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

Richard Ferrer

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

Non-notable person. Doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources discuss him as a person, but simply mention his job title and/or are articles writrten by him. The man himself has not received significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Doesn't meat WP:ANYBIO. Amisom (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Judaism, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Rohr

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

While accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went through the first four pages of googlehits and there is probably something to work with [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Geschichte (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rohr is, as the nom said, accomplished, and the reliable sources available from a google search are enough to pass GNG. I agree with Geschicte and support a Keep of this article with a possible nudge to continue work on it.Iljhgtn (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in the comment above seem ok, enough to confirm notability. They're in German but easy enough to translate. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now includes coverage from multiple sources covering 15+ years: Tages-Anzeiger (×3), Aargauer Zeitung, SRF, and Schweizer Illustrierte (all WP:RS). The subject’s work as a TV presenter, journalist, photographer, and communications consultant is covered in sufficient depth to meet WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jawad_Hassan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jawad Hassan

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

No indication of notability, poor sources. Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kardong

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

This article is just talking more about who the subject collabed with in music rather that about himself. And looking for sources on him, I didn't find any sources on him. GamerPro64 05:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Washington. GamerPro64 05:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israr Khan

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

I don’t believe that this page meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia, as the notability is President of the Oxford Union only, and that the majority of such persons do not have an article. This indicates a consensus that being President of the Oxford Union is not itself notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The individual is not relevant for an encyclopedia, as his only achievement so far is the Oxford Union presidency. A soft delete is more than obvious. DarkLordOfTheHacks (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a good reading of consensus—topics without coverage on WIkipedia are not presumed non-notable by de facto consensus. He also has more significant achievements than his presidency of the Oxford Union—he was appointed ambassador-at-large for Youth Empowerment by Pakistan's Prime Minister. I think this person meets the notability criteria for the significant positions he's held. Keep. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so nobody rushes to close this: there is an open sockpuppet investigation into the nominator and other voter. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to agree with Zanahary, I think that the appointment as Ambassador at large for example clearly meets the notability criteria. Aspirant006 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that this page meets the notability criteria, the person in question is not only notable for the presidency of the Oxford Union, but as also pointed out, for their appointment as ambassador-at-large for Youth Empowerment by Pakistan's Prime Minister. Furthermore, as Oxford Union President, they were the first ever from Balochistan, which I believe adds to the notability. Keep Aspirant006 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no sources that indicate notoriety through WP:SIGCOV. This ambassadorship-at-large from Pakistan is an honorary appointment and fails to meet the criteria for notability in addition to his Oxford Union presidency. DarkLordOfTheHacks (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DLOTH, how did you find this deletion discussion within one minute of its posting? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, hello Zanahary. Second, coincidences happen. A late evening reviewing bios on notable people who have presided this student-led institution, and I find out that a very recent president has an article, and I stumble into the discussion having just been created above his bio. Thirdly, responding to the sockpuppet allegations, the investigation has been closed. Instead of speculating, I suggest moving forward with the discussion. DarkLordOfTheHacks (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jani Galik

(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. Let'srun (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New England Revolution players – As suggested in similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with this. Giant Snowman 11:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Svartner. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to update it a bit with a couple new sources I found, but probably not enough RedPatch (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mademoiselle Boop

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

Does not meet GNG or ANYBIO. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan (drag queen)

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

Does not meet notability criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Sunder Vyas

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

This article was created almost 10 years ago and till now the referencing of article hasn’t improved. I also removed two bare urls from this article. On WP:BEFORE, i didn't found any sources about the subject except this^[1], which is repository data and dosent establish notability. This subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced article. Nothing is found in Wp:BEFORE. Zuck28 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nauroz Khan

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

Article is barely comprehensible and topic shows little significance/notability, no reliable source coverage GoldRomean (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has NO newspaper or third-party independent reliable sources as references, what I saw was just personal opinions used as references. Very biased and unbalanced article....Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subect is clearly notable in the Wikipedia sense, as shown by a search in Google Books. A search in Google images shows a high level of general interest. Articles on controversial subjects like this attract biased editors using poor sources, or no sources at all. That is a reason to improve and police the article, not to delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rameshwar Dadich

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

He has not been elected to any state/national wide office. He was a mayor of Jodhpur district for which there should be significant coverage about the subject in secondary sources to establish notability. On WP:BEFORE, i found that almost all sources about him are about joining BJP and due to being close aide of former cm Ashok Gehlot. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mayor could be notable, but there is no sourcing to be found. Once source in the article, and this was all I could pull up [6], which still doesn't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Hee-soo

AfDs for this article:

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

I have conducted a WP:BEFORE search to assess the notability of this article. I searched in Google, Naver News, and English-language Korean news sources including The Korea Herald, Yonhap News, and KBS World using both English ("Cho Hee-soo rhythmic gymnast") and Korean ("조희수 리듬체조") keywords.

The only results available are routine coverage from sports result listings and minor announcements in domestic outlets. There are no significant independent sources that offer in-depth coverage or analysis of the subject.

According to WP:NSPORTS (Wikipedia:Notability for sportspeople), an athlete is presumed notable if they have "received significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Cho Hee-soo has not met this threshold. The article does not demonstrate lasting impact or significant coverage beyond simple event participation.

Therefore, I believe this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) nor the specific guideline for athletes (WP:NSPORTS) and should be deleted. Jeong seolah (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, and Korea. Jeong seolah (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KC Nwakalor

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

Non notable photojournalist whose works are paid for projects by organizations and only attributed to him and the organizations he works for. All of the cited sources do not discuss him and his works directly or indirectly but only attributed to him. The attribution is a standard practice acknowledging copyright owners and cannot be used for notability CPDJay (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Photography, and Nigeria. CPDJay (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sambucha

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable YouTuber. A WP:BEFORE shows a lack of coverage in reliable sources, and notability is clearly lacking. No evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that Sambucha appears to lack notability. The two sources that could qualify are the nytimes article about influencers going a different route than Mr Beast and the LADBible coverage of his AI experiment. These articles are not enough to merit inclusion under WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, so I recommend deletion.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz wouldn’t the UNILAD reference qualify too? Plant🌱man (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though he has millions of subscribers, that does not mean he is notable. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a fan and a subscriber of the guy but yeah non-notable indeed. No RS coverage on GNews. Sorry Sam. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A simple search didn't provide significant non trivial reliable coverage. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. I believe that the article should be at least improved, and not deleted. But if it can't be, then delete. Quincy2293 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Cage White

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

WP:GNG: Google News, cites already on page include chance mentions and one-off articles. This existing coverage is sporadic and non-significant. Should be mentioned that main Google search indicates this individual is considered a niche lolcow. /over.throws/^they+✎ 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /over.throws/^they+✎ 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ：I did not find this person in the news or other sources and he may not meet the notability guidelines --Babaibiaobin (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG. Many sources seem to not be reliable.

Skyscraper Aficionado (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article cites several dubiously reliable and unreliable sources. This article in The Tab, which is dubiously reliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#Deprecate The Tab? and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198#The Tab student newspaper. This article was published in The Daily Dot, which the community has not reached consensus on reliability based on WP:DAILYDOT. This article was published in Digg, which is a news aggregator. This article in The Guardian provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. I think these sources by themselves are insufficient for an article about a WP:BLP. I was unable to find additional sources in my searches for sources. The subject's Chinese name, 程曦, returns many results about topics unrelated to the subject which makes it harder to find Chinese sources. I was unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support retaining the article about James Cage White, also known as Cheng Xi (Chinese: 程曦). Cunard (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Al Hafiz

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

I checked the references and determined that all but a few of them have a 404 error, and the remainder link to book-selling sites. Book-selling sites are not acceptable sources, according to WP:RS. (Reference 5 and 9 have a 404 error, and 3, 4, and 6 are book-selling sites.) Further, no independent, third-party publication or news source providing evidence regarding his published books and claimed prizes. Only ref no.2 can be opened, but it starts https://barta24.com/, and no such newspaper as Barta24 exists in the List of newspapers in Bangladesh.
Musa Al Hafiz had been characterized as a poet, researcher, and chairman of the Bangladesh Islamic History and Culture Olympiad. None of the above claims exist in the form of any such significant, independent, or neutral source. Wikipedia policy WP:NBIO declares that a piece of work or a contribution by a particular individual must be significant enough on the international or national level so that the individual deserves an article. But such recognition is absent here.
Tone in the article ("born once in a thousand years", "extraordinary poet is a rare gem") contradicts Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy since they are promotionally biased. There is no published source or evidence that can be used to support the assertion. It appears that it had been authored largely for self-promotion.
I could not trace any publication date and review copy of his books (such as Mukti Anonde Amio Hasbo and Mrityur Janmodin) in any national repository.
This piece clearly appears to be self-promotional. It therefore disregards the spirit of Wikipedia (WP:NOTPROMO). It does not provide useful content but instead misinforms people with unverifiable information.

For all the reasons stated above, I think this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards and should be deleted under WP:Notability (people), WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion, point 5. Somajyoti ✉ 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Somajyoti ✉ 17:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There are a small number of sources but they do indicate notability.

Isoceles-sai (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the reason. Take another look. Somajyoti ✉ 15:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how the sources indicate notability per WP:NBIO. None of the nominee's arguments have been addressed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete at this time. There are apparent insurmountable problems. A lot of promotional wording and Puffery. These include "profound influence", wording like "he remained deeply engaged" and "prestigious Bishwanath Jamia Madania" (both unsourced). The source for "Moreover, numerous poets, writers, and intellectuals have reflected on his poetry and literary contributions at various times." returns an error. The state of an article does not determine the notability of a person. However, when this is questioned and a before search is performed, the burden shifts. See comments. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

When attempting to investigate barta24 (a web portal), I kept hitting blocks that included instances that barta24 "refused to connect".

Author: I did find some possible subject-authored books, that could satisfy "author, poet, and writer", but they were only listed at the online bookstore Prothoma. These issues were mentioned by Nom.

I could not verify "researcher and scholar". The page for the "Daily Star" had the subject's name with "Poet and researcher", and nothing else. The "dailysylhet.com" (concerning awards) lists the subject as a prominent poet, researcher, and theoretical orator. For someone with such accolades, it would seem sources would not be elusive. The unsourced quote in the "Critical Acclaim" section needs to go.

A rationale of "keep" with "a small number of sources but they do indicate notability" does not satisfy the requirement of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. It is next to impossible to verify a neutral point of view when sources cannot be found. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Awasthi

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL for not occupying any notable political office, and WP:GNG for not having sufficient sources that satisfy WP:IRS and covers them substantially. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Australia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Abhiimanyu7 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Both appear to be rather minor political positions, this person wouldn't pass NPOL. They exist and have coverage, but nothing notable about them. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject holds position in a notable city, and has coverage by both Australian an Indian media. There are more than enough sources to indicate that the subject holds notability in more than just passing mentions in media. Viatori (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All cities in Wikipedia are notable, so that's a useless claim for inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Deputy mayor of a city is not a notable position as per Wp:NPOL. Zuck28 (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see evidence of notable achievements to meet WP:BIO. Not inherently notable as deputy mayor. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Awasthi's status as Deputy Mayor, as opposed to Mayor, of Bendigo means he falls short of WP:NPOL guidelines. Mr Sitcom (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:NPOL, I can not see enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources. B-Factor (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The subject is the deputy mayor of a city of 120,000 people. The growing consensus has been to delete the articles of similar nature. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azu Punia

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIG COV in secondary reliable sources also this article was created by a user named Azu Punia (same as article name) so there could be chances of WP:COI TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and Haryana. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - History shows article was created in mainspace, then moved into Draft, then back to mainspace - all by same user. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy. No assertion of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Agree with nomination, No sign of notability. Delete article and block the creator. Zuck28 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't block -- assertions of notability are not enough for GNG nor WP:PROF, but no sign of malicious creation nor neglect of WP guidelines. The "Signs of Resiliance" article is a hint at notability, but not enough (by a long shot) for a pass. Stand by delete, but not seeing enough disruption for a block, assuming good faith. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads more like resume and WP:PROMO. Nothing notable here. RangersRus (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chhagan Mehetre

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

Not elected to any state level or national level assembly or office. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in secondary reliable sources thus fails, WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Non notable politician. He contested an election but lost, hence failing Wp:NPOL. Zuck28 (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Sources on the page are poor and I cannot find subject's work as politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice. RangersRus (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have deleted articles of winning candidates for mayor, and those of candidates for state office who received 45% of the vote. This guy has done much less. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Instone

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

Business person does business things. Previously PROD'd as non-notable, then restored. Now tagged for notability. Let the discussion begin. Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit have been made to this, does it now meet the criteria for notability? GCatemAll (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who initially nominated it for deletion after coming across it by chance. I don’t know Mr Instone and have no issues with him, but I continue to believe that as the owner or manager of a small business with very limited exposure outside of that (a few podcasts or articles), he does not meet the criteria for notability (people). There are tens of thousands of people like him. 2A04:EE41:84:B3DE:FD56:1C17:3C88:4BDD (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see at least four references from reliable sources. Is there not significant coverage? Ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Soto Chalhoub

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

Created by a single purpose account. I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. Could only find namesakes in google news and books searches. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – The SPA component of this discussion is troubling. The article's creator has zero edits in the encyclopedia other than this article, and the text that was contributed is laden with puffery, suggesting a close connection to the subject. Dawnseeker2000 08:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, and much of it is unsourced information in violation of WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Bautista Cambiaso Valdez

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

Can't find any in-depth coverage of this person from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Andraka

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:BLP and WP:GNG. The subject is only notable for a single event - his 2012 science fair project claiming a novel pancreatic cancer detection method. This work was never peer-reviewed, published in scientific journals, or developed into actual clinical use. Leading experts including Ira Pastan (discoverer of mesothelin) stated his method "makes no scientific sense" and his patent application was rejected for "lack of inventive step". Brief media attention without sustained coverage per WP:SUSTAINED or lasting significant does not establish notability. Madeleine (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is that the subject of the article has to be the subject of media as described in WP:GNG. This person meets that criteria. They were profiled for being gay in Metro Weekly, Francis Collins profiled them for their views on on open access, and the The Colbert Report presented their general life as interesting. Media reported their being the guest of president Obama. All of this is in addition to specific coverage they got about the science. What anyone thinks of the science is not a consideration for Wikipedia, and in fact, if there is criticism of their science then that is just more media to cite and more reason for them to have an article. Wikipedia does not judge whether someone's work is correct or valid; we just keep articles when people get media coverage.

