear. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Itzcuauhtli11

Respecting your opinion and also defending mine — I was a bit shocked by the second statement:

"His films don't seem notable."
Sir, I’m sharing with you Wikipedia's own lists — List of highest-grossing Marathi films. I am neither an editor nor do I know anyone associated with editing that page. The data is clearly visible there.
- Pawankhind – This is the 3rd highest-grossing film ever in the Marathi industry. It also appears under the highest-grossing opening weekend list.
- Subhedar – It is listed under worldwide highest-grossing films by month.
- Firastya – This film won multiple awards, including recognition in Sweden and Pune.
So, we can conclude from Wikipedia itself that two of his films were among the highest grossers in the Marathi film industry.

Coming to the song "Raja Ala":
I searched under WP:Charts, but unfortunately couldn’t find any official music chart specifically for India. However, I’m sharing a few links which I believe may help:
1. https://www.jiosaavn.com/featured/chartbusters-2022-marathi/CAvDksWm1rKvz,QNANKgeg__ "Raja Ala" is listed in the Top 3.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMgVnhNpcFc 55 million views on YouTube.
3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/marathi/movies/news/pawankhind-new-song-raja-aala-this-foot-tapping-number-featuring-santosh-juvekar-and-chinmay-mandlekar-is-definitely-a-chartbuster/articleshow/89432249.cms Again, you may argue this is paid media — but I’m sharing it for reference.
  I hope I have answered your queries. - Herodyswaroop (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herodyswaroop:, please stop with the AI-generated WP:WALLOFTEXT information you keep posting. It is not helpful, especially since these are not policy-based arguments and the sources you are providing are not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Sorry sir, As my English is bit bad, I am using grammarly to correct the sentence. I would avoid that.

But I am actually going through each and every point in the Wikipedia guidelines and answering them, with utmost care. You asked for chartbuster I have provided the same. You asked for films notability, I have given the same.

Again bit surprising. if List of highest-grossing Marathi films this itself isn't reliable source, then which is ? - Herodyswaroop (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzcuauhtli11

Wikipedia: Notability (music)

"The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc."

Response: I have mentioned notable films where the recordings were featured.

You did not comment on the following criterion: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

Response: Zee5 Music is a notable music company with over 10 years of establishment and a significant presence in the industry.

Please guide me if I am not adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

- Herodyswaroop (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are still using AI to generate responses. Again, please stop. You have made your case for notability and now need to leave others to opine. Posting AI generated walls of text do NOT help your case. Also, note WP:CIR, WP:COI and WP:PAID. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Small correction, Not AI generated content, you can say AI Grammer corrected content, It took one hour to go through each point and get them done.

Wp: paid, Wp:COI, If I really get money in defending this subject, I would really be happy. Joking - Herodyswaroop (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you need an hour to generate the responses yet your edits are done quick on pages with very good competency. This is not my first rodeo. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not properly betting all of the subject's movies as notable or not.

About the 3 movies you mentioned: Firastya didn't earn major awards and Subhedar only earned ₹18 crore worldwide, which may be notable enough on a regional level, but not on a national or international ones.

Pawankhind may be notable enough on a national or international level, but I'm still not sure. That could probe notability, but it doesn't mean he deserves an article. He also needs significant coverage on independent, reliable sources.

As a singer or musician, he doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC.

As a composer, he doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:COMPOSER.

About Zee5 Music: What's its "roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable"? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzcuauhtli11 @CNMall41 Sir, I am in a big confusion now. If i reply. @CNMall41 accuse me of paid editing. if I don't reply, I am getting lot of confusion. Taking the bet.

Sir, Marathi films are regional films and obviously,they will be highest grossers in same na sir?. How can we expect it should be highest grosser in international level.

Like Sairat movie the top-1 in marathi list, is blockbuster in Marathi,but the same is flop in telugu. And definitely not a international hit. But still it's a top movie for marathi people right?

If that is the case 98% all regional film articles would get rejected in Wiki. Because any country Or region may give a massive hit globally once Or twice.

2. Again,you claimed no awards for Firatsya. But ref clearly shows that,then why the claim of no awards.

Finally respecting @CNMall41sir advice,not dragging the context. It would be great help if sir itself goes through Zee5 label list of independently notable, as the list may go long.

- Herodyswaroop (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepHe appears significant; as a composer, he has contributed to numerous distinguished films. However, the provided references are inadequate and require further support from credible sources. AndySailz (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the !vote AndySailz, but I am hoping you can clarify. If the provided references are inadequate and require further support from credible sources, how is this notable? Are you able to provide those credible sources? "Appear[ing] significant" and being notable are two different things. We need sources showing such. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is borderline notable, but not seeing it as enough for a stand alone article. Even with his involvement with some films. Which are very particular. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The wall-o-text bludgeoner has been blocked, you're safe now. If we could get at least one solid comment on the state of the available sources, that would be great.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Gunter

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

As genuinely cool and entertaining as the bus-jumping incident is, this seems like a clear WP:1E fail. — Moriwen (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. — Moriwen (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe this is the time to Ignore all rules. This was, after all, covered in Time Magazine. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this as it was very much a well publicised event and it is also such a good story in my opinion Jack Smart (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t this fall under the “ if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.” Because of its relation to the much larger tower bridge article it is mentioned in where it is basically only a line there and if you want to learn more you click on him and find out more

I have tried finding out about his time in the war but could not find the records as I didn't have access to the archives because I couldn’t find any that wasn’t they were behind a pay wall Jack Smart (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With coverage in Time, and significant coverage from the BBC and Metro in 2024, this already meets WP:GNG. I can also find coverage in September 1953, as well as in 1972 and 1979, and note that the BBC article in particular has more info about Gunter (eg that he drove a tank during WWII), which could be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks i was looking for his war stuff I’ll add that in aswell Jack Smart (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maile66. It seems to satisfy WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Robert Fudge

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

Not notable per WP:BIO1E. The disaster where Mr Fudge provided aid was not particularly notable, and Mr Fudge appears to be otherwise a low-profile private individual. — Moriwen (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. — Moriwen (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely any sources and they only cover the one event no coverage exists for anything else about him Scooby453w (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article simply isn't necessary. Info doesn't need to be anywhere outside of Cross of Valour. Leonstojka (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is Canada’s highest award for bravery, only 20 have been awarded in its 53 year history. If any Canadian should have their own Wikipedia entry, no matter how insignificant the rest of their lives were, its these 20 heroes. Capnwilly (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fudge and the other 19 recipients per Capnwilly. This is the civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor, and the MOH is an automatic keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly merge citation to Cross of Valour (Canada). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even a Canadian newspaper search is a bust. There is probably coverage that hasn't been digitized, but we can't show notability at this time. Would be better to find sourcing, then create the article, rather than the other way around. He's very likely notable, but no sourcing, so no article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im gonna be honest i think the majority of these articles should probably be merged into the page where the medal is. of the 20 people who have gotten it 3 maybe 4 are more then just stubs that cite the medal citation I think a section that describes their actions would be better then having 15 stubby articles Scooby453w (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. Make a chart in the article and put their names there. Brief description if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not look notable. Certainly not enough to a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let's look at the applicable guideline, Notability.

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography, item 1 says:

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"

Mr. Fudge won the Cross of Valour (Canada).

We have articles on every Victoria Cross winner yet the majority are know for just one event. The distinction from your typical BIO1E is that they did something big and they received a very high award as a result. The same applies to Mr. Fudge. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have identified two Canadian news sources with coverage, The Globe and Mail and Winnipeg Free Press, and added these citations to the article. ResonantDis_tortion 15:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Prenkaj

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

Minor diplomat now working as a functionary at the UN. Almost all hits are articles written by the subject, or where he is briefly quoted giving his opinion. I did find one profile of him in local media, but that doesn't amount to passing WP:SIGCOV in general.

His previous job titles are not automatically notable, and it isn't reasonable to suggest (as the opening section does) that he was a member of the Kosovo cabinet by virtue of being a political adviser. Overall, comes across as an inadequate promo page. Leonstojka (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Leonstojka (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment members of a national cabinet meet WP:NPOL.They appear to have served in the cabinet of Atifete Jahjaga. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. The sources are few and him having jobs in governemnt are not enough for a stand alone article. Reads like a resume too. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Automatically notable as a member of Kosovo's cabinet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is ZERO Automatically notable people on Wikipedia. The subject fails the criteria for a BLP page. I don't see the source "Kosovo info" (current number 4) supporting the article content. "Public policy consultant", "former Kosovo diplomat", or "former Adviser" are not notable positions. The subject lacks the elements to qualify as a full and balanced biography. Wikipedia is not intended to be a resume. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Presumed notability" is dependent on sourcing requirements being satisfied per GNG, NBASIC, ANYBIO. Someone who is barely notable is a red flag. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Arya

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

Does not meet GNG and all the sources provided are dead links Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock
Delete This article claims to have sources but they are all dead links making this article fail GNG Scooby453w (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] New references added Hitiste2023 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] and all of them are obituaries ill stick with my delete vote Scooby453w (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Foreign Service. Instead of deleting. Subject does not seem notable aside from working in government. Not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not only are most of the sources hallucinated links from an LLM, the subject appears to have received coverage only in connection with his death, which makes this a case of WP:BIO1E. A redirect is fine as an alternative but Indian Foreign Service is not a great target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kane County John Doe (1994)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per WP:TNT. The entire article is self contradictory. It says that he was unidentified, and then goes on and how he was not identified, which makes no sense. This reads like one of those murder cases, not an encyclopedia article. Ping me if you actually fix this, but underneath is a run of the mill missing person story. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P. C. Solanki

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are mix of interviews and routine annoucements to with the cases. scope_creep^Talk 08:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of mentions, but no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Earlier PROD-nominations were based on failing to find sources, which the re-write shows is objectively untrue. The AfD is now proposed mainly on WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:SIGCOV, which again reflect lack of WP:BEFORE and an appeal to policy (without specific discussion) that I address below. For instance, for user User talk:Onel5969, who voted above and originally nom. for PROD, several issues regarding lack of due diligence in PROD/AfD have consistently been raised on their talk page that concern me.

WP:RS—This is trivially untrue. Subject of the article is literally the headline of independent and published news from several news organizations such as The Economics Times, Deccan Chronicle, and The Quint. No significant research is needed to create a profile of the topic from these articles and it's more than a passing mention (or routine announcement) as the subject was the primary advocate of mult-year high-profile trial (see: Asaram for defendents profile and stature). This also satisfies, in my opinion, reliable, independent, and sources criterion of WP:GNG.
WP:SIGCOV—Additional citations within the article, where the subject is not the main topic directly, but critical part of the story support significant coverage, such as the coverage in the Caravan magazine, The Print articles. These may include interviews but are not the basis of the subjects profile. Further, coverage spans several years (2013-2023) indicating WP:SUSTAINED.
WP:BIO—The impact of trial brought by the subject as lead counsel is highly notable (as stated above) and their portrayal in a notable bollywood film (Sirf Ek Bandaa Kaafi Hai). — Komodo (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in light of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations, are the article's sources reliable? If so, I'd say "keep". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: There is enough to indicate notability. There are multiple non-NEWSINDIAORG sources that have provided significant coverage to Solanki. It includes this and this. I would also say Keep. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B., What are your concerns regarding the reliability of the sourcing ? Sohom (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know there can be problems with Indian news sources. I’m unsure which to trust - that’s why I’ve asked for help. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu The Print and Caravan Magazine would be the most reliable, Anything associated with the Times group is up for debate imo. However, given the subject matter, I doubt money changed hands except maybe to promote the film (I'm neutral about the Deccan Chronicle, tho I've seen bad coverage from themselves at times). Sohom (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It goes a little deeper than the publication itself. Even reliable publications can have articles that fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The best thing to look for is the byline. Anything that is marked "entertainment desk" or "news desk" is likely to not have editorial oversight and possibly paid. This, this and even the Deccan Herald article (not the byline of PTI - indicating churnalism) used in the article are all examples. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't think this article passes muster purely from a WP:BLP1E point of view. If we zoom out for a second and try to look at to the sources, we see that every single source mentions the individual in the context of the much more notable Asaram Bapu case. The man is known for a singular thing, and that is as the attorney of the godman case, something that can be sumarized in the parent article.

The article in it's current state has a total of 4 sentences that are unrelated to his involvement in the case, none of which have been independently reported on (outside of the context of the other case) or are notable if stood on their own merit. As a result, I support deletion, even without considering the reliability of the sources involved (some of which like the economic times can be of dubious reliability at times -- but probably aren't in this context). Sohom (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Soham! On reviewing the WP:BLP1E conditions, to my reading, it doesn't appear that all three conditions are met. Specially, for condition three, the event is significant and the subjects role in it is well documented. Even if bulk of the notability comes from that event, and BLP1E is a concern, does it directly merit a deletion? Considering that the initial PROD and AfD nom wasn't even about the specific issue, one can't help but feel that goalposts are being moved. If considering a merge, it is hard to place this topic in Asaram but I am not entirely against it as a seconday outcome. Let me know if my understanding of these guidelines are incomplete. Cheers! — WeWake (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see another reference has been added which again is tangenital to the mans career rather than the man himself, essentially a passing mention. I don't think you can build a case for WP:BLP1E and didn't think so when I opened the Afd but I'm more sure now than then, that he is non-notable in this instance. scope_creep^Talk 04:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is to support the specific statement re: verifiability. There are existing sources addressing their career. Cheers! WeWake (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see it inspired a movie. I count that as borderline notability. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It didnt. It was the trial not the lawyer. I will take a closer look tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk

Keep - Multiple reliable sources provided by Koshuri Sultan prove that notability exists. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 05:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you don't know what is WP:SPA or you are just being deceptive due to your poor AfD nomination even after your rampant bludgeoning. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources cited in the article are significant coverage and bylined to meet WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even with all its problems, the subject is clearly notable by significant coverage. Much as I dislike the way the Indian media grabs attention, this lawyer actually did something notable. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Fair enough. Nomination Withdrawn. I plan to copyedit the article to remove the junk. I was preparing a source analysis table which was revealed Ref 16 and 17 as being pretty decent. 15:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Stacey Gabriel (actress)

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. There is no evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources to establish a lasting impact in the field. Most references appear to be minor news snippets, social media, or self-published material, which do not qualify as substantial verification under Wikipedia's standards. Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Business, Philippines, and Spain. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are demonstrably false. Reverse this unjustified nomination for deletion. You have claimed multiple falsehoods which are against the Community Guidelines of Wikipedia.

To clarify:

List of nationally and internationally distributed news organizations referenced in the article:

- The Inquirer.net

- The Philippine Star

- ABS-CBN News

- the Manila Bulletin

- Mega magazine

- Philstar.com

- PEP. Ph

All sources explicitly note Stacey Gabriel and her notable activities.

---

Meanwhile your claims of "self published" material being used is false. Note an example of it or kindly retract your false claim. If you cannot back up this claim, nor retract it, your submission will be flagged as an abuse of Wikipedia policy.

---

"Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition"

Multiple independent sources outline dozens of TV series episodes Stacey participated in, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant.

Are these not notable?

---

"social media"

There are no social media references in this article.

---

Given no evidence to support this unjustified action, reverse this flagrantly unjustified and deceptive nomination for deletion. Mickfir (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mickfir (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Dear @Mickfir,

I want to clarify that the nomination was made in good faith, based on a review of the article’s current sourcing and in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO some of the listed sources are reliable, and this Afd only for english version. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why include false claims that social media and self published material was used as references? There is not a single referenced source that was self published nor any reference to social media. This is a harmful oversight at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

As for notability... I repeat, dozens of interdependently verified TV Episode performances and multiple national pageants including Miss Universe Philippines as 1st Runner-up. Mickfir (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check! WP:AFD is not only for deletion it's a basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia. Many contributors will review it and vote, so there's no need to panic just let the contributors decide.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me check" ? You nominated this article for deletion without even checking if the claims you are making against it are true?

Perhaps this article is worth a read: Wikipedia:Don't lie

"basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia"

No. Wikipedia best practice clearly indicates that if an article has areas for improvement, the 'Talk' page should be used to suggest edits, or you make the edits yourself.

Nominating an article for deletion based on false claims is a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia recommended practice. Mickfir (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources like ABS-CBN News, The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, and others mentioned by Mickfir are reliable. But some, like IMDb, aren't and should be removed. — doclys (❀) 18:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the claims made by @S-Aura about incorrect sourcing were false - made without even checking them first. The IMDb references have been removed as per the advice @Doclys Mickfir (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss_Universe_Philippines_2024. Not seeing her being notable. She did not win the pageant and her acting career does not look like enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have another skim reader. Shame the wiki community is so full of them. May I respectfully remind the administrator assessing this that this very nomination for deletion was made under false pretenses of nonexistent social media and self published citations. There are none.
Multiple independent sources outline over a dozen TV series episodes Stacey participated in with national distribution, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant. This, in addition to a nationally recognized prison ministry program.

Mickfir (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: the comments justifying the original nomination for deletion by @S-Aura contain false claims about the citations of the article. Not only does this invalidate the original AfD nomination but the community members that utilize false claims should be cautioned by admins.

Summary:

Claim: "Most references appear to be ... social media, or self-published material,"

Reality: there were never any such citations. All citations are from nationally, and in some cases internationally distributed news organizations.

This AfD discussion was raised under false pretenses and should therefor be retracted. AfD nominations should not be justified by outright falsehoods. Mickfir (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, No personal attacks WP:NPA.