About sustainable media coverage - they got attention for long enough to meet Wikipedia's definition of "sustained", and being in the media for a lifetime thereafter is not required. When a young person gets media attention and they are gay, then they always get death threats based on politics and religion. This person undoubtedly experienced that. Whether that was a convincing reason for them to avoid media attention would be speculation, but it definitely happened because it always happens, and it is never surprising when a young gay person disappears from media because the threats so often lead to that. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Under "Awards and recognition" , I added his being seated in First Lady Michelle Obama's box at the 2013 State of the Union Address. — Maile (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, but I do not believe winning an award is sufficient to claim notability per WP:BLP1E, especially since the award in question was given due to his 2012 science fair project. Madeleine (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raseshwari Devi Ji

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. The coverage in the article and in BEFORE is limited to tabloid sources, trivial mentions, or unbylined coverage from WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. The third reference (Times Now) is a paid article which is not independent or reliable for establishing notability. Junbeesh (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Hinduism, and Chhattisgarh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources as well as no Odia language article from which to translate. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swadesh Bharati

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

Poet that fails WP:GNG WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, and India. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hints of notability, but this was all I could find [7], very brief mention. Being indexed in the VIAF shows this person is listed in other libraries, but doesn't help notability. I don't see anything else. The unsourced article isn't helping Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Le Mare

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

Notability ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've proposed this for deletion as it doesn't appear to establish more than a passing notability. The only two facts about her are that she is the co-founder of an organisation and a magazine. The stub hasn't been expanded in the last 15 years. Also, only one page appears to link to this page. Suggest a Wikidata page would be sufficient. Alternatively, the stub could be added to the page for the Society.

ash (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the Malayan Nature Journal pops up in Gscholar where this person is mentioned [8] as the editor. This [9] and [[10]] are both by the same author but appear to show notabililty. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might meet notability as the editor of the Malayan Nature Journal, PROF, but I don't remember which point it is exacly (C3?) Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editorship is C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Malaysia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Animal, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the information found by User:Oaktree b, her two early publications (writing as Gladys Keay) on mites were cited by others in the scientific literature. I have added those citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Double-digit numbers of citations are generally insufficient to make a case for WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think this contributes to notability, particularly since those papers were written in a time when citation counts were lower. In my mind, the points raised by Oaktree b are the best discussion notes for a keep argument. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep meets WP:NPROF#C8, especially given the time when she lived. Nnev66 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the comments above. Bduke (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: co-founder of society, notable contributions to entomology. PamD 07:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per arguments of Nnev66 and PamD: for a female scientist from the 1940s and 1950s the notability and sourcing is sufficient. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Albalag

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

No known sources exist in this article. It contains some general references but lacks inline citations, which means its near to not becoming notable on Wikipedia. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Judaism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is clearly notable. I will add inline citations shortly. -- -- -- 22:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please notify me if anything else needs to be done to save the article from deletion. Thanks in advance, -- -- -- 23:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above work, but also hits in Oxford Reference (Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (2 ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages) to corroborate. ‒overthrows 20:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The subject of the article has entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages, and The Jewish Encyclopedia. [11] [12] [13] No evidence of WP:BEFORE. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Saigal

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

This is a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Just one film as acting career and one ep for that she received some press coverage. Other than that she is daughter of singer and actor parents but notability is not inherited. Fails wp:NACTOR and Wp:NMUSIC as well. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Film, Music, India, Delhi, and Wales. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:FORBES, Forbes is generally considered a reliable source and can see Forbes covering profile for this person in their article here ^[2] Circular Karma (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mahotsav, Amrit (21 January 2025). "Shyam Sunder Vyas". Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav, Ministry of Culture, Government of India. Retrieved 4 April 2025.
^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

Not all individuals featured in Forbes necessarily meet the eligibility threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.

The subject must first satisfy the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines as a prerequisite for inclusion.

Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established per WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. The sourcing consists of standard PR type promo that one would see for any emerging actor with a press agent, including Forbes, which is not significant coverage, it's simply a photo of her with a caption mentioning her name, thus trivial. The Forbes "profile" link above is more standard PR ~~written by "Forbes Staff", (it does not even have a by-line)~~. I agree with the nom that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few more years this emerging actor will become notable, but at this time, one acting role, Spotify "fans" and famous parents is not enough. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a byline and in my view counts as one piece of significant reliable sources coverage. Another reliable bylined piece in the Hindu here, another bylined piece here, leaning Keep for WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR imvAtlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One film is not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Need at-least three feature films/web series/TV to comply WP:ACTOR. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Two is enough. Guideline says: "multiple" not "several". -Mushy Yank. 14:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage has her meet WP:GNG. At worst a redirect to The_Archies_(film)#Cast is totally warranted so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTRESS. RangersRus (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Charlton

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

Fails WP:BIO, Fails WP:V, And my WP:BEFORE failed to find anything significant. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 09:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and England. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 09:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, no significant coverage. The best I can find is a primary source confirming that he has written for Listen Against. Tacyarg (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about someone with the same name that works for a "Brothers and Sisters" agency in London, nothing about this person. Sourcing used in the article is not helpful, it's only one source and doesn't show notability anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No meaningful sources found. Most hits are about the other, unrelated Matt Charlton. Clearly not a significantly notable individual. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with the above. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant, independent, and sustained coverage available to establish notability. The only source in the article is primary and does not demonstrate the depth required. Most search results refer to a different individual with the same name, further confusing the issue. Without reliable, in-depth secondary sources focused on this person, the article does not warrant inclusion. Bhw664488 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Sarofim

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

Phillip Sarofim should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage from independent sources that demonstrate notable achievements, making the subject appear less relevant. Additionally, it contains excessive citations that detract from the clarity and conciseness of the information presented. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the coverage I find is around his time dating Avril Lavigne, all focused on her and who this "rich boyfriend/heir/insert noun here" was. I don't see coverage solely about his accomplishments. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stryder7x

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. While some of the sourcing is reliable, the issue is that none of the reliable sourcing provides significant coverage of the article subject. For example, the extent of the Kotaku source's ([14]) discussion of the article subject is: "As Paper Mario expert Stryder7x explains in the video below" and "Stryder did just that on October 23, 2016". This and similar mentions are not enough coverage to write a reliably sourced biographical article. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing in my own vote for deletion, as I can't argue with the reasoning provided. Prior to creating this article, I was surprised to find out that one had never been created for this subject, and I decided to just give it my best shot. Maybe one day he'll meet the notability criteria...if he ever comes back to the Internet. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage in sources. Madeleine (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Auerbach

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

Contested BLAR of a BLP1E. Laun chba ller 22:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an odd case. Auerbach is notable for quite a few things (click above on Find sources: news), but none of that is in the article. As AfD is not WP:CLEANUP, I have to !vote Keep. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This is where it gets complex. The article used to have that stuff in it. And ironically the very latest news source on the article subject is a piece in The Australian yesterday reporting that this article has just been heavily rewritten. Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I reverted an attempt to make this into a redirect without discussion. I have no opinion as to whether this subject is notable or non-notable, nor any necessary objection to the result here being a redirect. I do have a strong view about whether that de facto deletion should have been done outside of proper channels. Consider my action akin to contesting a PROD because it was a close enough call. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also think it was highly suboptimal or improper for the nominator here to gut the article before hauling it to AfD. This also is not the way that things should be done. Carrite (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing WP:BLP violations from articles is entirely the way that things should be done. Or do you really think that the (dead link) www.comedinewithme.com.au website would have described one of it's own participants as a "difficult and notoriously rude contestant"? As for the rest of the 'gutting', it removed absolutely nothing that related to the possible notability of the subject. Wikipedia isn't obliged to continue hosting promotional pap in articles just because there is an AfD going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WP:BLP1E about a former gameshow contestant who was denied a TV job... nothing about this stub tells me why this person is notable or why the redirect was unacceptable. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hint: Some of what is at Special:Permalink/1282926392 is verifiable. The article subject indeed used to work for Channel 7, and the Australian Daily Mail, and Daily Telegraph; and we know this because xyr professional career suddenly become fairly well documented around this time last year. Uncle G (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Nomination is based on the current state of the article instead of the question of the notability of the subject. Spotlight on Auerbach, Coke for comment, legal threat, Auerbach sues. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Struck due to the developing discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I don't doubt the good faith of any unblocked participant here. Based on the only sources presented to date, is it really appropriate to host an article which is essentially a list of professional misdeeds? We are guided to discuss disagreements, and we certainly cover notable criminals, but where does this become a neutral BLP? BusterD (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to suggest that WP:BLP1E would apply, at most (we can safely ignore the gameshow contestant stuff, as covered perfectly well in the article on the show). Nobody seems to be suggesting that the underlying legal/journalistic ethics/whatever mess is obviously noteworthy (such things are sadly routine), and I thus fail to see how mere participation in it makes Auerbach notable. If Wikipedia hadn't already been hosting a policy-violating promotional fluff biography, we'd almost certainly have ignored the whole thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sourcing is very difficult, too. There are other sources, but a lot of the sourcing available is tabloid newspapers reporting on the antics of people who used to work for tabloid newspapers. There are things like Morton 2024 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMorton2024 (help) but there's an awful lot of useless "X said Y" stuff too. Is this one person the main subject? No, not per the non-tabloid sources anyway. Indeed, much of the coverage has basically been answering the Saeed 2024 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSaeed2024 (help) headline when it comes to the court cases. But yes, the subject to consider is definitely not the game show. Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Morton, Rick (2024-04-06). "Inside the 'dirty strategy lunches in media city'". The Saturday Paper. No. 494.
    - Saeed, Daanyal (2024-03-26). "Who is Taylor Auerbach, the ex-Seven staffer at the centre of the Bruce Lehrmann Thai masseuse saga?". Crikey.
I've given this some thought and I really cannot decide whether directing readers to Bruce Lehrmann#Media appearances or 2021 Australian Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations#Legal proceedings or just plain deletion is the best answer. AndyTheGrump, Wikipedia definitely didn't ignore the underlying "omnishambles". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2nd question: Now knowing the longterm page-guiding editor is a proven bad actor, the other question is: was this page created to cover the subject or instead to injure the BLP subject? It's an unusual biography subject who earns notability primarily because of their miscues. It certainly does occur, but it's quite abnormal. BusterD (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2021 I had an experience at DYK when I was processing three articles for my QPQ and reviewed a page about a doctor BLP subject whose claim to notability was several malpractice claims. When I told the DYK submitter I needed to take some sources to RSN, the editor suddenly withdrew the nom. I checked in with an admin immediately afterwards and the page was quickly deleted as malicious disruption. BusterD (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter what the article creator's intentions were, unless there are some revisions that need deleting. We have the options:
  - Go with Launchballer's rewrite Special:Permalink/1283344671 which basically ignores the article subject's entire known career, and possibly try to expand it to include that career. The sourcing on the career is reliable, but the career on its own is just working for various news outlets; and we don't want to turn this into a lop-sided account of the "omnishambles". I don't favour this choice, myself.
  - Go with Launchballer's redirect at Special:Permalink/1283297913 which suffers from being quite a bizarre place to send readers, given how the subject is known. I don't favour this choice, either. I suspect that, people now knowing what the thing is that this person is really known in connection with, no-one else will think this to be a reasonable redirect target either.
  - Redirect to Bruce Lehrmann#Media appearances which is the context in which the article subject is known, albeit that xe isn't mentioned there at all.
  - Redirect to 2021 Australian Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations#Legal proceedings, again where the article subject isn't mentioned.
  - Just delete the entire thing outright.
- The reality is that this is a small ripple on the edge of a rather large splash, at 1 remove from its centre. Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In view of the options above by Uncle G, I note that the first redirect option is a poor choice, and the latter two do not mention the subject. We cannot redirect to pages that make no mention, so a merge would be required in those cases. The subject is a journalist but not a notable one. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we certainly don't need to be covering non notable newspaper gossip. The content is not encyclopaedic. It can go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person is a WP:BLP1E example at best. Think deletion makes more sense than redirect, as the subject doesn't appear to be notable enough or at least sourced as such as to be associated with any targets. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of the multiple events are you referring to? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fewer than three reliable sources. I'm counting each News cycle as a source. Oddly, if this were 1925, or 1965, he'd probably have gotten ongoing coverage for fighting the big guy, but in 2025's Murdoch-dominated media environment, he's just another brick in the wall. This isn't a criticism of us; it's a critique of sickness in society. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Pinay

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

Does not pass GNG. Only piece of independent, in-depth coverage is an interview in "Hotspots Magazine" from 2013. The other source with subject's name in headline is just a recap of a reality TV episode on which the subject was eliminated; it is not in-depth coverage of Vivienne Pinay. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Philippines, and Georgia (U.S. state). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you interpret this person’s one-episode guest spot on Skin Wars and their run on RuPaul’s Drag Race to make them a notable entertainer, despite a lack of notability-establishing coverage? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you several times now to leave me alone. I will not be engaging with you further so please do not ask me questions or post on my talk page again. Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not a reasonable ask when it comes to AfD, and I will not be avoiding your votes in this discussion. You are free to not reply, obviously. Biography subjects need WP:SIGCOV, and this subject does not meet that standard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In real life the subject is a friend of several friends of mine and, since my partner is Filipino-American, I have found that both the LGBTQ and pinoy worlds are very small and interconnected. So I'm not going to !vote. I feel obligated to point out that the subject was eliminated after the 4th episode of RuPaul's Drag Race, but they also have tens of thousands of followers on social media. Discuss amongst yourselves. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lineysha Sparx

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

Does not pass GNG. The only piece of in-depth, independent coverage of this person is an interview from 2013 in Hotspots Magazine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Sexuality and gender, Puerto Rico, and New York. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my view she meets category one of WP:ENTERTAINER by having appeared on all three of RuPaul's Drag Race, Untucked! and also Skin Wars. On top of that, she also has some supplementary grounds for notability on the second ground: 2. "The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Sparx co-created a drag plush doll, Lil' Poundcake, which has been the subject of enduring coverage and was also recently featured on RPDR All Stars. Some of that coverage re-discusses Sparx's run on the show, or even refers to her in the headline - and these articles come even from many years after her original appearance on Drag Race: see e.g. this 2021 article. The doll toy she co-created is "prolific" insofar as Chappell Roan has attributed it as inspiration for her drag performance look style. Over a decade after her original RPDR appearance, Roan is very much innovative and on the cutting edge of LGBTQ+ music and entertainment, so to me that is at least somewhat a 'prolific' contribution under the second criterion. When you combine the mentions of her as the co-creator of the Lil Poundcake Doll together with appearing on three reality TV shows, I think it's enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, even if narrowly. Flip^and Flopped ツ 18:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every contestant on Drag Race also appears on Untucked; it's a companion show to the main series. The Skin Wars appearance is a single episode guest spot—not significant. Being Alaska's mini-challenge partner and making Lil Poundcake is not a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. You'll notice that it would be almost impossible to add any substantive content about Lil Poundcake to this article, because almost no source covering anything to do with Lil Poundcake has anything to say about Lineysha Sparx. If this made her notable, you'd think a reliable source or two would notice. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER and Flipandflopped above. There's enough coverage to justify a standalone article, which should be expanded and improved instead of deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. There is significant coverage. FWIW, I searched under the subject's birth name and drag name and discovered no connections between us, except a neighbor who "follows" her. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there be a connection between you two? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Small World After All, Six degrees of separation, and WP:DCOI mean that we're all connected, but if you're too closely connected, you shouldn't !vote in an AfD discussion. I routinely disclose my connections with the subjects of debates, even if we're just friends of friends. This is especially true with the Heritage Foundation actively working to expose alleged conflicts of interest and point of view violations, and because while I'm not notable, I've lived in neighborhoods that have lots of notable people. This message wasn't for you; it was for AfD regulars and the stalkers. By the way, how close to Antsiranana do you live? Bearian (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wilson (missionary)

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

This article looks at first glance very well referenced, but looking more closely, I fear there are some major problems.

Hargrove 1809" doesn't seem to mention Charles Wilson?[15]
Sibree 1923 is a publication by the "London Missionary Society", so not an independent source
Davies 1808 and Davies 1810 are "'publications" from the "Records of the London Missionary Society" and not even really published, it is a microfilmed manuscript
Wharton & Im Thurn 1925 is this source which has one primary mention of Charles Wilson as a co-signatory of a letter
"London Missionary Society 1818a" is obviously a publication from the LMS again

So nothing in the article is actually based on reliable, independent sources about Charles Wilson, which indicates the lack of notability for this missionary (and the text gives no indication why he would be considered notable either). Fram (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, England, and Oceania. Fram (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lovett's 1899 History of the London Missionary Society 1795–1895 has (on p.176) Charles Wilson captured on the "Duff" before going out again on the "Royal Admiral" in 1801. So that's how the Hargrove source, an account of the "Duff" voyage, gets joined in. For a fact-poor obituary of Wilson (which outright tells us that it isn't going to tell us anything about the period between 1801 and this person retiring in 1842 and dying in 1857) that however also joins the dots for the "Duff", see the July 1858 Missionary Chronicle, p. 453. There's another obituary in the 1858-09-24 The Friend (v.8 no.9 p.65) which tells is that this person's work "extended over a period of near sixty years", and says not one thing about those 56 years, also stopping the facts at 1801.
That said, perhaps we could have left the article for more than 30 minutes of writing to see how the other 26 sources were going to pan out. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from other articles like this one, there was little inclination to keep on working on the article. Many of these other sources were from the LMS as well anyway, and other ones don't really have much on Charles Wilson either (e.g. [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a6a00647-248f-40a2-beed-87e632163f33/content this one]). The two sources you mention aren't independent either, of course. Fram (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram, I'll be brief because I have other fish to fry: don't forget to take your pills! Duponnerie (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram, I think you are a great idiot. Don't be angry—tomorrow, April 1st, is approaching! You won’t be able to erase the life of this missionary, who labored for 56 years in the Pacific, with just a banner. It does not seem that he was an alien or that his life was empty. Instead of imposing your imperialism, you should work to make the article more credible by adding sources. I found this on the internet to put an end to this masquerade because I noticed that you were in command of an entire squadron of idiots. Don't be mad—April 1st is coming soon! Here is the source:https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SAMREP18571001.2.6

To conclude, don't forget to take your pills and share them with your friends. Have a great day— the more, the merrier! Duponnerie (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has a very full obituary in a national newspaper. I can't see any good reason to delete an article like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radhikaraje Gaekwad

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED.

None of the reliable sources provide significant coverage to the subject separate from their family. Koshuri ^(グ) 09:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Koshuri ^(グ) 09:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that she meets WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. Bakhtar40 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Lacks Wp:SIGCOV. Available sources are only churnalism and trivial mentions. Zuck28 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andres David Drobny

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

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about meets WP:NAUTHOR, with two reviews of the subject's book in academic journals, which I have added to the article. I agree the tone is rather promotional. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s two reviews about the author’s book without any awards, I believe the entry should be about the book and not the author. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has at least two other books, Inside the house of money: top hedge fund traders on profiting in the global markets and The Invisible Hands: Top Hedge Fund Traders on Bubbles, Crashes, and Real Money, but my searches could not find any reliably published reviews. Two reviews of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, we don't have the citation record needed for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see the significant coverage in independent sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I also note that three of the sources in the article are primarily about Larry Summers and his citation of the subject's work, rather than directly about the subject. That's a WP:BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rehaa Khann

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

Fails WP:GNG Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero evidence of notability, the sources consist of a photo gallery, a press release, and a music video. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References do not support subject's notability as an actress. Fails WP:NACTRESS. B-Factor (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as actress, model and producer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's getting better but not quite there. Please add more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I checked cited sources and did BEFORE, but found no significant coverage in these sources, the News18 and ANI sources are unreliable as both are PR and SPONSORED. Fails GNG and NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 05:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; existing references (photo gallery, press release, music video) do not establish notability. NXcrypto Message 20:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Osagie Osarenkhoe

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP: ANYBIO. All the sources are either not reliable or not independent. The awards too could not help either because they are just run of the mills Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPRODUCER, this is still up and coming though, so I expect some coverage in the future. But for now, no. The awards are vanity and not do count towards notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The recognition section has notable awards that has been or been nominated for so they meet WP:ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans The awards in the section do not automatically qualify the subject for a Wikipedia article without reliable and independent sources. Of course, I have gone through the sources and most of them are not from reliable news media. The ones from reliable news media are puff pieces like this this, and this or press releases of her parting ways with Wizkid.Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have an opinion on the sourcing. Statements sourced to unreliable sources can always be removed but sadly, that’s not what deletion is for and as the article shows, the recognition section is sourced. Now, back to my argument: the policy I am citing is WP:ANYBIO#1; The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times—emphasises are mine. The recognition section has 2 nominations from The Future Awards Africa and an additional 2 nominations from The Beatz Awards. Now, unless you’re arguing that those awards are not notable, then this subject is clearly notable. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping: Ibjaja055. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: she has been nominated four times more than 3 notable awards,The Future Awards Africa and The Beatz Awards which demonstrates sufficient notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. These nominations are supported by reliable sources, each confirming the subject's recognition in her field. Even though she hasn't won any awards, her repeated nominations show a consistent level of notability in her field. Afro 📢Talk! 14:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She’s notable as an artist manager. And has 4 nominations in two different notable awards four times definitely cuts the criteria in ANYBIOS1. Afro 📢Talk! 14:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comments above. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have conflicting opinions here on whether or not this subject's award nominations are supported by reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete: I believe that this person has not achieved notability yet, but as @Vanderwaalforces said, she is up and coming. I believe that once she gains more coverage in reliable and independent sources, an article for her could be re-evaluated. She hasn't reached the notability criteria yet. If we're just factoring in the awards itself that she has received, they are not inherently notable.

WormEater13 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no policy cited here. The awards section is cited reliable sources and if you are in doubt of the notability of the awards to satisfy NANYBIO#1, then nominate them for deletion. Until, this !vote is not policy based. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Perkins

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

Only independent sources I can find are ones that mention her in passing. Created over a declined AfC in 2015 by a single-purpose account editing about Perkins and her publishing company. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously non-notable subject, promotional BLP. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify. Underneath the promotional tone is a lot of important work in publishing award-winning Lesbian writers. The Lambda Literary Awards are the Pulitzers of queer writing, and her imprints have for over a dozen years published many notable women's literature, including Cecilia Tan. I don't know the subject, but I met Tan once or twice at SF Cons. Can I take a crack at this? Thanks for your patience. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.S. I've started to work on it. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.P.S. I cut out what can't be sourced or is out of date, and added a source. I considered a merger but upon further reflection took it back. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as between the three book reviews, awards, and coverage about her agency and e-book house there seems to be enough for at least WP:NAUTHOR if not WP:BASIC. The article is a bit of a mess and would benefit from a re-write. Nnev66 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levy

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

This article does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Wikipedia evaluates notability primarily through two pathways: the general notability guideline (GNG), which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources with strong editorial oversight, and subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG), which are tailored to specific fields like academics, athletes, or entertainers.

In this case, the article appears to concern a religious figure, not an academic, so WP:NACADEMIC is not applicable. The more relevant SNG is WP:NPERSON, which still requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not directly affiliated with the subject.

After reviewing the sources:

CheckCompany provides a minimal corporate profile with no substantial coverage. (Too sparse)
ReformJudaism.org.uk is a primary source from an organization the subject leads. (Not independent)
Jewish News focuses on organizational developments and only briefly mentions Levy. (Wrong subject)
Leo Baeck College profile is uncredited and potentially self-authored. (Unreliable, likely self-published)
JewishGen is about a synagogue building, not Levy himself. (Too sparse, Wrong subject)

These sources fail to provide the significant, in-depth, and independent coverage required for notability under either GNG or NPERSON. Without substantial third-party coverage—particularly from newspapers, religious publications, or similar sources—there is no verifiable basis for inclusion. As it stands, the article should be deleted for lack of notability.

Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 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 March 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete-~~ Reason above Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:AFDLIST - as the nominator recommending deletion, you should not also !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (She's right, your nomination is your vote, you can't cast a duplicate one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep As the chief executive of the Movement for Reform Judaism and co-leader of the new Progressive Judaism (UK) movement [16], [17], I think he is probably notable per WP:RELPEOPLE. He is not the Chief Rabbi, who is inherently notable, but as co-leader (with Charley Baginsky) of a group that covers 30% [18] of Jewish people affiliated with synagogues in the UK, this is still a subtantial position. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be better but he is notable as the joint leader of a significant religious movement in the UK.

Rafts of Calm (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chaplain Corps (United States Army)#Other notable chaplains. I see consensus that sources currently do not support a standalone article, and the proposed ATD is sensible. Owen× ☎ 07:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khady Ndiaye

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

This seems like a WP:BLP1E. Also, Ndiaye isn't even a chaplain yet, but a chaplain candidate, so even notability for that event seems not particularly special. I don't think she meets WP:ANYBIO either. For most other chaplains to get firsts like Bonnie Koppell and Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, they have more significant accomplishments beyond being the first chaplain of their religion/gender, and I don't think Ndiaye's removal from the DoD website, while unfortunate, is something that qualifies as making her more notable. Ndiaye also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG as the Army source is not independent, and there really isn't any WP:SIGCOV outside of the NYTimes article, so not multiple sources.