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting that you justified this AfD by making false claims is not a personal attack. Your claims are either correct or false. There is nothing personal. Just accountability. May I ask why you chose to include false information in your AfD nomination? Is not the Wikipedia Community dependent on telling the truth? Wikipedia:Don't lie

Or can you list which citation was from "social media" or "self published"?

There was clearly no such faulty citations. Mickfir (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova

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

This article does not yet appear to be notable for English Wikipedia Insufficient Sources, and the topic may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 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, Women, Lists of people, Music, and Popular culture. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova is a well-known figure in Azerbaijani pop music and is widely recognized by the public in the country. Her artistic career has been covered by numerous reliable and independent sources such as APA, AzərTAc, Musavat, and Report. She has been active in the music industry since the 1990s, performing solo concerts, with her songs broadcast on national television and radio, and has participated in several state-level events.

The article is based on verifiable and independent sources, and the subject clearly meets the notability criteria due to her impact on Azerbaijani culture and public recognition. For these reasons, I oppose the deletion of the article and recommend that it be kept.Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijan government should be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. I found sources stating this, but all are in Azerbaijani and I'm not sure if they're reliable enough.[41] [42] — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The official website of the President of the country has reported on this. Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it. But independent, reliable sources are needed, and that is a primary source, which is not great. Are there others? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bakupost.az/xumar-qedimovaya-emekdar-artist-oldu https://mia.az/mobil/1075536 https://rublika.az/index.php?newsid=22845 https://etikxeber.az/xumar-q%C9%99dimova-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-oldu/ https://hit.az/az/senet/264643/emekdar-artist-konserte-hazirlasir/ https://musavat.com/ru/mobile/news/bacisi-xumar-qedimova-emekdar-artist-olmasindan-xebersizdir_420423.html https://www.gununsesi.info/xumar-q%C9%99dimovaya-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-adi-verildi/ https://baku.ws/show-business/xumar-qdimovaya-mkdar-artist-ad-verildi-srncam https://azxeber.com/az/emekdar-artist-turkiyede-trend-oldu/maqazin/ https://news24.az/180697-emekdar-artist-sevenlerine-seslendi.html Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are those independent, reliable sources? Linkbombing is not enough for a discussion. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The most reliable source. The country's president's own official website Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijani government, which is a national level recognition, is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott Currier

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

He was a World War II cryptography lieutenant, but I see no substantiation for the unsourced claim that he "played a major role in the Cryptanalysis of the Enigma". There are passing mentions, which fail to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) with the hope that eventually, sources might be declassified and show he's notable. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources cited in the article, which are not fully utilised, I found more information about him here which provides a list of more sources, and here. If the article is kept I will use these to expand it and add his portrait. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article needs work, references found give evidence of notability: (1) The NSA calls him a "giant" in cryptography; (2) He was one of 4 Americans who went to Bletchley Park to help with decrypting the Enigma. References to both are now in the article. There are likely more. While I may not have time to do the work, @Hawkeye7 has offered to do the work. — ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources discussed until now show notability. MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anzhelika Bielova

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What's the role of the Ukrainian Women's Congress? Is it a quasi-governmental organization? Bearian (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning keep but since I don't understand the Ukrainian language, it would be much better if the titles of articles in Ukrainian (most of the references here) were translated into English in the References section. That would make it easier for me to evaluate this article. I added a reference from the Guardian into the article. Nnev66 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Kočik

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - There is nothing on the page that points towards GNG, but Ser! has added a number of new sources. [43] is an interview, so that is N per WP:IV. The others are all SIGCOV, but all focussing on him as a rising hope who is top of his youth class and even won a competition in the Netherlands. Now I don't know if we call darts players athletes, but I think WP:YOUNGATH applies in any case. He clearly made a stir in June 2022, after winning in the Netherlands, but these are youth tournaments, and the press interest in him is localised (although across Slovakia) and also occasioned, and thus primary news reporting. At this point I agree with the press reporting that he looks like a Slovak hopeful for great future success, but that is in the future. Draftify recognises that this may occur. However, there is a risk that the draft will be abandoned before the success occurs, which could be some time away. I would also be happy with a redirect to preserve page history. However, there is not much that is actually usable in the final article in what we have now (again, ther sourcing on the page as it is will not do). Failing agreement on a suitable redirect, I would see no problem with deletion. The article can be written if and when he achieves success in major tournaments and elicits significant secondary coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, per Sirfurboy's suggestion. Let this incubate until more comprehensive independent sources are found/published. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabzee discography

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's look at our relevant guideline: this list meets the requirements of WP:NLIST. The subject of the list, Dabzee's music, is notable. About half of the items are either backed up by references or by blue links to existing articles. The other half need refs or blue links to reliable articles and that can be fixed Deletion ≠ cleanup. Finally, if this information were instead merged into Dabzee's main article, it will become too large. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott Robinson

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

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

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

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

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

I would oppose a redirect because redirecting to a BLP to that kind of list seems bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of longest prison sentences. Not seeing independent notability here, but also not seeing why a redirect is undesirable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

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

Academics and educators

David J. Kukulka

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

Rejected speedy deletion many years ago and never taken to AFD. Creator has the name Kukulka so a COI article originally. KaisaL (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. KaisaL (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts too low to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, and no other evidence of academic or other notability, even without the apparent COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sarirete

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

Created by Ahmed Sine who openly identifies as the article subject, this article's only sources not written by Sarirete are merely citations to prior work that Sarirete is claiming to build upon. I was unable to identify secondary, significant coverage to satisfy any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria in Google, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com searches. While I marked this user's other article creation, Geocivilization, as reviewed because it is a term widely used in political science literature, Sarirete's impact on it has not been recognized in secondary sources. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2025, everyone knows that (1)Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn, and (2) that Wikipedia doesn't publish original content. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article suggests many book publications but I was unable to find any reviews of them through my usual sources. No pass of WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR, even setting aside the autobiography issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Martinez

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

A non-notable academic. This likely AI-generated biography appears to have hallucinated some facts, for example saying that he was editor of the journal Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the sole source for which is a permanent dead link. Martinez's own CV does not list this editorship, nor does the journal's website. Since we cannot verify that he was a journal editor, he meets no other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC; his H-index of 22 is well below the normal range for a full professor in social sciences. He does not pass WP:NAUTHOR since his edited books have not had multiple reviews (and there is no consensus on whether co-editing a book counts for NAUTHOR). He doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO#1 for his Fulbright, 800+ of which are awarded every year, so it's not a particularly distinct honor. I don't see evidence that he's quoted regularly on his expertise in the mainstream press. (The AI appears to have hallucinated a nonexistent link to the New York Times website.) The citation for the sentence These books, reviewed in *Palgrave Macmillan* for their interdisciplinary approach, have been cited in *American Political Science Review* and *Political Psychology* for advancing survey measurement of ambivalence. does not actually mention Martinez' books at all and is likely another hallucination based on keyword similarity. In addition to failing WP:N, this bio has significant WP:V problems for a BLP and should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many LLM pages created by the same editor (30 one-edit articles), too many of which have since been draftified or nominated for deletion (see User talk:Wq4m820). At least one other I checked was full of AI hallucinations, similar to this. I will leave a gentle warning, hopefully the editor will adjust how they are creating pages. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 I found another that was AI-generated and went with the non-gentle warning, considering they've already gotten four warnings this month and have been non-responsive to those but continue to create problematic articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, all the articles must seem suspect. I see 6 articles on May 17 in the span of only 5 hours, 7 articles on May 15 in the span of just 3 hours each with 5-7kb of content. this seems all a bit fishy. --hroest 16:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hits on the name in Gscholar, but I'm not sure they're about this same person. The fact that the editor has used AI to create other low-quality articles doesn't fill me with hope either for this... I don't see much of anything in a RS Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemable, nuke it and possibly start over. Geschichte (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I believe with his GS profile, with an h index of 22 and several publications with 100+ citations he is close to the bar of passing WP:NPROF but doesnt quite clear it in my book. I wouldnt quite write him off though, maybe this is just a bit WP:TOOSOON. However, given the other issues with the page, and that we cannot really trust anything that is currently written, there isnt really much to salvage. --hroest 16:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I was the original author of the article and that it was generated with AI assistance. I understand the community’s concerns regarding verifiability and notability, and I take full responsibility for the shortcomings in the original draft. That said, Michael D. Martinez does have some scholarly coverage and citations that might warrant a properly sourced and significantly rewritten article. If the community feels that the current version is beyond salvage (or intent for a new one is not worthwhile), I concur the consensus to delete.