I'd say draftifying at very least would be appropriate until Ndiaye actually becomes a chaplain. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will likely not know if she becomes a chaplain as it probably will not be reported on in this administration so we would not have RS coverage on it. The usual timeline for that happening would be next month.

While the nominator suggests her accomplishment is not "particularly special", when you recognize the historical weight of her accomplishment in the 200+ year history of the US Army, notability is considerable. The fact that she received a press release on her nomination at the time, which garnered attention from the paper of record, is significant coverage.

The removal of her information from the DoD website is more than "unfortunate", it's part of an orchestrated attempt to rewrite history, which makes the subject even more notable.

Nayyn (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any reporting from the administration doesn't matter either way as that's not independent. Press releases from the Army don't count as independent coverage. The NYT article does, but it is only one part of meeting WP:GNG which requires multiple sources. And then there's still the WP:BLP1E concerns. 2LT Ndiaye is probably likely to remain WP:LPI and we can't WP:CRYSTALBALL that she won't. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Stabro could you please add this to the deletion sorting lists for women, religion and Islam please, I'm not sure how to do that. Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I use this script, it's quite handy: User:Enterprisey/delsort ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Religion, and Islam. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. I'll admit many of the points that the nominator has raised are relevant if you are considering a strict definition of WP:NBIO. However the fact that few outside sources exist for this person do not negate the fact that this person exists and the sources that do exist are reliable. Her erasure by the administration (and from history), and despite the points raised by the nominator were what predicated the creation of this article in the brilliant Wikipedia spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. In terms or notability WP:ANYBIO, Ndiaye would be recognized as someone who would be counted as "part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", considering the 240+ year history of chaplaincy in the United States Army. I think it would be hard to argue against that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayyn (talk • contribs) 03:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chaplain Corps (United States Army)#Other notable chaplains, at least until there is more SIGCOV. That list of Other notable chaplains includes unlinked and redlinked names, so does not seem to require having a separate article for inclusion. I agree that becoming the first female Muslim chaplain is notable, but we don't currently have enough coverage of her for a separate article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bryan Bergeron

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

I can’t find any sources that aren’t connected to the subject. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does the nominator think about the subject's citation record? It appears to contain hundreds of sources that are not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. I see three articles with over 500 citations, a fourth with 478, and more articles with over 100 citations. That appears to pass the PROF Test. Plus, while Harvard cheats at hockey, the medical school is sort of prestigious. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been here since 2005. The article is just one line and one weak source. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 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, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see at least 2000 reliable sources not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Elena Avram

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not as clear notability as the others, but she was a world championship medalist and Olympedia includes a photo that looks recent from the Sportarad newspaper, which indicates that they likely covered her. What we have to do is find it. Its also quite likely there'd be further offline coverage, given her accomplishments took place before the internet. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT does not state that Olympic Medal Winners are automatically qualified. Rowing does not have its own policy, but some sports such as Track & Field do and state that "Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes who compete in the field of athletics if they meet any of the criteria below." One of the criteria is to have Top 8 placement in a major competition, but even then we need to have significant news coverage. Could you point me out to any specific policy that states Olympic medal winners automatically qualify? Darkm777 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where in my above comment did I say that Olympic Medal Winners are automatically qualified? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No sports guideline grants automatic notability to anyone, but for what it's worth, Olympic medal winners are mentioned at WP:NOLY. Geschichte (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 22:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Frieske

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

Non-notable German handball player. I was unable to find any in-depth sources about him. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: silver medallist from the 1970 World Men's Handball Championship, according to de:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Notable for the following reasons: (see German Wikipedia for a slightly more detailed entry)

East German Handball Champion: He was a goalkeeper for the team that won the "DDR-Meister: (East German Championship) in 1964.
International Handball Player: Frieske played for the East German national handball team.
World Championship Appearances: He represented East Germany in the World Handball Championships in 1964, 1967, and 1970, with the team finishing 2nd place in 1970.
Olympian: He competed as part of the East German handball team at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich. He played in 6 out of 6 games during the tournament. The team played in the bronze medal match, but was edged out by Romania (19-16), finishing in 4th place.

References that I found clicking Google News above were in German. — ERcheck (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per ERcheck and sources which I found [19] and [20]. Note: Some sources wrote Rainer instead of Reiner. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic and not really relevant to the English wiki. The German version of article looks pretty short too with only 3 sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – PDF file looks decent, but does the second newspaper even mention him? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in the bottom left corner with the title "Geachtet als Sportsmann und Kamerad". 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an interview without independent analysis, so I'd lean towards Delete. Multiple sources containing significant coverage are required. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found more sources similar to the other pdf, centre left, bottom centre. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hara (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. Article created in 2004. Not to be confused with The Hara, which seems to be notable. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Romania. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has been here since 2004 and has not improved. Is not notable. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kramer

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

Unsourced biography from 2006. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Comics and animation. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage for someone with a similar name [21], I don't know if it's this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: [22][23] Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't follow WP:GNG and the lack of sources seems like grounds for deletion. Cottagechez (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm yet undecided. He directed a number of episodes, so there should be sources. Most of the article was written by IP editors, but I reached out to Jdb00. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:CREATIVE#3, as having played a major role (directing) in the creation of a notable work The Simpsons, which has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews. I have found one article about him, from 2000, and several reviews of two short animated films of his shown in animation festivals in the early 1990s. Otherwise, I have found sources that confirm his role as director in the episodes of the Simpsons. I think that is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE#3, as they provide verification of his role. (This person is not the same as the Lance Kramer who with his brother Brandon Kramer has made The First Step and Holding Liat - that Lance Kramer will probably be notable too.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that he means CREATIVE#3 as Kramer is not the "creator" of the Simpsons - that would be Matt Groening. And CREATIVE#3 mentions (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). However, the 3 articles mentioned may meet WP:BASIC. Can you put links to the articles here? Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE includes WP:DIRECTOR and other creative professions - it does not mean just the original creator of a series. The wording you quote is about what form coverage of "the significant or well-known work or collective body of work" can take: the work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work, for example ...". Lance Kramer directed 25 episodes of The Simpsons - it seems to me that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. The sources are in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you, as directing 25 episodes is very minor, out of the 783 (and growing) number of The Simpsons episodes. That is less than 5%. Will review the sources later on. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Mapley

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

Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish him as a prominent figure within the financial industry. Furthermore, the content primarily focuses on specific legal cases without providing comprehensive context or wider recognition that meets Wikipedia's notability. Mapsama (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets notability guidelines - independent coverage in reliable sources, especially in relation to international financial investigations and whistleblower activity.

Coverage and involvement include:

Mapley’s role in the collapse of the Basis Yield Alpha Fund, which invested in the Goldman Sachs Timberwolf CDO, is covered in HuffPost, The New York Times DealBook, ABC Australia, and International Business Times.

Mapley was a technical advisor to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, contributing to its 650-page report on the 2008 subprime crisis, highlighting Goldman Sachs’ misrepresentation of structured financial products.

Further third-party coverage includes Expatica Switzerland, St Vincent Times, Further Blows Traded in EPF Fraud Case – PA Europe, and OffshoreAlert, which document his broader work in international financial investigations and asset recovery.

The article avoids promotional content and focuses on well-documented, encyclopedic facts. Legal cases are not undue weight, but part of broader public interest and regulatory investigation coverage.

This is not a case of routine mentions — Mapley is a central figure in multiple reputable sources with long-term notability — Quadtripplea (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article reads like a promotional handout or a linkedin write up for someone looking for work. This reads as an extended CV. None of the sourcing used is directly about this individual, rather, about other things and simply mentions this person. I don't find sourcing either that we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this is the same person [24], but it doesn't confirm... If he's been suspended for doing illegal things, that could be notable, but without further proof, I can't confirm. I don't see criminal notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McInerney

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources to establish notability beyond routine coverage of his professional role. Most sources primarily focus on Visa Inc., rather than McInerney as a notable individual. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, United States of America, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Most sources are about getting the job at VISA. There's a small bit of information otherwise [25], but he gets quite a bit of coverage. He was with JP Morgan Chase [26], for quite some time before joining VISA. He was speaking with Forbes before even joining VISA [27], showing he was well-known even then. He's the CEO of one of the largest financial /credit card businesses in the world, he's not working for some small, local firm. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasu Raja

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Aviation, Maryland, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vasu Raja was the high-profile architect of the world's largest airline's commercial strategy including a unique take on distribution for two years before being forced out and continues to be a notable industry expert. He has sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline and curious whether a search was done before nomination. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Seems to be written by a Senior Contributor (which I think is a staff position), Forbes [28]. Not an extensive amount of sourcing, but there is some. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think notability was just temporary based on reading few sources from google search. WP:NTEMP Asteramellus (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keneth Hall (surgeon)

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

A surgeon, offering the usual range of surgical appropaches, and with the usual side-hussles. Scopus shows an H-index of 5, entirely consisting of mid-author publication, suggesting that he is not a lead contributor in any research. Prizes are sufficiently noteworthy; listing in Marquis Who's Who Biographical Registry also doesn't seem sufficient. Klbrain (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on WP:SIGCOV. Surgery doesn't always get the respect that other specialties get in medicine. He moved from being one of many surgeons at NYU to being chair of an Upstate New York hospital department. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first real source isn't even formatted properly, no real secondary sources in the first or second block and the two awards and honours are not awards. I don't see much else. Not seeing any research or writing monographs or any named chairs. Not much to go on at all. I don't good career progression is particularly notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before creating this page, I did a proper Google search on the topic and discovered the Dr meets the notability requirements.

Contrary to what the nominator hinted as his reason, Dr. Hall had led multiple medical research and has contributed to many of such research and academic peer-reviewed publications which are published on medical journals and other media platforms.^[1] For want of WP:NPOV, I didn't include them at the initial creation of the page. I made sure the page remains neutral as required. Now, I've included a section for his "Medical research and academic contributions" with the link given.

Also, Dr Hall hall had been appointed to serve in various top capacities in his fields such as

Chair of the PHO Subcommittee on Obesity
Director of Bariatric Quality Improvement
Director of Surgical Simulations
Medical Director of Bariatrics and Minimally Invasive Surgery at Rome Health
Medical Director of Weight Loss Center and Wound Care Center at Rome Health in Rome, New York

He has also won multiple awards. For want of WP:NPOV, I only included those two. Also most of the sources used pass WP:RS, such as THIS, THIS, THIS, and others.

Judging from the above, I strongly believe that WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO Pax Zah Iyeuna (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The research papers added to not meet criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. They have few (if any) citations and most don't seem to be in notable medical journals. Providing a google scholar link showing number of hits does not meet criteria for notability as it's picking up contributions from any person named Keneth Hall or Ken Hall or even just the last name Hall. I do not think inclusion in Marquis Who's Who Biographical Registry meets criteria for notability, as nomination criteria and fact checking of the list are opaque. While there are reliable sources, not many indicate notability. Coverage from the Rome Sentinel and MVHealthNews is local, and I'm not giving articles there the same weight as a national paper. Some of these sources seem to be brief bios or non-notable coverage of medical seminars for the community.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Albertto

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

Fails GNG. I can't find any coverage except for 1988 article in LA Times. Article is completely promotional and was created by banned user. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While most of the sources (both in the article and in a quick google search) are pretty low quality, I've found a couple that I think are usable for notability purposes. Mr Feel Good Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences Ageist, and LA Style. He was also quoted in a 1994 issue of Cosmopolitan[29] but I am not sure if that article provided substantial coverage. His heyday as an agent appears to have been in pre- and early internet days so more sources may be available offline. Article should be trimmed and rewritten to avoid promotion and unsourced detail but I think there is some substance behind the glitz. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not knowledgeable about fashion, but a quick online search shows a few different profiles that indicate notability as Eluchil404 listed. Article does need a significant rewrite to meet quality standards though.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really encylopedic. Article here since 2016. With such poor sourcing after this time, it means not even editors seem to care about the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any source that can be suitable for this article, just promotional content and profiles 201.225.3.154 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

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

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, United States of America, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies [30], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies [31] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion [32]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969:: I would have no objection to moving the current title to the book title, but I personally do not have either the time or interest to write an article about the book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or move as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR / WP:NBOOK based on the book reviews found by RebeccaGreen, and no objection to a move to the book title following the AfD. A redirect would also be fine if someone does decide to create a separate article about the book prior to this AfD's closure. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohq

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage and Ohq is mentioned in passing. No significant achievements in tier-one leagues or tournaments during his career. Yue🌙 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and South Korea. Yue🌙 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is no clear consensus that WP:NSPORT covers esports players and there is much routine coverage per nom. However, the ESPN story [33] and (likely) this Red Bull article [34] supports WP:SPORTCRIT which are reliable per WP:VG/RS. Esports Edition [35], unsure about its reliability. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the coverage in those articles (at least the two that are not permanently dead) is significant. The most substantial is the ESPN article, but "a South Korean player is having difficulties adjusting to American life after joining an American team" is hardly the headliner article to establish standalone notability (i.e. apart from NRG Esports). Yue🌙 21:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue: Understandable, but ESPN also touches on his career. I've also fixed the Red Bull and Esports Edition links. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yue here; delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is ample routine coverage that makes searching for significant coverage difficult, but I agree that the ESPN and Red bull sources don't establish any particular notability. No significant accomplishments on any of the teams he played for. Just another korean import into the north american league of legends league.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kahoe

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

Article on an individual that ~~appears to have~~ might have played a single season of professional lacrosse, though it isn't clear he actually ever played. Sourcing is all either non-independent profiles or statistical outlines, with one local news outlet on his transfer from Syracuse to Georgetown. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. nf utvol (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sports. nf utvol (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This in-depth story in The Philadelphia Inquirer along with this and this from Syracuse.com is probably sufficient for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I think those sources are fairly Run-of-the-Mill coverage. Local newspapers also cover high school and college athletes, in every city and town, there are several high schools and colleges and papers that cover them; inevitably, these athletes will receive coverage.

The Inquirer and the Syracuse.com are both major news outlets, but they also serve as local news, which does make this a little less cut and dry than it otherwise would be. All of these sources, though, are simply profiles of a local high school (in the case of the Inquirer), or collegiate (in the case of the Syracuse.com sources) athlete, without much of a context outside of local interest. A quick perusal of both shows that these sorts of profiles happen daily, sometimes multiple times daily. Using these three sources to establish notability would mean that there are quite literally thousands of similar cases where non-notable high school or collegiate athletes would now meet the notability threshold for an article, just based on coverage in the Inquirer and Syracuse.com.

Finally, to quote the WP:ATHLETE guideline: The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. In this case, the subject appears to have only played a single season of professional lacrosse, with almost no coverage of this beyond a stats page. The coverage on his participation in a collegiate championship is limited to a single page commenting on his social media posts. nf utvol (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ROTM is an essay; whether there's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is all that matters here. And in this case, he does meet that, with in-depth stories in The Inquirer and Syracuse.com. The significant coverage on the subject does not need to be regarding something that you subjectively deem of greater than "local interest" in order to count as significant coverage. You say that this would allow for "quite literally thousands of similar cases where non-notable high school or collegiate athletes would now meet the notability threshold for an article" – however, the difference here is that the subject also competed professionally at, what I believe is, the highest-level of lacrosse (i.e. he's not just some random local college player like you're making him out to be). Lastly, the ATHLETE "guidelines" are just a garbled mess that few still rely on. Note that NSPORT includes nothing talking about lacrosse, thus even the greatest lacrosse player of all time would still fail it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a little more digging it isn't clear that Kahoe ever actually played a regular season game of professional lacrosse. According to the stats page linked in the article, he was drafted by the Boston Blazers in 2009 but never played a game. Then, according to Lacrosse All Stars (which I'm not sure is a RS anyway), he was drafted by the Florida Launch in 2013, but I can't find anything at all that indicates he ever played a single game with them beyond playing on their practice squad in 2017. This, in my view, means that whatever time he may have spent in MLL/PLL/NLL does not serve to add to his notability. nf utvol (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he never played in the MLL/PLL/NLL, that makes the case weaker, though he still arguably meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can find news articles referencing above player which seems to be reliable secondary source^[2] Krishnpriya123 (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you mentioned is from The Hoya, a student-run school newspaper, and wouldn't really be appropriate for establishing notability in this case. nf utvol (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still an actual print newspaper. Looking at their website, they seem to be somewhat independent of the university. The Hoya source doesn't count for much but it still helps just a tad little bit (when combined with the other sources). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG and doesn't appear to meet any other notability guideline. The Syracuse.com article is primarily interview prose as it is. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found this also although some of it is the same as the first Syarcuse.com link Beanie posted. Here's this additional coverage too though it's not as good. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much coverage in more notable publications. Mainly local sources. Article made in 2015 by a single editor who may have been intimate with the subject. Single purpose account. Ramos1990 (talk)
Delete, I always try and find sources for a Keep. Why delete what someone else has worked hard to create unless you really have to? That is my take at least. In this case, the source simply is not notable and is mostly just re-mentioned in his own school list. Not a reliable, or independent, or secondary source! It stands to be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Elliott (barrister)

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

The person doesn't pass WP Anybio. All the sources are not of really depth coverage, and his overall achievements are not making him to be eligible in terms of GNG. Insillaciv (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it comfortably passes wikipedia:ANYBIO. Being president of the Bar Association is equivalent to winning a major award. Having an entry in the Who is who legal is equivalent to being in a national dictionary. Schwede 66 16:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because it meets general notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - presidency of a large bar association is a high honor. I'd probably exclude the President of the Schenectady County Bar Association and of the Delaware Bar Association, but a national or large state association is almost always a full-time job in itself, and considered a very high honor in the legal profession. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how GNG is met, none of the sources in the article are independent SIGCOV. I also don't see how ANYBIO is met even if you stretch the definition of 'award' to include serving as a president of an organisation. The criteria for ANYBIO is 'The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times' perhaps serving as the president of the New Zealand Bar Association is a significant role, but it certainly is not a well-known one. I for one couldn't tell you who the president was prior to this. I don't see any news articles talking about the selection of any new president for the bar association, which suggests it isn't exactly a well-known nor significant role. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe0nHead

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

Fails GNG. She has received some brief mentions due to her roles in promoting conspiracy theories about Balenciaga[36] and tweeting about online influencer dramas, but has not been relevant enough to get multiple sources providing her WP:SIGCOV. Maybe this page could be merged to Balenciaga#Child advertising controversy.

[37][38][39] Very brief mentions of the subject, little to no original commentary about Lapine herself.
[40] Only one paragraph worth of original commentary about Lapine.
[41] No original commentary about Lapine, the article only describes her opinions about someone else
[42] Unreliable, apparent content-mill source. It presents no meaningful original commentary on Lapine, beyond a single sentence introduction of who she is.
[43] An WP:INTERVIEW where Lapine talks about herself and Trump supporters, this source is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject when it comes to the statements made about her. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Singapore source (which is unrelated to The Independent), besides paraphrasing her opinions, does also paraphrases the opinion of another youtuber about her. Technically, that is some form of third party commentary, but it is not reliable (WP:NOTRS directly talks about sources that heavily rely on unreliable opinions). Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article can be moved to the draft namespace and get cleaned up? I'm not incredibly familiar with that process but given that the article is about a public figure who some may consider significant, it may make more sense than completely deleting it. In my opinion, it makes the most sense to convert the article into a stub and remove the unreliable sources. Azeelea (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should remove Vaush, Kyle Kulinski, and others’ pages too, then. 205.178.91.134 (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have notability even if the sourcing of the article is terrible. Agree with Azeelea that the unreliable sources should be removed. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources, or any WP:N policy or guideline, to establish that this subject is notable? In my BEFORE, the sources not in the article also lacked WP:SIGCOV [44][45]. A WP:SIRS source eval would be helpful here. Badbluebus (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with Lollipoplollipoplollipop, the sourcing ain't good but the solution should be to fix the article, preferably without moving to draft. Flimbone08 ; talk 21:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors arguing to Keep haven't provided any additional reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 27 March 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)} 17:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviewing available sources (or lack thereof) I believe this should be deleted. The best independent source about the subject seems to be this brief interview on the hill, and it's really just stating that she interviewed some people which doesn't really make her notable. A few articles on the Libertarian Republic by June are not independent sources. Numerous unreliable sources about the "shoeonhead" leaks, but numerous postings about influencer leaks aren't notable on their own/tend to be churnalistic rather than journalistic. I agree with the nominator: there are not sources establishing notability and there are few reliable, non-opinion sources about her and this article should be deleted.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of independent sources demonstrating significant coverage. Most of the sources used in the article are primary sources or passing mentions. Madeleine (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not against Merge (ATD) supported by Nom. The sources on the article and a before does not satisfy the notability criteria as a columnist, analyst, or even notable pundit. Being an "influencer" with a fanbase does not equate to notability unless it has reached the threshold of garnering significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. Primary sources, "her posts", likes, dislikes, or political ideology, does not advance notability, nor does brief passing mention. The solution to "She seems to have notability even if the sourcing of the article is terrible" and "sourcing ain't good", is called a HEY, needed to at least reach bare notability, that still may, or may not, save an article.

Marss

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

The article have used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Did WP:BEFORE but found only this trivia coverage from Kotaku [46]; thus zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1st ESPN source was good, the 2nd is usable but those are not enough. Other sources might be also reliable, but it just have trivia coverages (not sigcov, and wouldn't notability). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable and seems to not be encyclopedic. There are many tournaments and people win each time, but no page exists for most. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The player was part of two esport teams with articles already. Leaning delete; would cover them there, where relevant, and perhaps redirect if wanted. IgelRM (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as most of the sources are just not reliable or don't provide the WP:SIGCOV needed for WP:GNG. If preferred I'd also support a redirect to one of the teams they played on but I don't really think that's possible since he didn't have a more significant role in one over the other. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsora

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

Zero WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows no reliable sources. Most of the sources that have been used here are mostly unreliable, while other reliable was just he won 2019 but that's it. I'm suspecting Nairo (gamer) has the same fate like this article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they might be reliable like ESPN, but it has only trivia coverage; thus not a sigcov (wouldn't help its notability). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find links to Events Hub, which feels promotional. The sourcing used is mostly confirmation lists of people involved in various tournaments. I don't see notability with the lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete, passing mention on CEO Dreamland article is all the apparent notability here. IgelRM (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Cramer

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

Proposing deletion per WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. Cramer played an important role in a scandal about the book Arming America and is an adjunct professor at College of Western Idaho.^[1] I have found no evidence that he meets an NACADEMIC criterion and insufficient coverage for BASIC.

Of the current references, ^[2]^[3]^[4] are by Cramer; ^[5]^[6] are not about Cramer; ^[7] is run-of-the-mill primary election results. I found additional references^[8]^[9]^[10] that mention Cramer in passing, apropos his role in the Arming America scandal. Even if this coverage was more extensive, it would fail Wikipedia:BLP1E.

References

^ "Clayton Cramer | CWI Directory". College of Western Idaho. 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2025-03-18.
^ "What Clayton Cramer Saw and (Nearly) Everyone Else Missed". History News Network, George Mason University. January 6, 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
^ Cramer, Clayton (March 2012). "Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder" (PDF). Engage. 13 (1). Federalist Society: 37–43. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2020. Retrieved May 22, 2012.
^ My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2012. ISBN 978-1477667538.
^ "Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty". Emory University. October 25, 2002. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
^ "The Bancroft and Bellesiles". History News Network, George Mason University. December 13, 2002. Retrieved February 26, 2009.
^ "2008 Primary Election Results Legislative Totals". Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2009.
^ Lindgren, James; Bellesiles, Michael A. (2002). "Fall from Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal". Yale Law Journal. 111 (8). The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 2195. doi:10.2307/797645. JSTOR 797645. SSRN 692421.
^ Wilson, J (Jan 2002). "The Scandal of Arming America. (Stranger in a Strange Land)". Books & Culture. 8 (1): 4–6.
^ Hoffer, Peter Charles (2007). Past imperfect: facts, fictions, fraud, American history from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis and Goodwin. History. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-445-3.

userdude 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Firearms. userdude 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There might be notability with the correction around the book, but these are sourced only to educational websites. Rest seems non-notable and I can't pull up coverage on this individual we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources you can find are interviews with a few universities, that don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's not really an academic as an adjunct; he's notable as a gun advocate, which is shown by the coverage. This is not an endorsement of his views. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found independent significant coverage of Cramer as a gun advocate? There are several articles/op-eds by Cramer about his advocacy, but the most substantial independent coverage I've seen is the Books & Culture article, which has (charitably) two paragraphs of coverage. userdude 19:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The only scandal about Michael Bellesiles book, Arming America, was the content of the book itself and the fact that virtually all the purported history contained in the book was fraudulent. How this should in any way be cited as a reason for deleting a Wikipedia article on Clayton E. Cramer, who has published several historical books none of which have been accused of using falsified source material, is incomprehensible. Wally3438 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I mentioned Cramer's role in the Arming America scandal for context, not as an argument for deletion. Cheers :) userdude 19:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Reviews of his books are sparser than I might expect, but I found: Reviews of Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: [47], [48]/[49]. Review of Black Demographic Data: [50]/[51]. Review of Armed America: [52]. Four published reviews of three books is on the positive side of borderline for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I also found a review of Lock, Stock, and Barrel [53] and another review of Armed America [54] (full text may not be publicly accessible). However, I don't consider books with 1–2 reviews "significant or well-known work[s]" per WP:AUTHOR3. userdude 19:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I buy the NAUTHOR case. Comment also that redirection to Arming America would be a good alternative to deletion (a keep or no-consensus close looks more likely at this stage). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we keep a standalone article, or merge/redirect to the subject's clearly notable book?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you refer to as "the subject's clearly notable book"? None of Cramer's books have a Wikipedia page. userdude 04:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being an adjunct is often a matter of hiring processes and not an indication of someone's status as an academic. I'm seeing sufficient coverage, and his role in exposing the poor research methods used in Arming America tips the scale for me. Intothat darkness 12:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specify which sources you consider to provide independent significant coverage? userdude 04:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes in WP:NAUTHOR criteria judging the list of publications with which he is involved. Svartner (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mahler