Wq4m820 (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Somaiya

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

Not a notable manager and CEO. I don't see the sources to pass WP:Anybio. Cinder painter (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources. Darkm777 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can identify only one reference for consideration [44]. If you own any other substantial coverage, please provide it; I may be inclined to support a Keep. B-Factor (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Alexander Boon

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

Autobiograpy of non notable filmmaker/academic. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Previous PROD deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing quite enough to satisfy WP:NCREATIVE. I found half a dozen reviews for a volume of essays that he edited [45] [46] [47] [48] [49], and one review each for two of his books [50] [51]. I wasn't able to find anything for any of his films. Based on those sources I think he falls just short of the bar for NCREATIVE, but could easily be swayed if anyone is able to find additional reviews of his works. MCE89 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hughes

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite holding a faculty position and receiving an award, there is no significant coverage of Nigel Hughes in independent sources. The article relies mostly on university-hosted professional profiles, I could not find substantial third-party sources and article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Education, Archaeology, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep per WP:NPROF. He passes WP:NPROF#1 due to a high citation count in a low citation field with an h-index of 39 per Scopus and more than 10 publications with 100+ citations per Google Scholar. The award he received is a strong argument that he likely also passes WP:NPROF#2. Both of these are way beyond what is usually required in AfD to keep an article of an academic. Since we can apply NPROF, we do not have to consider GNG and after establishing notability, we can use professional profiles to write an article per NPROF and substantial coverage in third party sources is not required. It seems the nominator has not done a substantial WP:BEFORE and evaluation per WP:NPROF before nomination. --hroest 03:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide those links to verify your claim, so I can reconsider my AfD nomination? Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sure, here you go for Scopus and GS (he doesnt seem to have his own profile) and the award. --11:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
keep. Has honors. --Altenmann >talk 03:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wanted to note for the record that the first nomination was for a different Nigel Hughes. (This seemed apparent from the nominations themselves, but the logs preserved the first bit of both articles' wikitext, and they clearly reflect two different birthdates of two different people.) No opinion on the current article on the current subject. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that his citation count is sufficient to satisfy WP:NPROF#C1. He is also a Fellow of the Paleontological Society [52], which appears to be a selective elected position that gives him a pass of WP:NPROF#C3. And his Raymond C. Moore Medal gives him a reasonable claim to notability under WP:NPROF#C2. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hannes Röst [53] for providing those links. I’ve reviewed them and am now convinced to withdraw the nomination. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Xiaolan

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

Questionable notability. This article should be moved to draft. Amigao (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Music, Politics, Olympics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the biography is rather comprehensive, and there exists a comparable article on the Chinese Wikipedia. I have incorporated more sources and information to satisfy the inclusion criteria. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This seems like WP:MILL CCP member with a bit of propaganda press. Adding some of that detail to her father's (much more notable person) page would be DUE. I think the press she does get is more because her father was so notable. For Americans this would be like having a biography for Henry Luce III. Czarking0 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2: I'll stop messaging you if it is too much but I thought you might like to look at this one. Czarking0 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha don't worry, it's ok. Hmm, well I'm not really an expert on Wikipedia's inclusion criteria but the question seems to be what makes her independently notable? Is there enough coverage by reliable sources? The Account 2 (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage of her to meet WP:GNG. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Zarzycki

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

Disputed Draftification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:NPROF. In an AFC review this was stated: "According to https://ludzie.nauka.gov.pl/ln/profiles/QAO46PMcoxU/publications he has a total of 8 publications; Scopus says 21 with 104 citations. This is far short of what we require to pass WP:NPROF. Note that being a Department Chair or Dean does not qualify him either." by Ldm1954, with whom I agree. This is WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, and Poland. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP created almost simultaneously in the English and Polish Wikipedias. At least for the English Wikipedia, he falls far short of satisfying any of WP:NPROF with a decidedly modest h-factor, publication record and no major awards. Originator (who uses two accounts, albeit acknowledging this) argued first that he passes WP:NPROF#C1, then changed it to a pass of WP:NPROF#C6 when he moved the page back to main after draftification. This despite an AfC comment that Dean's don't qualify and about publication history (subsequently removed by Laura240406 as AfC cleanup, but still there in the history). No attempt to repair other deficiencies to the article which are clearly tagged. While novice editors should have some leeway, it is not appropriate for them to make up their own interpretation of WP:NPROF.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation record on Google Scholar is difficult to separate from a different biologist with the same name but I agree that he appears to pass neither WP:PROF#C1 nor #C6, and we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion, in this regard, kindly see my comments below. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In Poland, the President grants the academic title of Professor. This is a significant academic achievement, often awarded to individuals who have made substantial contributions to their field of study. This is a definite WP:NPROF #2 and #4 pass and I think if a source can be provided in this regard, then this can be kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comment above, this source (see PDF) confirms it and this conferment is a clear NPROF#2 as being a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national level". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced by the argument brought forward regarding WP:NPROF. With regards to NPROF#1, his Scopus profile shows 21 total publications and a h index of 7 (note that there are at least 6 people publishing under the same name but I checked the publications and it seems Scopus has properly distinguished them). Based on his citation record, I conclude that he doesnt pass #1. With regards to NPROF#6 there is no evidence he held a post beyond Dean which does not fulfill #6. With regards to the document that Vanderwaalforces presented, I translated it and it seems to be the appointment to the post of "professor", this is however *not* what NPROF#2 is intended - these are major awards from academic societies or general awards like Fields Medals, Nobel prizes etc. One could argue that this may fulfill NPROF#5 since this is an appointment that (probably) not all professors get and is thus equivalent to a distinguished professorship at a US university and he thus he passes the "average professor test" since he is elevated beyond the "average professor". To me that is the strongest argument of all the ones I evaluated. However, I dont know enough about the academic structure in the country but I dont see enough evidence that this is indeed such an unusual occurrence to grant notability *on its own* in the presence of a weak citation record. In totality, both the content of the article and the additional arguments presented here have not convinced me that this a person that passes WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Comment. His article will remain on pl wiki, which considers habilitation sufficent for notability. I know en wiki does not. Interesting discrepancy, but that's wiki for you. I cannot find any other reasons to argue for keeping him, under en wiki rules (the claim that his book is an "important contributions" is cited to a routine government document justifying his promotion to the rank of professor and is in fact FAKE, since that document does not provide any justification - that falsificaiton of content made me withdraw my keep vote, since it is dishonest), although he does have the next "higher" level of academic degree (above) habilitaiton, i.e. the professor (as noted by Vanderwaalforces). Frankly, I'd support traeting that level as granting notability, but that's seems to be a dissenting view. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus is it fake? Ah. Please point me or rather direct me to where you made the conclusion from? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Bocklandt

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

The article lacks sustained, notable coverage of the subject via third-party sources. The majority of sources on this page are research papers partially authored by Bocklandt. The TIME article does not mention Bocklandt at all. The subject's work on the "gay gene" is detailed in the Biology and sexual orientation article. Various aspects of their work could be detailed in their respective subjects, but Bocklandt himself doesn't appear to be notable. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Science. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lolade Dosunmu Adeyemi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Aside from a single article in The Guardian Nigeria, there is no significant independent coverage to establish notability. She is an accomplished woman but has no widely cited recognized publications or major awards. A Forbes 1000 mention and involvement in a few publications and minor advisory roles do not meet the threshold for notability. Mooonswimmer 15:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again, Fails WP:NACADEMICS or WP:GNG. Insufficient coverages found to establish notability of any sort. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NPROF with 3 papers which have a total of less than 100 citations among them. I also dont see evidence of passing WP:GNG. --hroest 20:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lonsdale (entrepreneur)

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

Only 1 article links to this. Seems rather promotional. Marked for COI concerns noting edits from this editor. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, China, Hong Kong, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOM. Appears promotional, with little to justify an article. Even with the terribly low bar for WP:GNG, this article appears to fail. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Editors who work for the subject of an article should refrain from editing their bosses' page. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Noble (computer scientist)

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

Self-published article; notability not established Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The award might be notable, but there is nothing to be found in Gbooks, scholar or Jstor. Gnews also has nothing. The article is unsourced, so could be a hoax? There is nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b can you have a look at his https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners GS profile] for re-evaluation, he seems clearly notable in my book. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a ton more sourcing than that, we still need sources that talk about the person Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b no we dont, this is a WP:NPROF evaluation. --hroest 19:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One source showing he won a prize still isn't enough sourcing, it indicates a pass at notability. I'm trying to avoid permastub articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on.

Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Sources, plural, indicating at least two. I still don't see those. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need independent sources for his h-index and the award. These are provided by Google Scholar, Scopus and the organization that provides the award (independent from the subject). This is exactly how the guidelines are supposed to work. To clarify: the subject cannot just upload a CV to his institution and claim to be a highly respected and highly cited professor. However, if independent sources confirm that he got an award and is highly cited, then this criteria is fulfilled. --hroest 01:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is clearly not a hoax which some WP:BEFORE shows. The GS profile shows an respectable h index of 57 which is way above our usual threshold and more than 20 papers with 100+ citations, thus satisfying WP:NPROF#1. Plus he also won the Dahl-Nygaard Prize contributing to WP:NPROF#2 - overall I see a profile that is substantially stronger than most other AfD candidates that end up being kept and I cannot follow the arguments for deletion here. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your GS profile link goes elsewhere; I think you want this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not attain notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). His racist (see 2022 deletion) views in themselves are not relevant but they illustrate the use he is making of this article for promotion of political views. This is confirmed by his edit today at Waitangi Tribunal, where his edit cannot be attributed to ignorance or a good faith error, due to his background in academia. The one secondary source provided is of low quality and focuses on only one event, in 2016. Even if accepted as a genuine RSS, because it is only one event, he is not deemed notable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy Protect PROMO RACIST per nom. BLP1E. POV

why this is still here? - this article is well below multiple criteria for speedy deletion (G10, G11, A6, A7) as well as notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT).

In particular, the only reference cited by the wikipedia page has no actual information on the subject! That should be more than enough to get rid of this (as if the rest of it wasn't enough). Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning a prize is not enough to make a whole article. As it stands it's barely enough for a stub. What notable contributions to computer science has he made? What has he published? I realize that Google Scholar could probably shed light on these questions, but it's the author's job to study these. Athel cb (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy... Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost the entire discussion above is predicated on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, when he should be evaluated against WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG and does not require independent sourcing. The nomination statement is worse, as says nothing about WP:BEFORE evaluation against notability criteria beyond the merest WP:VAGUEWAVE. His citation record passes WP:PROF#C1. "Founding Editor-In-Chief of the journal Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming" (removed as part of large-scale gutting of the article by the deletion nominator) passes WP:PROF#C8. Fellow of the Institute of IT Professionals of New Zealand and the British Computer Society could well pass WP:PROF#C3 depending how selective they are. Full professorship in the UK system operating at NZ universities is somewhat more selective than at US universities and may be a step towards #C5, although I think not a full step in that direction. The award is a pass of WP:PROF#C2 (for the senior-level award, the one he has; the junior one wouldn't be): we describe it as a highly prestigious in its area (software engineering, a major subfield of computer science) and every winner is bluelinked, significant evidence for its prestigiousness. Deleting this article would make him the only non-linked winner. He may have expressed distasteful views in his social media but that is not part of the article and not an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes WP:PROF per David Eppstein's analysis, so I would normally be in favor of Keep, but as of writing this comment, the article has zero sources. Perhaps it might be a good idea to Draftify so an editor can complete the article. Madeleine (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of it can be sourced to his 2022 curriculum vitae. It's obviously not independent, so usable only for uncontrove×rsial education and career details, not evaluation and opinion, but I think that's all we really need. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if he passes PROF, we need more sources than just one, which would violate our rules against WP:OR and WP:BLP. We also recently deleted the article of a notable dancer who was featured in a documentary about Madonna, because it was substantially an autobiography. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bearian please have a look at WP:NPROF first before you cast your vote. An academic is not a dancer, we have very clear guidelines in WP:NPROF which are sufficient for notability. Other guidelines that you cite do not apply here. We do have multiple sources to establish notability per WP:NPROF#1, namely Google Scholar and Scopus. --hroest 03:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and have discussed PROF in hundreds of AfDs. When I see at least one more reliable, independent, secondary source about him in the article, then I'll change my !vote. You do your thing. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we agree that NPROF applies here and even that he potentially passes NPROF? If we agree on that, NPROF states that the guideline is independent from WP:BIO and is explicitly an alternative path to notability and that any reliable source that demonstrates NPROF#1 or NPROF#2 is sufficient. Your request for additional sources again is covered by NPROF which clearly states that no independent sources to confirm trivial undisputed facts are required under NPROF. Are you disputing that a reliable source exists to demonstrate that he passes NPROF or are you unhappy with NPROF as a guideline itself? Because reading your argument it seems you are trying to challenge NPROF itself and its assertion that it provides an alternative path to notability independent of GNG. However this AfD is not the correct place to have this discussion, if you disagree with NPROF itself, we should have this discussion over there. --hroest 15:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Martin

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

Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Regarding his medical career, scopus shows 9 publications with an H-index of 9, with most of the citations coming from mid-authorship papers. For example, on his most highly-cited paper (Meltzer et al., 2003) he is one of 88 authors, and is listed only in the trialist, not in the main authors (checking the pdf). Visiting professorship at the University of Sunderland in the 90s doesn't meet the 'named chair' criterion. Other outputs seem typical for a typical academic in the humanities. LTLC flute is very impressive, but performance interpretation/outputs are supported only with self-citations. Klbrain (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, History, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Abul Kashem Mia

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

Passing mentions only, need evidence for WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory also, not every person deserves a article unless their contributions are detailed and in-depth sources, even 1, must be cited, not just name but also birth, birth place, education and position in work/jobs. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Adedeji Tukur

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

Fails WP:BIO. Likely UPE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not satisfying WP:SIGCOV, and it fails WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability under either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Deb (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Peck

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

Fails GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources - and NPOL - "being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability" Paul W (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:NPROF or WP:NPOL; insufficient reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He has a few decently cited publications towards WP:NPROF#C1 but I do not see enough, albeit complicated by "F Peck" being a common name. The prize is relevant, but I do not see it as reaching #C2. I don't find enough general coverage for other notability criteria. I think it is WP:TOOSOON, and he will perhaps pass the bar for notability in a few years. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician, fails WP:NPOL - sources are all of a local political nature. SportingFlyer T·C 06:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Hoffmeister (philosopher)

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

Notability assessment Xpander (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Germany. Xpander (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Xpander1, you have created this article as a translation of the de.wiki article and then you yourself have nominated it for deletion 3 minutes later, with this "Notability assessment" rationale. I am not understanding what you are seeking to accomplish by these steps and such a non-specific rationale? AllyD (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep until rationale for deletion is advanced. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I just had translated the page, that it got blanked here by User:Onel5969 (on notability and verifiability grounds), therefore I thought I'd bring the page here so that it's better assessed by reliable consensus. If this rationale is not sufficient, then I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Xpander (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So based on this, we have two articles, the original Johannes Hoffmeister on which the article text was reverted, and this new Johannes Hoffmeister (philosopher) which was created to open this discussion. A bit messy, but the AFD rationale is effectively then Onel5969's comment on the other article "Restore redirect - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Also, zero sources to satisfy WP:VERIFY". AllyD (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ACADEMIC 1.c. as per the festschrift Johannes Hoffmeister zum Gedächtnis (1956). Jahaza (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made Johannes Hoffmeister a disambig, but the philosopher is probably the primary topic, at least for now. Jahaza (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a significant figure in Hegel scholarship, overseeing some enormous works (his work was apparently also important for non-German-reading Hegel scholars). There's biographical discussion (in German) in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A history merge is surely appropriate here... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn, thanks for providing the new sources. I've added those to the article. By WP:HISTMERGE do you suggest that the page-history would be merged with Johannes Hoffmeister (currently a disambiguation page)? If so histmerge suggests that in case that "only one editor has written all of the content" a histmerge is not necessary. What's more is that the aforementioned page was originally created as a redirect to Hans Hoffmeister (water polo) which is a totally different topic, that content-wise is also not relevant. Best. Xpander (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair enough -- I'd misunderstood the situation! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Marlowe

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

Subject does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:POLITICIAN and would likely not be considered notable under WP:POLOUTCOMES. He is the (uncontested) mayor of a town with <10000 residents and my searches returned purely local coverage. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 03:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 03:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator seems to have it right. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Close to zero notability. Switching parties is a WP:BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable local politician. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ousmane Aly Pame

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and a cursory search didn't turn out anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Senegal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see some sources, but nothing independent. Francisco288 (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dayspring

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

A perfectly respectable Clinical Assistant Professor with a long career who doesn't meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Scopus shows 29 publication with an H-index of 13, which is modest for the field. Klbrain (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. hroest 15:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Yaqub

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

Subject does not appear to passWP:NPROF. The sources in the Arabic Wikipedia article aren’t any help. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and Lebanon. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPROF Criterion 6c "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Generally, appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor also is not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone." is specific. I see no evidence of any other criteria being passed. Fails NPROF and WP:BIO 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a pass of Wikipedia:NPROF or of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR at all. Qflib (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete this seems to be hard to evaluate due to lack of sources in English, but it seems that he has entry in this encyclopedia on Arabian linguists which indicates notability. I am not convinced that we can use google scholar to easily assess Arabic linguists as easily as scholars at a Western University. What makes me skeptical is that I could find almost no information about the Suleiman International University where he supposedly works (apparently its an online university). --hroest 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for notability is a bit higher than just having been listed in an encyclopedia, unless I'm missing something here, in which case please advise. Qflib (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on the encyclopedia, if its a scholarly work I would argue that this indicates notability per WP:NPROF. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Arabic sources to the article. The subject has clear notability in the Arabic academic community and is the author of significant linguistic dictionaries. -- Mohammed Qays (🗣) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple reviews of at least two of those? If so, subject might be notable under Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, but otherwise, just being an author isn't sufficient to establish notability here. Qflib (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mohammed Qays for non-arabic speakers, can you please elaborate a bit on the sources you added? Are they WP:RS, how are the dictionaries significant (what is their reception in the field? how is this documented with citations / reviews?). It is just really hard to make a judgement in a field and a language that I am not familiar with. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Ouaissa