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

I do think this article passes WP:N. Most of the sources that mention him are about Moon Studios, the studio he co-founded, or the development process of the Ori games, but they are not necessarily about him. OceanHok (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, OceanHok. I appreciate the scrutiny regarding WP:N. I believe Thomas Mahler meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that focus on him as an individual, not just Moon Studios or the Ori games. For example, the GamesIndustry.biz article "The making of Ori and the Blind Forest" (2015-03-23) provides detailed insight into Mahler’s personal background, his time at Blizzard, and his creative vision, beyond just the studio’s work. Similarly, the GamesRadar+ interview "Ori and the Will of the Wisps interview: Thomas Mahler on difficulty, storytelling, and more" (2020-03-10) centers on his design philosophy and leadership approach, highlighting his individual contributions. These sources, among others like the PC Gamer coverage of his role in No Rest for the Wicked’s development, offer substantial, non-trivial coverage of Mahler himself in secondary sources, independent of Moon Studios. While much of his recognition ties to the studio he co-founded, this is typical for creative directors, and the depth of personal focus in these articles supports his notability under WP:GNG. I’d welcome further discussion or suggestions to strengthen this! 84.242.10.82 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@84.242.10.82 are you Thomas Mahler? Brenae wafato (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only time I've seen this guy in the news was when he was accused of creating a toxic workplace. No mention of that in the article here though, instead we have an overly long promo/fluff piece that reads like it was AI generated. Seriously, look at some of these sentences: "Thomas Mahler’s career has significantly impacted modern game development, from the way games can be made to the way they are received." "Mahler’s work on Ori has had a lasting influence beyond just sales and awards. The games demonstrated that a small, remote team could produce an experience to rival big-budget studio productions, potentially influencing how future indie projects are perceived and funded." Even if other editors think he's notable, I'm not sure there's anything worth salvaging in the current article. I'd argue it needs WP:TNT either way. CurlyWi (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the IP editor above appears to be a WP:SPA who has previously attempted to sanitize any criticism[55][56] in the Moon Studios article. CurlyWi (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merge a small part to the Moon Studios article? I'm not sure he's quite notable enough, but there's more than ample coverage about the workplace "issues". Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A lot of this dovetails with Moon Studios. I don't really think he's notable outside that framework (otherwise it's notability decided solely on WP:NOTNEWS-ish controversy-related grounds.) I'm not seeing the significance for a GNG pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but also rewrite significantly. Per above, the main thing I know him from are the allegations of creating a toxic studio environment. The old 2017 article may be a better base to build from. That said, it does appear that there are sources and interviews here, so if trimmed down to DUEWEIGHT, there's something workable potentially. (Merge would be a backup second choice.) I'm not sure the original 2017 bold redirect was really merited. SnowFire (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think all of Mahler's successes and failures are too closely tied to Moon Studios and its games. I redirected the article in 2017 for mostly being an unnecessary content fork at that time. OceanHok (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snowfire says above "it does appear that there are sources and interviews here," but has anyone actually looked at them? Of the 23 sources cited in the current article, 18 of them don't exist. And I don't just mean the links are broken, I mean they cite articles that literally never existed as far as I can tell. I'm 99% sure this IP editor [57] just asked chatGPT to generate a positive article about Mahler which is why the article is full of insane sentences like "The Ori games revitalized interest in 2D exploration-platformers and set a high bar for artistry in games." I wouldn't be surprised if the IP is Mahler himself[58] since he appears to be involved here too. To quote Revenge of the Sith, "How did this happen? We're smarter than this!" I still stand by my original comment that there is nothing worth merging/salvaging in the current article, and this deserves TNT even if other editors think a good article on Mahler could potentially exist down the line. CurlyWi (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @CurlyWi: Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't look too closely at the current version which was obviously puffery, but that is concerning. My !vote was based on me looking at the 2017 version. Based on what you said, it sounds like we should hard-revert to the 2017 version as a temporary measure. I had assumed that the sources existed but were being grossly over-spun and I guess I got "unlucky" in finding some of the actual sources, but see above as far as the 2017 version comment. SnowFire (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Per CurlyWi's comment above, I hard-reverted. I think much of the fluffy added content wasn't usable anyway, but if it was based on hallucinated references, it's even less usable. Unfortunately the links in the old refs have broken somewhat (and use deprecated params) but it seems more likely to be accurate to reality. (My vote is unchanged above.) SnowFire (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there is already a Moon Studios article, that appears to be an easy merge/redirect target for whoever wants to put in the effort. IgelRM (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Previous AfD from 2014 only considered mentions in news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is written just, disastrously, but there are some non-news sources. It may however need to be "eventified" or shifted scope. not sure, because the notability seems to be mixed between the crime, her conviction, and elements of her as a person which is why this case is notable, so I think it may be the best choice to write it as a biography. However I would not object to someone nuking most of this page because we should not be using FindLaw on a BLP!!

There are several pages of discussion on her using her as a case study in the academic book The Fairer Death: Executing Women in Ohio, mentions in Women and Capital Punishment in the United States a brief mention in [59], probably more PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some in this law book as well [60] though not sure how useful that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I removed everything cited to FindLaw. I think the sourcing above is enough, so I'd vote keep. I would advise it not be moved because with given how this is covered (an immense focus on her personal life leading up to her actions and guilt) this makes the most sense and we have latitude on how to structure articles. There is a lot of newspaper coverage as well which is less important for showing notability but helps flesh it out PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

People proposed deletions

Academics and educators

Ronilo Balbieran

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

I can't see anything in the article that indicates notability. A WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up anything either. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notabilty not there yet WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Mehdi Golshani

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

There's no indication of notability as per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The subject probably passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a legislative body SCCR, but it's good to reach a clearer consensus. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. What is the point of starting an AfD when the nomination statement itself states that the subject probably passes a notability criterion, WP:NPOL? But for the record I think he also has a good case for WP:PROF #C2 (Templeton prize), #C3 (Academy of Sciences of Iran), and #C5 (distinguished professor), so the nomination claim of "no indication of notability" through academic notability is both a WP:VAGUEWAVE and completely erroneous. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein. As for #C5 I couldn't find any independent sources for the distinction claim. As for #C2 how is "winner of a course program" and a "former judge" notable? As for #C3 it has hundreds of members most of which are not notable. So I don't think it passes WP:PROF as suggested. Xpander (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. Why would you nominate a former member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution for deletion when you say yourself that it's enough for NPOL? People who are notable need only be notable for one thing; even if you don't believe he is notable as an academic, notability as a politician is enough. For that matter, he's also likely not notable as an athlete (because we have no record of any athletic accomplishments) nor as a musician (likewise); do you think that should be a valid rationale to delete someone notable as a politician? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @David Eppstein I certainly respect your points. The issue with SCCR is that it is not a de jure legislative body, and if it is, it is not a common one, i.e. as compared to the US, UK etc. where the only legislature is the Congress/Parliament/Assembly. On their website they mention:
  
  The duties of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution can be divided into three areas: policymaking, regulation development, and supervision^[1].
  
  So it doesn't say lawmaking specifically, although it is mentioned in their by-law, that in case of needing law-changes they can ask the corresponding body to provide the necessary arrangements:
  
  Article 32 - If the Supreme Council resolution requires a law, regulation, or resources to be implemented, the matter will be sent to the head of the relevant authority or the highest official of the relevant body for legal procedures to be carried out, in order to provide the necessary arrangements.^[2]
  
  So maybe it could be interpreted as an executive body rather than a legislative one? That's why I said probably. Some editors have rejected the notability claim based on membership of this body. So the rationale was to reach as clear a consensus as possible. Xpander (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
^ "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

Walter Demmelhuber

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

For someone with such a long list of research publications, I would have expected a higher citation count than 65. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and I don't see that they pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any possible case for WP:NPROF notability — the subject is a guest professor with just 65 total citations and doesn't have any other research activity as far as I can tell. I also couldn't find any coverage of his business career outside of press releases about his board memberships, so I don't see any case for WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Shaftel

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass GNG. The two obits are paid spots. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find is brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate, and brief quotes from him about the features of his designs. None of this amounts to the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE notability. And his academic position does not have any evidence of WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than a trivial amount of mentions in older architectural magazines [61], book mentions [62]. Clicking on the Gbooks link above brings up many mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that if you just click on "Find Sources" on this nomination template, several options are there to find the sources. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret T. May

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

Tagged as questionable in notability and sourcing since 2017. I have seen nothing that suggests that this subject meets WP:NPROF. BD2412 T 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. BD2412 T 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has a SCOPUS profile here which indicates c. 16,000 citations, and Web of Science indicates c. 10,000 citations. ResonantDis_tortion 12:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @ResonantDistortion: I would note, though, that subject is on a lot of papers where she is named as one of a half-dozen or more co-authors, for which she almost never appears as the lead author. I am basing this off of what I can see from Google Scholar. BD2412 T 15:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning Keep as subject has a high D-index (H-index) of 81 so passes WP:NACADEMIC#1. She is the corresponding author on a Lancet article with 1,496 citations, 2nd author on another with 1,437 citations and 1014 citations. From Google Scholar I can see that she does have a number of high citation count first author papers 149 citations, 757 citations, 494 citations, 297 citations (I didn't go through everything). Perhaps HIV papers get higher citation counts but nonetheless she appears to have done important work from glancing at the studies. That being said the article has barely any content and would need an overhaul. I'd be willing to do it if there's consensus that she meets WP:NACADEMIC#1 but I'll need a few weeks to do it. Nnev66 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following up my initial comment, if she did the modeling for all these studies it would make sense that she'd have a high citation count, with caveat without much effort I easily found articles where she had a high author position on the paper. She was not a chaired professor and I don't see any awards. I can't find anything about her other than what's on the University of Bristol web site archive links in the article. I'll await further input from the community about meeting notability with NACAD criteria #1. Nnev66 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Savchuk

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this person. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. And this is an obvious spam article. Skazi (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (moderate to strong) -- Created by a seemingly single-purpose editor (User:Արշո; tagging for transparency and fairness' sake), and it just so happens to be an essay-like or ad-like submission? Wikipedia does not exist for aggrandizment, promotion, or advertising (not to mention it is against policy). Sans the allegedly promotional content, I'm not seeing what would bring us notability with this individual. A few fluff pieces by Russian blogsphere tabloids do not count as WP:RS. MWFwiki (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability of this blogger. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns and I have tried to write the article to the best of my ability with quality content. However, if there are issues with the notability or other aspects of the article, I don’t mind if it gets deleted. I appreciate the transparency and will be happy to improve or clarify the article if needed.--Արշո (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be spam in Google news search. So this can be deleted. Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Sweis

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

The subject does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC in spite of years of opportunity to do so. It seems kind of a strech for an associate professor to be notable. There are name-drops about who interviewed him, and a list of his publications, but that doesn't confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely needs cleanup to remove the promotional material for his self-developed coaching method and his self-published CreateSpace book. Not notable as an academic, but he passes WP:NAUTHOR as the co-editor of Debating Christian Theism, which has received multiple reviews in independent sources, including International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, The Journal of Theological Studies, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philos, Theological Studies; and co-editor of Christian Apologetics, which has also received multiple independent reviews in the Heythrop Journal and the Southeastern Theological Review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Lean Keep) -- Definitely in the scope of "Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable" based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, plus one additional high prestige article. This in itself is borderline for WP:PROF -- it seems on the face of it enough for WP:AUTHOR, but these publications are not what that guideline was primarily meant to evaluate. My hunch is what Dclemens1971 was able to find will turn into more and will be a keep, but based on what I quickly found and what's here, I'm neutral. But it's definitely not an easy del. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not an easy delete. I may withdraw this nomination, seeing how it pans out. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azu Punia

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIG COV in secondary reliable sources also this article was created by a user named Azu Punia (same as article name) so there could be chances of WP:COI TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and Haryana. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - History shows article was created in mainspace, then moved into Draft, then back to mainspace - all by same user. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy. No assertion of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Agree with nomination, No sign of notability. Delete article and block the creator. Zuck28 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't block -- assertions of notability are not enough for GNG nor WP:PROF, but no sign of malicious creation nor neglect of WP guidelines. The "Signs of Resiliance" article is a hint at notability, but not enough (by a long shot) for a pass. Stand by delete, but not seeing enough disruption for a block, assuming good faith. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads more like resume and WP:PROMO. Nothing notable here. RangersRus (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Michon

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

While accomplished, I can't find any in-depth coverage of him, and while there is another person with this name who is widely referenced, this person is not, and I can't find anything to show that he passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, History, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching only JSTOR found ten reviews of four books, now added to the article. Probably there are more elsewhere. This is enough for a pass of WP:AUTHOR, and (since they are in-depth publications by others about his work) for WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY after good work by David Eppstein to find and add sources. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Le Mare

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

Notability ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've proposed this for deletion as it doesn't appear to establish more than a passing notability. The only two facts about her are that she is the co-founder of an organisation and a magazine. The stub hasn't been expanded in the last 15 years. Also, only one page appears to link to this page. Suggest a Wikidata page would be sufficient. Alternatively, the stub could be added to the page for the Society.

ash (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the Malayan Nature Journal pops up in Gscholar where this person is mentioned [63] as the editor. This [64] and [[65]] are both by the same author but appear to show notabililty. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might meet notability as the editor of the Malayan Nature Journal, PROF, but I don't remember which point it is exacly (C3?) Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editorship is C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Malaysia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Animal, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the information found by User:Oaktree b, her two early publications (writing as Gladys Keay) on mites were cited by others in the scientific literature. I have added those citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Double-digit numbers of citations are generally insufficient to make a case for WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think this contributes to notability, particularly since those papers were written in a time when citation counts were lower. In my mind, the points raised by Oaktree b are the best discussion notes for a keep argument. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep meets WP:NPROF#C8, especially given the time when she lived. Nnev66 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the comments above. Bduke (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: co-founder of society, notable contributions to entomology. PamD 07:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per arguments of Nnev66 and PamD: for a female scientist from the 1940s and 1950s the notability and sourcing is sufficient. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Shuqin

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and while a scholar search does show several works which are well cited, they are not in this person's field of study, so are most likely a different individual. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone read the Chinese version? Bearian (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Li, Chin-chun 李金駿. "新生新聲新的台灣視野十一日成大台灣文學鼎談新一代學者談台灣文學研究的回顧與前瞻" [New Generation, New Voice, New Taiwanese Literary Perspective. 11 April: National Cheng Kung University Hosts a Taiwanese Literature Symposium on the Past and Future of Taiwanese Literary Studies] (in Chinese). National Cheng Kung University. Archived from the original on 2014-09-03. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  The article notes: "柳書琴教授、陳建忠教授兩位學者任教於靜宜大學中文系，和台文所游勝冠教授一樣，都是出身清華大學中文系博士班的前後期同學。出身歷史系的柳書琴教授，自碩士班以來即專注戰爭期台灣文學的研究，博士論文更以《福爾摩沙》作家群在東京留學時期的文學活動為對象，史料蒐集之完整、田調功夫下得之深，無人能出其右。"
  From Google Translate: "Professor Liu Shuqin and Professor Chen Jianzhong both teach in the Department of Chinese at Providence University. Like Professor You Shengguan from the Taiwan Literature Institute, they were former and current classmates in the doctoral program of the Chinese Department at Tsinghua University. Professor Liu Shuqin, who graduated from the Department of History, has focused on the study of wartime Taiwanese literature since her master's program. Her doctoral dissertation was based on the literary activities of the "Formosa" writers while they were studying in Tokyo. No one can match her in terms of the completeness of her historical data collection and the depth of her field research. ... Liu Shuqin, whose mother is from the Ma Yuan Dan community, both returned to the tribe to assist and even initiated new research projects."
2. Hua, Meng-ching 花孟璟. "布農族丹社傳統領域調查秀成果 91歲耆老感動：這是我的家" [Bunun Tribe Danse Traditional Territory Survey Shows Results, 91-Year-Old Elder Moved: This Is My Home]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  The article notes: "共有7名青年走完全程；擁有一半丹社群血統的清華大學台灣文學所教授柳書琴進行日本集團移住史調查，調查成果展今天回到馬遠社區舉辦，... 母親是馬遠丹社群人的柳書琴，2人都重返部落協助，還開啟新的研究計畫。"
  From Google Translate: "A total of 7 young people completed the journey; Professor Liu Shuqin of the Department of Taiwanese Literature at Tsinghua University, who is half Dan community descent, conducted a survey on the history of Japanese group immigration, and the survey results exhibition was held in Mayuan Community today."
  The article notes: "柳書琴也說，她從小在馬遠生活、直到11歲才離開，發生遺骨事件後，她回到馬遠，「不管怎樣都要跟族人在一起」，並開始採錄部落阿公阿嬤們的故事。她說，從前，馬遠只是她回來探親、渡假的地方，現在已是學術研究重點，年初還帶20歲兒子加入尋根隊伍，遺骨事件讓馬遠的丹社人重新連結在一起，希望成為部落團結、文化復興的轉捩點。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Shuqin also said that she lived in Mayuan since she was a child and did not leave until she was 11 years old. After the remains incident, she returned to Mayuan, "to be with my people no matter what," and began to record the stories of the grandparents in the tribe. She said that in the past, Mayuan was just a place she came back to visit relatives and for vacation, but now it has become the focus of academic research. At the beginning of the year, she brought her 20-year-old son to join the root-seeking team. The remains incident has reconnected the Danshe people of Mayuan, and she hopes it will become a turning point for tribal unity and cultural revival."
3. Hoshina, Hironobu 星名宏修 (2010). "書評柳書琴著『荊棘之道--台湾旅日青年的文学活動與文化抗争』 (特集インドネシア・朝鮮・「満州」・台湾)" [Book Review: Liu Shuqin's "The Thorny Road--Literary Activities and Cultural Conflicts of Young Travelers in Taiwan and Japan" (Special Issue: Indonesia, Korea, "Manchuria", Taiwan)]. 植民地文化研究 : 資料と分析 [Colonial Cultural Studies: Materials and Analysis] (in Japanese). No. 9. pp. 173–175. Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
4. Shimomura, Sakujiro 下村作次郎 (July 2021). "書評柳書琴主編・陳萬益總顧問『日治時期台灣現代文學辭典』(聯經出版、2019年)" [Book Review Liu Shuqin, Chief Editor, Chen Wanyi, Chief Consultant, "Dictionary of Modern Taiwanese Literature during the Japanese Occupation" (Linking Publishing, 2019)]. 天理臺灣學報 [Journal of Taiwan University] (in Japanese). No. 30. Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
5. Yuan, Shu-chia 阮淑雅 (December 2007). "寫在大東亞聖戰之外－論吳漫沙連載於《風月報》之〈桃花江〉(1937-1939)" [Written Outside the Greater East Asia Holy War – A Discussion on Wu Mansha's Serial "Peach Blossom River" (1937-1939) Published in Fengyue Daily]. 中極學刊 [Zhongji Xuekan] (in Chinese). No. 6. doi:10.29935/ZJXK.200712.0001. Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Airiti Library [Wikidata].
  The abstract notes: "此外筆者從柳書琴的研究中發現到《風月報》內容以都會女性相關議題爲大宗，重要寫作者分布在臺北，"
  From Google Translate: "In addition, the author discovered from Liu Shuqin's research that the content of Fengyuebao mainly focused on issues related to urban women, and its important writers were located in Taipei."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Shuqin (traditional Chinese: 柳書琴; simplified Chinese: 柳书琴) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Ney

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

Advert of a nonnotable phycho..ist --Altenmann >talk 23:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May pass WP:Prof#C1 albeit in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Our article doesn't say this but apparently he founded Mt. Joy College in Sooke BC? [66]. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Xxanthippe's recommendation. His papers and books seem to be relevant enough within the child psychology citation tree, and especially in the pro-life branch of abortion research [67]. Considering he died two months ago [68], this may just need an update as well. We could probably include something about his sailing program [69], or his election candidacy [70], or his religion [71][72] and pro-life activism [73]. Regardless of what I think of the guy (and it's probably close to Altenmann's view, to be frank), that doesn't mean he's not notable. Highresheadphones (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the source "https://mtjoycollege.com/administration/office-of-the-president/2" appears to return only a 404 error message. If there is in fact only one source, then I would move to Delete !vote, otherwise, no comment. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is coverage in digitised newspapers, including of a book not mentioned in the article - How to Raise a Family for Fun and Profit (Yours and Theirs), co-written with his wife Margot [74], [75]. There is also coverage of him in the context of his Horizons Unbound organisation [76], [77], and some coverage of his candidacy in various elections. I haven't looked at all 900+ results in Canadian newspapers yet, so there is probably more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andres David Drobny

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

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about meets WP:NAUTHOR, with two reviews of the subject's book in academic journals, which I have added to the article. I agree the tone is rather promotional. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s two reviews about the author’s book without any awards, I believe the entry should be about the book and not the author. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has at least two other books, Inside the house of money: top hedge fund traders on profiting in the global markets and The Invisible Hands: Top Hedge Fund Traders on Bubbles, Crashes, and Real Money, but my searches could not find any reliably published reviews. Two reviews of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, we don't have the citation record needed for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see the significant coverage in independent sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I also note that three of the sources in the article are primarily about Larry Summers and his citation of the subject's work, rather than directly about the subject. That's a WP:BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Bergeron

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

I can’t find any sources that aren’t connected to the subject. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does the nominator think about the subject's citation record? It appears to contain hundreds of sources that are not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. I see three articles with over 500 citations, a fourth with 478, and more articles with over 100 citations. That appears to pass the PROF Test. Plus, while Harvard cheats at hockey, the medical school is sort of prestigious. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been here since 2005. The article is just one line and one weak source. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 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, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see at least 2000 reliable sources not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Aladdin Malikov

AfDs for this article:

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

Was a soft delete through AfD last year, recently challenged. The original nom, Thenightaway's rationale was, "There is no independent reliable sourcing about the subject. They do not meet general notability requirements nor notability requirements for academics or government officials. One of many articles spammed by a ring of editors who are singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijani government/elites." The resurrected article has zero in-depth sourcing, and I cannot see any indication they pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After reviewing the article and its sources, I do not believe this biography meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. While Aladdin Malikov may have academic credentials and publications, the article does not cite any significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that provide in-depth analysis or commentary on his work or impact. Most of the references appear to be primary sources, such as listings of academic roles or publication records, and some are user-generated or non-independent. There’s a noticeable absence of third-party profiles, interviews, or critical reception— which are essential to establish notability under both WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The article also lacks encyclopedic depth. It reads more like a résumé or institutional bio, focusing on positions held and publications, rather than providing sourced, contextual information about influence, recognition, or broader relevance. Unless stronger sources can be provided, I believe deletion is the appropriate outcome.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yam Bahadur Roka

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

Fails Notability. Whatever sources given are all primary. Article has promotional tone. Loaded with unsourced info indicating COI. Immediately Moved back into mainspace without any improvement. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what promotional tone have you found there. I do think I have provided all the references required and the references I have found.

Let me check the sources and update again Sailess(Hikari) (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahmatula786

Can you now check and see the resources for newspaper, scholar and other refrences. Sailess(Hikari) (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable. Not much is from newspapers or broader sources. I think it needs to be improved and go back to draft space. There lots of info and it makes me think there is someone close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasu Raja

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Aviation, Maryland, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vasu Raja was the high-profile architect of the world's largest airline's commercial strategy including a unique take on distribution for two years before being forced out and continues to be a notable industry expert. He has sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline and curious whether a search was done before nomination. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Seems to be written by a Senior Contributor (which I think is a staff position), Forbes [78]. Not an extensive amount of sourcing, but there is some. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think notability was just temporary based on reading few sources from google search. WP:NTEMP Asteramellus (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

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

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, United States of America, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies [79], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies [80] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion [81]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969:: I would have no objection to moving the current title to the book title, but I personally do not have either the time or interest to write an article about the book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or move as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR / WP:NBOOK based on the book reviews found by RebeccaGreen, and no objection to a move to the book title following the AfD. A redirect would also be fine if someone does decide to create a separate article about the book prior to this AfD's closure. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Cramer

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

Proposing deletion per WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. Cramer played an important role in a scandal about the book Arming America and is an adjunct professor at College of Western Idaho.^[1] I have found no evidence that he meets an NACADEMIC criterion and insufficient coverage for BASIC.

Of the current references, ^[2]^[3]^[4] are by Cramer; ^[5]^[6] are not about Cramer; ^[7] is run-of-the-mill primary election results. I found additional references^[8]^[9]^[10] that mention Cramer in passing, apropos his role in the Arming America scandal. Even if this coverage was more extensive, it would fail Wikipedia:BLP1E.