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

I don’t believe this subject passes any of the criteria of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Algeria, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that I can't see a pass of any of the NPROF criteria. A pass of WP:NAUTHOR would be more likely, but I was only able to find the one review already cited in the article, plus this review of one of their edited volumes. A German speaker might have better luck, but I couldn't find nearly enough for notability. MCE89 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I somehow feel that someone at his rank should have more visible, and maybe the language barrier is preventing us from finding it, but one review of a monograph and one review of an edited volume isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, and I also don't see enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have the necessary sources to demonstrate notability. Lacks WP:GNG, if more sources can be found to bolster notability, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Sasada

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

This article about a programmer and academic has been tagged with notability concerns since 2014. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three external links, but these don't help with notability (two interviews and a blog post with a translation of work by Sasada). I may be missing sources in Japanese, but with what I have found I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Redirect to Heroku is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Technology, Computing, Japan, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NPROF and I dont see enough in-depth coverage to justify notability as a Ruby developer per WP:GNG. --hroest 20:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Bianchini

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

I cannot find any evidence that this individual passes any of the criteria of WP:NARTIST, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:GNG. (If you find anything indicating otherwise, please ping me.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above DankPedia (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Matar

AfDs for this article:

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. The subject does not meet notability criteria for academics nor for government figures. The subject's most-senior position is having been an Undersecretary in the UAE Ministry of Health and having been involved in various UAE government agencies. All the coverage of the subject are puff pieces by outlets that are not independent of the UAE government and seek to promote the UAE government's health care system. There is no RS coverage of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with broad coverage in the news. Some of what I said in the 2022 discussion is still relevant:

(from 2022) The best sources are the two-page article in Emirates Woman from 2020[54] and The Arab Weekly.[55] Her work on genetic diseases has been covered in Gulf News,[56] the article by Sarah Townsend in The National (Abu Dhabi), and the article by Asma Ali Zain in The Khaleej Times.

In addition I have added a 2023 news article from the Gulf News (cited in the article, title From grit to glory: One woman’s mission to save lives and hearts) and other stories as an indication of on-going news coverage. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are propaganda outlets for the UAE government writing puff pieces for one of its government employees and for the UAE health care system. Thenightaway (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unfortunately, there is a lack of freedom of press in the country and all local media is government owned. This is a massive problem with most articles under the project as things that would 100% be notable have their notability questioned due to the reliability of the sources. Yeah, Emirati newspapers aren't the best for their coverage and have questionable bias and puffery - however, this particular person does have extensive coverage by Emirati newspapers AND publications from outside. The Arab Weekly, Cambridge University Press, this book, and Trade Arabia. Not to mention, she's won and been nominated for a few awards. jolielover♥talk 15:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Either I get permission to stubify this page, or we delete it as WP:TNT. Underneath the wreckage of self-promotion and nonsense appears to be a notable person. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG; deletion is not cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject as discussed is notable. The consensus seems to be keep. It might require a cleanup with editing promotional tone out to meet npov. Also, hoping further discussion to discuss the suggestion by Bearian with focus on promotional tone and re-writing this. All other suggestions are welcome as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly baffled. The consensus is clearly to keep. The cleanup issues are not a matter for AfD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azeko Tahiru Salifu

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

Non-notable bureaucrat failing WP:ANYBIO or the WP:GNG who does not otherwise meet WP:NACADEMIC. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Ghana. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niall J. English

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

Biographical article not shown to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Even ignoring the WP:UPE/WP:SOCKing behaviours associated with article's creation (kinda hard to do TBH), my own WP:BEFORE hasn't surfaced sufficient independent sources to support the text of this title (even basics like DOB, POB, etc are unsupported). Not to mind a claim to notability. In terms of WP:GNG, all the biographical sources in the title are either clearly associated with the subject (including two biographical entries from websites associated with the subjects employer, and one interview which doesn't contribute to notability) or ROTM press reporting on a short-lived legal dispute (between the subject and his employer?). A WP:BEFORE search, in national news sources in Ireland, do not return any additional coverage. In short: in the Irish Independent stable of national and regional titles we find a passing mention of the legal case (and nothing else but false positives). On RTÉ news sites we find nothing for variants of subject name. Same goes for Irish Examiner - nothing for either variant.. In the Irish Times the only mentions I can find are the same two sources we find in the article. Nothing more for either variant. While I will admit to not being as familiar with how to apply WP:NACADEMIC, the subject appears to hold a fairly "normal" lecturer/professor role, isn't a named chair or dean or whatever, doesn't appear to be an elected member of a particularly notable scholarly society, and has the same Google Scholar "cited by" stats we might expect for any other working academic/researcher. Am I missing something? If someone hadn't seemingly been WP:PAID to create this article, would it have been created organically - because the subject clearly meets an applicable NBIO criteria? }} Guliolopez (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I looked at this some time ago, as it was associated with some now-blocked accounts with a pretty clear pattern of socking. I brought some of the other articles created by the sock ring to AfD, but did not bring this one. The citation record is reasonably strong as far as WP:NPROF goes, although I believe this to be a higher citation field. The dispute covered by the Irish Times is a WP:BLP1E in addition to only being covered by one reliable source, but it might give some support to an NPROF case. The combination makes me lean a little bit towards keep, if one disregards the paid editing. As far as that goes: while there is some marginal notability, I find it somewhat unlikely that a disinterested editor would choose this person to write an article on. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, making it official. Reasonable case for NPROF, but the UPE gives me pause. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep. Ignoring the spotty past, his h-factor at 53 has to be considered as strong. While he does not have articles in Science (journal) or similar, he has published in the top journals in his field. It may be uncomfortable, but we have to accept this page as passing WP:NPROF (perhaps with some repair). Ldm1954 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete If there is socking and invloved paid editing and is considered borderline notability, I think all things considered, the subject is not that notable. Notability should be clear from the sources in the article. I don't see it enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monserrate Román

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

Retired mid-level program manager at NASA. Just as a university Dean is not automatically notable, I don't see how her prior position by itself passes notability. Google Scholar (MC Roman) yields only 1-3 cites for her publications, so she does not pass WP:NPROF#C1. All awards are internal, so I don't see them as proof. No WP:SIGCOV, just a few routine mentions. Page was a long unsourced essay, and current version (trimmed by nom) has little that is notable. While I am sure she played a role in developing the space station, I don't see enough. (I am willing to be proved wrong.) Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and Puerto Rico. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above reasoning. I also did a search and the best thing I could find was a 2003 article from Spacenews.com that wasn't even an original story, but a press release, as well as this brief mention from the ASBMB. Leonstojka (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources and several awards, so I am leaning keep. Andre🚐 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that her publications do not meet WP:PROF, but a 2021 book (Wonder Women of Science) includes 13 pages on Roman. She is also a recipient of NASA's Silver Snoopy Award which is given to 1% of people in aerospace. This information is now more clearly presented in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable. She helped ensure safe recycling of air and water in space. She later led NASA's Centennial Challenges Program.Tony the Marine (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to have enough publications size and has some some media appreances to be borderline notable at least. She already has small entry in List_of_Puerto_Rican_scientists_and_inventors#Microbiology in case some see redirecting option more viable. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musfiq Mannan Choudhury

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

Mostly passing mentions in sources and he isn't a highly-cited researcher ([57]). It does note he is a vice-chancellor of a university, but this institution doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or reputable (although perhaps someone who knows more about the regulation of higher ed. in Bangladesh can correct me) Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is daddy (Abdul Mannan Choudhury) who is the vice-chancellor. The article was created in good faith, but has subsequently attracted unwelcome editing from single purpose accounts that appear to have a close connection to him. If the article is kept, it will need watchers. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is not a highly-cited researcher, but after reading the article, it seems it passed GNG because he has coverage in Bangladeshi newspapers. Somajyoti ✉ 20:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look at the Bangladeshi coverage (Daily Star, Daily Sun etc) before making the nomination and it was generally routine announcements and brief mentions. However, there was a story published today where the article subject has a more significant role; whether this is enough to justify preserving the article, or if the info should instead be entered elsewhere, I'll leave for others to determine. I imagine this discussion will probably get relisted. Leonstojka (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehzeb Chowdhury

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

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

Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [58]
As a researcher he has a low h-index [59]
An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do agree it needs some touch, and I'm willing to do them once able, but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims' – Sure, but if we're establishing general notability it is best to have more than passing mentions, because lots of people are sometimes contacted by the media to provide comment for stories. I also have concerns about the promotional nature of some of the Bangladeshi sources (e.g. this one), which read like adulatory press releases. Leonstojka (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has enough RS about the subject (Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost, The Times) to pass WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are more features that are not cited in the article as well, such as this from Ice Today. There's coverage in Bengali too, with TV appearances, features in reputed mags such as The Diplomat and Newsweek where he is introduced as an expert. Overall, why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage throughout the years from big pubs. X (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Xoak is right. Somajyoti ✉ 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is clear by the sources. Mifflefunt 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Striking !vote of blocked account who was here just to spam porn sites. MarioGom (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which sources establish notability under WP:GNG? Is it this one from Business Standard? what else? I see many articles written by the subject, but I don't see reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has refs from Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost and The Times, which are independent RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles in The Times and Wired use Chowdhury as a source (as in "Chowdhury says", "he believes", "he told", "according to him"). What he says is not independent of him. Similarly, Digital Trends is an interview with him, so not independent of him. If they consulted any other sources, they don't say so. HuffPost does not contain significant coverage of him. None of these four do anything to help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce, These 4 aren't the only sources. Many sources exist about this individual (see the aforementioned points). A non-notable person does not get recurrent media coverage throughout the years (it may well be interviews, passing mentions, anything; he does have sig in-depth cov as well for the record). X (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at making a source assessment table. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Ice Today https://icetoday.net/2024/03/building-blockbusters/	~ Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this.	700 words about subject	~ Partial
Business Standard https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946	~ Not sure how to rate independence: asked in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250516114100-PacificDepths-20250516083000	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/mehzeb-chowdhury-pioneer-criminology-savant-films-3147896	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Prothom Alo https://www.prothomalo.com/lifestyle/5uuxkcz9qu	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
The Diplomat https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/can-the-bangladesh-police-recover/	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ unknown	One sentence description of subject	✘ No
Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/body-farms-decomposing-bodies-forensic-science-murder-1798397	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK	one sentence description and quote	✘ No
Jamuna TV Plus Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8x8r90VZE4	Interview: Primary source	~		✘ No
Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crime-scene-technology/	Interview		Little information about the subject	✘ No
The Times: "Robots will create virtual crime scenes for juries"	Primary source		One sentence about the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@PacificDepths Simply discarding sources labeled as "interviews" is flawed. These are features that include quotations and interview segments, as features inherently contain such elements. You cannot broadly dismiss them by merely labeling them as interviews. Claiming they "feel promotional" is your subjective opinion (these features have proper bylines and are not promo pieces, if so, they'd have been designated as such from these reputed pubs). Overall, I strongly disagree with this source analysis table. Additionally, several Bengali news sources, TV appearances, and passing mentions in reputable publications recognize him as a notable person or expert. Collectively, these demonstrate his notability. GNG is fo shizzle met here. X (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, common sense should prevail. The newsweek and diplomat sources were mentioned to demonstrate a point that this person also gets called out for their expert opinion, assessing and labeling these 2 as "One sentence description of subject" is utterly asinine, like of course these are passing mentions. And as I stated earlier, not every source of an article need to be entirely about the subject or of depth. An article will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims. X (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-ordered the sources and edited some. I'm not sure how to judge Business Standard, Daily Star, ICE Today. I don't think The Times should demonstrate notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PacificDepths, and those who are unfamiliar, TBS, DS, Prothom Alo, Ice Today, these all are reputed and generally deemed reliable publications. X (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Alderete

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I found only one reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject to count towards WP:BIO [60], which I added to the article. The other two sources cited in the article are not independent. I checked WP:NPROF and I think the only criteria that might apply is #1, for citations. Her Google Scholar profile [61] gives an h-index of around 30, which I suggest is borderline; I do note that the article had explicitly been undraftified with this comment respectable h-index, may meet WP:NPROF. I submit that it doesn't, and therefore than an article now is too soon. As an alternative to deletion, I would be happy for the article to be draftified again for future expansion and resubmisssion when notability is clearer. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I would argue the one article the nom cites as potentially meeting WP:BIO is not in-depth enough count towards significance --- it's largely interview responses. From a public health perspective, the potential link between pollution and allergies/asthma/diabetes was established well before Aderelte's career began (e.g. [62]), so much of her research isn't groundbreaking in the field. I wouldn't even draftify this as academics usually take a while to become notable and it's likely to languish there for years. If Alderete becomes notable in the future someone can rewrite based on newer and better information. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

As an aside, the first paper I have concerns with are [63] which throws out measured infant masses in the methods section instead of using averages/standard deviations. I'd expect to get fired if I used such a method. Including standard deviations in mass would likely make the correlations appear much weaker than stated in the paper. The second is this one which does not include income as a potential confounding factor (incomes are generally lower near sources of pollution, and lower incomes mean healthier foods can be unaffordable, so could that be a more reasonable explanation for the observed correlation?). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Re: Postdoc same time as assistant or associate professor; such things happen esp. to get an out-of-cycle sabbatical, and because a lot of generally prestiguous awards are technically postdoctoral fellowships; I had two such "postdocs" one during asst. prof and one during assoc. prof. The extra time to work was well worth the slight decrease in pay. Not weighing in here whether this was the case for her. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While the Provost Award doesn't satisfy WP:PROF 2, it is nevertheless useful to look at what it is awarded for: "These awards will be granted in recognition of a particular piece of research, scholarship, or creative work that has made a significant contribution to the field and that reflects the accomplishments and promise of the recipient" (emphasis added). WP:PROF 1 is: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Taken together with the arguments above, it's probably reasonable to give her the benefit of the doubt. h-index counting is silly, and for WP:PROF 1a it's not as if there is a moment when someone's contribution suddenly switches from not significant to significant. What is clear now is that her work is being regularly and increasingly cited by her peers, and at least one panel that evaluated her work determined that it constituted a significant contribution to her field.

a bunch of penguins (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your conclusion of Weak keep, I have to disagree about two of your statements. First, the Provost award is just that, an award from her employer who is not a disinterested party. It is not a distinguished chair. Her midterm award is more significant as it is more independent, but still not enough by itself.

Second, unless a BLP is in one's personal field, an h-index is the most reliable metric of what an academic's peers think of their work. While you or I may think that one of our papers is wonderful, what counts is whether others do. With standard caveats about math (and perhaps one or two other) and also discipline scaling, h-factors are WP:NPOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should say that I think I'm generally on the "slightly more disposed to give the benefit of the doubt re notability" side of things, so I'd be happy if this turned out to be a keep. However, I am always mindful of not wishing to be chided about accepting dubious articles at WP:NPP! Hence this AfD. @Ldm1954 you mentioned discipline scaling and I would love to know how the subject's h-index sits with respect to her peers and co-authors in the environmental and health sciences field. If she were reasonably above average, then I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep no new arguments beyond above, esp. hroest, and Ldm1954 carry weight for me; only weighing in because a second relist needs another voice. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per NPROF#1 as noted by hroest and others. In addition to the h-index of 33, of the 13 publications with over 100 citations, she is first author on four and corresponding author on another. One could argue waiting another five years, but as noted above the trajectory seems there. Nnev66 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further expanding on the GNG case. Later keep !votes made a better case for GNG. I am still not convinced -- I do not see independent coverage in reliable sources. The wharton piece is highly non-independent. The USA today opinion piece is authored, so not independent. I discount the Forbes listicle coverage, although I note that past discussion at AfD of similar listicles has gone in both directions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

expanding on this based on the comments regarding him passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I truly dont see WP:THREE independent reliable sources that have in-depth coverage about him (in fact I dont even see one, there is a piece from his alma mater, there are opinion pieces that he has writen himself but nothing about him from an independent source). --hroest 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Gerrysay (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The "lasting impact on his discipline" standard feels like an arbitrary threshold (e.g. to quantify "lasting" is inherently subjective). This guy seems impactful enough to clear the bar. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think he's quite reached the level of PROF, and don't see multiple independent GNG qualifying sources Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hoover_Institution#Members I do not think he has enough notability or source coverage for a stand alone article like this. He seems mostly known to be a Hoover Institute fellow. Considering that the previous AFD result was pretty much SNOW delete, this may be a decent alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Review of the references and presence based on Google search and author's profile, suggests that, in my opinion, there's sufficient independent coverage and notability through media coverages, interviews, and invited opinions as "analyst and economist." It's true that he might be up-and-coming, but that doesn't inhibit inclusion on WP at the moment with current information. WeWake (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To meet WP:GNG, I don't see any independent, reliable, secondary sources in the article and I couldn't find anything online. The Wharton article is not independent: the subject was a student there. Forbes 30 under 30 (2017) is two sentences. Mercatus, MacDonald-Laurier, Hoover are not independent. Where are the independent, reliable sources with significant coverage?

For WP:PROF#C1 (academic influence through paper reviews and citations), the subject has one highly cited paper "The local residential land use regulatory environment across U.S. housing markets: Evidence from a new Wharton index" but no others. More is needed. Some here have argued for WP:PROF#C7 (popular influence), but one interview in L'Express and a little-known podcast doesn't meet the standard to me. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 13:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised that this has generated so much discussion when it seems like a fairly clear-cut case to me. If we have determined that WP:PROF is not met, that makes things easier as WP:BIO is less subjective. I still don't see anything which demonstrates that BIO is met - Forbes is independent, but not substantial; Wharton is substantial, but not independent (they are writing about their student and these kinds of articles are inherently promotional and several keep !voters do not seem to acknowledge this). Those are the only non-primary sources where he is the subject, articles he has written are of no use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NPROF is a red herring here. According to NPROF, this guideline "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines."

I agree this seems like a "fairly clear-cut case". But I think the sources provide clear-cut case for keep given the sourcing which meets WP:GNG.

In particular:

1. WP:SIGCOV

2. Sources are sometimes not independent, but most are.

3. The "Presumed" aspect of GNG does not guarantee inclusion, but it looks to me like a standalone page here has more support than not.

4. I added several new RSes that I found, including some Spanish sources that discuss ex-Governor Jeb Bush and Hartley in the same sentence since they founded the Economic Club of Miami together. This economist is pretty obviously notable in my opinion. [64][65][66][67][68][69]

Lastly, @North8000 also has the right approach in saying, "Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation..." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is extremely on the line imo, but the subject seems not to meet WP:GNG. The only independent coverage that's even slightly in-depth is the Miami Herald article (pretty good imo) and the Forbes editor profile, which I quote here in full: Hartley cofounded Real Time Macroeconomics, an economic research organization creating new macroeconomic health indicators using internet based data such as job openings, layoff announcements, and self-reported wages. Hartley is a policy expert and contributor for Forbes and the Huffington Post. This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, as a smattering of expert quotes, non-independent profiles, and media interviews is the typical coverage for a person who is not yet but will become notable. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note: I wasn't able to access in full the L'Express and El Nuevo Herald articles. The first seemed like an interview and the latter seemed like passing mentions, but if they contain significant coverage it might be useful to quote here in full the paragraphs that discuss Hartley directly and in depth. Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wanted the full text quoted out, here it is for your convenience. As you indicated, the Miami Herald article goes into Hartley's founding of the Economic Club of Miami deeply and the purpose of the club and its conference. Specifically, in the article subsection entitled, "How the Economic Club of Miami Started," it goes extensively into Hartley's involvement:

"The Economic Club of Miami was started in 2021. Hartley had started coming down from New York to visit his parents in South Florida and felt like while finance professionals were moving to Miami, they did not have the same type of events or programs they had up North. Hartley reached out to Jeb Bush Jr. who he got to know working as economic advisor to Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign in 2016, and in January 2021, they put together a Google document to brainstorm about creating the group. Lourdes Castillo, a veteran public relations professional and executive, and Jeremy Schwarz, joined, too. All four are co-founders and Hartley serves as chairman."

Hartley is interviewed extensively throughout the article such as here:

"'Our goal is to build the signature emerging markets finance conference that brings financiers from around the world to talk about the trajectories of Latin American economies,' Hartley said in an interview with the Miami Herald. 'And both ways: outsiders investing in Latin America and Latin Americans investing elsewhere.' Recent growth and opportunities in South Florida will be a topic of discussion but without skipping over the emerging challenges, said Hartley, also an economics PhD candidate at Stanford University."

And here "'It won’t be just about investing,' Hartley said. 'We will discuss housing issues in many different respects including the supply of affordable housing.' Not attending but likely to be talked: new Argentine president Javier Milei. 'Milei is sort of a catalyst agent for economic liberalization in Argentina,' said Hartley, 34, the chairman of the Economic Club of Miami, and so, 'with that, you’ve seen a resurgence of interest in investing in Latin America.'"

Hartley is also the lead photo of the article and the subtext of the photo reads, "Jon Hartley giving the introduction at an Economic Club of Miami event on November 7, 2022 featuring Kenneth Griffin of Citadel and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. Held at Miami Dade College."

In respect to the other articles, this Nuevo Herald article says the following (translated to English for convenience), "Its other founders, businessman Jeb Bush Jr. and economist Jon Hartley, are also scheduled to speak at the private gathering of about 130 people." This prominently puts Jeb Bush and Jon Hartley in the same sentence, Bush is obviously a notable individual and it is listing Hartley and Bush as co-founders of this organization it is writing a piece on.

In this Nuevo Herald article, it reads: "Now it's Miami's turn, now ready to play in the major league. The city has earned a place at the 'same table' with executives from major companies, says Castillo, who serves on the board with Jeb Bush Jr., attorney Jeremy Schwartz, senior advisor to Mayor Suárez, and economist Jon Hartley, the club's president." Once again, the article, that is writing extensively about Hartley's organization, puts Bush and Hartley in the same sentence, demonstrating his notability and bolstering his case to be notable enough for inclusion in this article.

This Nuevo Herald article is a repost of the Miami Herald article (since this is the sister paper), which contributes to the fact that this meets WP:SIGCOV given that this information listed above about Hartley was widely distributed in various languages (which also includes the L'Express article, which is obviously in French).

Given that you mentioned the L'Express article, I will cover the most key points here. This is essentially an interview with this publication that covers Hartley's thoughts on the Trump Administration. Here are some key excerpts (translated to English for convenience, "In this profusion of analyses, Jon Hartley, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a think tank close to the Republican Party, and a doctoral candidate in economics at Stanford University, provides insight. To understand the protectionist shift in the United States, the researcher discusses the emergence, within both the left and the right, of a 'neo-populist' movement that challenges several foundations of the old neo-liberal consensus in Washington, including adherence to the principles of free trade." Now onto the interview, "L'Express: Do you share the fears of Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), regarding the consequences of the trade war between China and the United States on global growth? Jon Hartley: Regarding the potential long-term negative effects of the trade war on the global economy, I am more optimistic than most commentators. Chinese manufacturers depend in part on their ability to export to the United States, and American consumers are very happy to find cheap products from China. These factors are likely to eventually force the two countries to come to the negotiating table. It is also possible that some Chinese trade will be diverted to the United States via other countries, as has already been the case in Vietnam since the late 2010s." This demonstrates that Hartley has a notable opinion per WP:SIGCOV given that he is being interviewed in depth as a notable policy expert worthy of interviewing. The article also asks Hartley about Trump's trade policy, once again demonstrating above average notability, "'Does Donald Trump really have a trade strategy, or is he moving blindly? Donald Trump considered the asymmetry in trade barriers to be fundamentally unfair. And it's true that historically, most countries have imposed higher tariffs on the United States than the rates the United States imposed on them. Donald Trump's tariff increase in early April has opened negotiations with several countries. It's not impossible that, at the end of these negotiations, tariffs will eventually be lowered reciprocally, and in that case, this would be favorable to free trade. This is the most desirable scenario.'" I also plan on adding a couple more articles that bolster notability by showing that Hartley was Jeb Bush's 2016 economic policy adviser. I also found a Bloomberg article that discussed the Economic Club of Miami and quoted Hartley and mentioned Bush and him in the same sentence again. "Their arrival spurred last year the creation of the Economic Club of Miami, which hosted Monday’s event. 'We are trying to capture the zeitgeist of this Miami moment,' said Jon Hartley, chair of the club, which counts Jeb Bush’s son as one of its founders." I think this should do more than enough to bolster notability, not to mention all of other articles that were there before that I didn't even discuss here. Is this the information you were looking for or do you need anything else? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Gjb0zWxOb, this is helpful, thanks for quoting from the sources. These excerpts suggest to me that none of the other sources you quote from (excepting the Miami Herald piece) constitutes WP:SIGCOV, which continues to leave me ambivalent about keeping this article. (On that note, you might consider reviewing the language used in WP:SIGCOV: most of those articles are trivial mentions of Jon Hartley, and the interview is not a secondary source – see WP:INTERVIEWS. Notability in Wikipedia terms means receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not by being quoted alongside notable people or giving media quotes.) Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO few articles meet a stringent interpretation of GNG. IMO this one meets a typical community application of GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think most BLPs meet WP:GNG (edit: or some other SNG, like academics or authors) fairly strictly, hence my ambivalence, but I agree this is not far from GNG interpretations of frequently-cited media experts. A hard call here, I don't envy the closing admin. Suriname0 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Rafał Jaworski (via WP:PROD on 21 May 2025)

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