References

^ "Clayton Cramer | CWI Directory". College of Western Idaho. 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2025-03-18.
^ "What Clayton Cramer Saw and (Nearly) Everyone Else Missed". History News Network, George Mason University. January 6, 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
^ Cramer, Clayton (March 2012). "Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder" (PDF). Engage. 13 (1). Federalist Society: 37–43. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2020. Retrieved May 22, 2012.
^ My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2012. ISBN 978-1477667538.
^ "Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty". Emory University. October 25, 2002. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
^ "The Bancroft and Bellesiles". History News Network, George Mason University. December 13, 2002. Retrieved February 26, 2009.
^ "2008 Primary Election Results Legislative Totals". Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2009.
^ Lindgren, James; Bellesiles, Michael A. (2002). "Fall from Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal". Yale Law Journal. 111 (8). The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 2195. doi:10.2307/797645. JSTOR 797645. SSRN 692421.
^ Wilson, J (Jan 2002). "The Scandal of Arming America. (Stranger in a Strange Land)". Books & Culture. 8 (1): 4–6.
^ Hoffer, Peter Charles (2007). Past imperfect: facts, fictions, fraud, American history from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis and Goodwin. History. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-445-3.

userdude 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Firearms. userdude 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There might be notability with the correction around the book, but these are sourced only to educational websites. Rest seems non-notable and I can't pull up coverage on this individual we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources you can find are interviews with a few universities, that don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's not really an academic as an adjunct; he's notable as a gun advocate, which is shown by the coverage. This is not an endorsement of his views. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found independent significant coverage of Cramer as a gun advocate? There are several articles/op-eds by Cramer about his advocacy, but the most substantial independent coverage I've seen is the Books & Culture article, which has (charitably) two paragraphs of coverage. userdude 19:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The only scandal about Michael Bellesiles book, Arming America, was the content of the book itself and the fact that virtually all the purported history contained in the book was fraudulent. How this should in any way be cited as a reason for deleting a Wikipedia article on Clayton E. Cramer, who has published several historical books none of which have been accused of using falsified source material, is incomprehensible. Wally3438 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I mentioned Cramer's role in the Arming America scandal for context, not as an argument for deletion. Cheers :) userdude 19:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Reviews of his books are sparser than I might expect, but I found: Reviews of Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: [82], [83]/[84]. Review of Black Demographic Data: [85]/[86]. Review of Armed America: [87]. Four published reviews of three books is on the positive side of borderline for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I also found a review of Lock, Stock, and Barrel [88] and another review of Armed America [89] (full text may not be publicly accessible). However, I don't consider books with 1–2 reviews "significant or well-known work[s]" per WP:AUTHOR3. userdude 19:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I buy the NAUTHOR case. Comment also that redirection to Arming America would be a good alternative to deletion (a keep or no-consensus close looks more likely at this stage). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we keep a standalone article, or merge/redirect to the subject's clearly notable book?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you refer to as "the subject's clearly notable book"? None of Cramer's books have a Wikipedia page. userdude 04:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being an adjunct is often a matter of hiring processes and not an indication of someone's status as an academic. I'm seeing sufficient coverage, and his role in exposing the poor research methods used in Arming America tips the scale for me. Intothat darkness 12:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specify which sources you consider to provide independent significant coverage? userdude 04:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes in WP:NAUTHOR criteria judging the list of publications with which he is involved. Svartner (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence C. Marsh

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

Fails WP:GNG & Wp:nprof Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [90] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since its creation. The contributions made by Msrasnw, consisting of valuable content including his publications, serve to further establish the notability of the subject. Gedaali (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gedaali: perhaps you could explain which notability criterion is satisfied by providing a listing of publications? Do you think every academic for whom we could list publications is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has (as mentioned above) a couple of well cited papers, the dropoff is fast and the total number of citations at 1359 is weak. His own page does not indicate anything notable except some prior students; notability is not inheritable from his prior students. I don't see indications that his book(s) have had an impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The only type of sources I can find was this one here ^[1] and it is a book that he wrote. It seems like it's sort of notable for someone to write a book and have other sourcing. But, thoroughly scanning Google I could not find any other sort of citations besides that one. I would just draftify this until better sourcing is needed. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "was this". July 2023.

Weak delete ~~keep~~ - I think the obsession over citations misses the point that we have a variety of criteria to meet the PROF test. He mentored 80 students to their PhD. His book has hundreds of citations. He's a Professor Emeritus, which is very rarely given anymore. He founded an important work group. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian, I have to call you on 2 points:

His CV says "80 Ph.D. dissertation committees", which is very different. I will estimate that typical faculty sit on 4-5 times as many committees as they have students.
"Professor Emeritus" is standard, and is a $0 appointment which lets you use the online library, have access to useful software and maybe a bit more. At least at my institution it is routine.

Ldm1954 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my !vote to weak delete. I'm reminded that many professors (like one of my relatives) sits on many more committees than she chairs. It's sadly not been my experience that "Emeritus" is granted automatically (another family member retired as an Associate Professor yet was denied the honor of Emeritus, and I and dozens of other faculty were tossed to the curb without even a retirement party, but then again, my college went bankrupt). Also, the number of citations vary wildly from discipline to discipline. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Azu Punia (via WP:BLP-PROD on 2 April 2025)
Zachariah Matthews (via WP:PROD on 2 April 2025)
Fallon Goodman (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)

Actors and filmmakers

Raymond C King

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCER. Most of the sources presented are either unreliable or have no connection to the subject in question. A WP:BEFORE shows very little coverage, which proves that the subject isn't notable enough. Article also appears to be an autobiography, so WP:COI issues are a possibility. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Engineering, Software, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nyomi Banxxx

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NENTERTAINER. It's super promotional but that could be fixed if the subject was notable, which doesn't seem to be the case. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Radio, Sexuality and gender, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison MacInnis

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

Redirected but restored. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no references. Should be deleted as no obvious single redirect target has significant information beyond a mention about this person. Draftify most appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pointless. She and her character became famous on their Power Rangers thing a long time ago, it should never be deleted. 31.22.146.236 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Power Rangers cast members#Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue (2000) (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In my searches for sources, I found only passing mentions like this and this as well as two sentences of coverage here. She is quoted in this article in ComicBook.com, which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Inconclusive discussions. There is insufficient coverage for Alison MacInnis to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I think the Power Rangers cast members list is a good redirect target since all mentions of her on Wikipedia are related to the Power Rangers franchise. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bilton

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

Article was created by a sockpuppet account named "Novonium", since blocked indefinitely, in 2012. The article appears to have a pretty rich editing history by socks, also since blocked, in the years following its creation. There is a strong WP:DENY argument to be made alone for deleting this article.

Additionally, most of the sources mention Nick Bilton in passing or refer to works of his but are not about the man himself. Therefore, though articles about some of Bilton's work might be notable, the subject matter BLP, Bilton, is himself not notable and the article should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, England, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some reviews of his books [91], [92], an article in Variety [93]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 10 is also a book review, this would likely pass AUTHOR with at least three book reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the WP:DENY rationale for deletion? I think it is likely that this person paid to have their article created, or did it themselves with a sock account. Either way, it has a rich history of editing by blocked sock accounts. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eren Legend (bodybuilder)

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

Previously soft-deleted for lack of notability. I doubt the topic has since become notable. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Alexander

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

Hijacked redirect. Current subject does not meet WP:GNG. If kept, should be moved to Lewis Alexander (actor) and the redirect turned into a dab. But I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are people less notable than him who have articles. So, I don't see why it should be deleted and I don't think it needs to be moved since the name isn't taken by someone else. Spectritus (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss articles and if they should be included according to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Your reply is unrelated to any of those, so please consider making a policy-based argument. Geschichte (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne LeClos

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

WP:BLP of a film editor, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for film editors. As always, film editors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they've had credits, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage in reliable sources about them and their work -- biographical coverage, external analysis of their work's impact, evidence of notability-conferring awards, etc.
But this just states that he exists and lists a bunch of films without saying anything notability-building at all, and is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries without showing any GNG-worthy sourcing whatsoever.
The fact that his work exists is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pelmear

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

No evidence of notability found. Played in notable series like Dr Who, but only a minor role. He is just a name appearing in lists of actors, but doesn't get further attention in books[94]. No news sources paid significant attention to his death[95]. General Google results are wiki's and fora, no indepth reliable sources there either[96]. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are people less notable than him who have an article. So, I don't see why this article should be deleted. And besides, it can be improved over time. Spectritus (talk) 9:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His role in The Time Warrior is significant, not minor. Merge into a not-yet existing cast section of that serial. Thanks. (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/the-time-warrior/) -Mushy Yank. 19:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He played in 4 of the 26 episodes of one season of this long-running series. It's a significant role in that one story arc, it is a minor role in Doctor Who. Fram (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure, it's also less important in the universal history of fiction than Rhett Butler and Darth Vader, which in turn are less important than Odyssseus and Don Quixote, etc, but that's not really the point.... It's a significant [not minor] role in a notable production and that's why I suggest to Redirect the page there. If other significant ro|es in notable productions are identified, the Redirect can be undone and the page expanded back into a proper article. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said before, there are people less notable than him who have an article. So, there's no reason to delete this one. Spectritus (talk) 8:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Francisco Villarroel

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

Promo for non notable filmmaker. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews for his films. Having his films screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy FILMMAKER. One of multiple promo pieces for Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Law, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Refbombed with what appear to be fictional or non-notable film awards. For someone that's won so much hardware, there are ZERO sources about it in Gnews, in any language. Very non-notable PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mika'ela Fisher

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:GNG, and reads heavily of WP:PROMO (and likely COI editing). The article relies heavily on primary sources (the subject's own websites, IMDB entries, and self-produced promotional materials) rather than coverage from independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. Most references are to listings on festival websites, agency portfolios, and film databases, which do not constitute substantive coverage; others are of little significant coverage that fail to meet even WP:100W, therefore failing WP:SIGCOV.

It is also relevant to mention the other recent AfD's related to the subject, such as WP:Articles for deletion/Victory's Short and WP:Articles for deletion/Männin. Madeleine (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TNT this promotion. Main contributors to this and her film pages are Chryopras and Chryopras1, matching up with her production company Chryopras Films. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets Wp:DIRECTOR for Pure Air of the Mountain: For All and None (see Reception section of the German article about that film, please). Some serious cleanup is needed. -Mushy Yank. 19:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thapaswini Poonacha

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4. Non-notable actress. This version of the article is drastically different from the previous version which was deleted in 2022. Although it's still in very poor shape, and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Food and drink, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AfD Discussion: Thapaswini Poonacha

I oppose the deletion of this article on the grounds that Thapaswini Poonacha meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for actors (WP:NACTOR) and has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.

1. Notability as an Actress

Thapaswini Poonacha has been featured in multiple Kannada films, including:

Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – Available on JioCinema

Gajarama (2025) – Upcoming release on February 7, 2025

Mr. Jack – Upcoming, co-starring Guru Nandan

Rukmini Vasantha – Upcoming, co-starring Shree Mahadev

She has received media attention for her performances and won the Chittara Promising Star Award, which is a notable recognition in the Kannada film industry.

2. Significant Media Coverage

Multiple independent and reliable sources have covered her career and achievements, demonstrating significant coverage beyond passing mentions:

Times of India:

"I do my research before signing a film"

"Not about numbers, want to do memorable movies"

"Roles have to make my soul happy"

The New Indian Express:

"I have no interest in chasing attention"

Kannada Prabha:

"Thapaswini Poonacha: I have no interest in chasing attention"

Hindustan Times Kannada:

"Thapaswini Poonacha in Christmas photoshoot"

These sources demonstrate that Thapaswini Poonacha is consistently covered in reputable media, indicating her notability as an actress and public figure.

3. Business and Coffee Industry Recognition

In addition to her acting career, she is a certified coffee cup tester and runs a coffee business in Coorg. This has been discussed in interviews and media coverage, adding to her notability beyond acting.

4. Conclusion

Thapaswini Poonacha meets WP:NACTOR by virtue of:

✅ Multiple roles in notable Kannada films

✅ Award recognition (Chittara Promising Star Award)

✅ Significant, independent media coverage

✅ Additional recognition in the coffee industry

Given the multiple reliable sources and her growing career in Kannada cinema, deletion is not justified. If improvements are needed, I encourage a rewrite instead of deletion. Akashmdp (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on multiple roles in notable Kannada films, which is enough for a standalone page, but would you happen to have a source for the award, by any chance? -Mushy Yank. 17:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the Youtube video. Added it. A better source might be needed for that, but as notability does not depend on that point (but on her 2 roles), not urgent. Advising you no to repeat the same things nor add long walls of text here or on the page. -Mushy Yank. 18:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 2 significant roles in (2) notable films (the second has no page yet but at least 3 bylined reviews [see page]) have her meet the requirements for WP:NACTRESS. I have cleaned up the page. -Mushy Yank. 17:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Thapaswini Poonacha meets WP:NACTRESS by having significant roles in two notable films:

Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – Recognized and covered in mainstream Kannada media.

Gajarama (2025) – While the film does not yet have its own Wikipedia page, it has received at least three bylined reviews from reliable sources.

Additionally, she has been profiled in multiple independent, reliable sources, including:

Times of India (article)

New Indian Express (article)

Kannada Prabha (article)

Hindustan Times Kannada (article)

Her acting career and coffee business have been independently covered, reinforcing her notability beyond just press releases or promotional content. The page has been cleaned up to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing guidelines.

Thus, per WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS, the article should be kept. Akashmdp (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Kannada Prabha piece is more interview. The Vinay Lokesh piece is also interview. These aren't nearly enough, IMHO. I don't see a single presented source which isn't routine entertainment news, mostly quotes. No direct detailing at all. To Akashmdp, repeating your bullet points over and over doesn't make your argument any stronger. You may be convinced, but you need to convince the other editors in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Akashmdp is the page creator AND a paid contributor to this page. As for the sources already applied on the page, cite #2 (Asianet Suvarna News) admits it's a Kannada translation of The Times of India link (cite #1). Both consist entirely of identical quotes from the subject. Interviews do not count towards GNG. The two movie reviews are both (parenthetical) bare mentions, but do confirm the single role. Cite #5 is also an interview with a few bits of routine industry news. The photoshoot linked above is five pics of her in same outfit next to quotes from the actress. If this is all an avowed digital marketing professional with 7+ years of experience in the industry can bring, it's not very impressive to me. BusterD (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For full disclosure, I was the administrator who declined the speedy deletion tag earlier. BusterD (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG.
I would like to address the concerns raised by User:BusterD regarding notability and sources.
Significant Roles in Multiple Notable Films
Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – A commercially released Kannada film with media coverage.

Gajarama (2025) – Upcoming film, already receiving pre-release coverage.

Mr. Jack & Rukmini Vasantha – Both announced, with media mentions. Under WP:NACTRESS, an actor needs two significant roles in notable films, which she meets.

Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources
Times of India: Multiple interviews and feature stories.

New Indian Express: Independent reporting on her career.

Hindustan Times (Kannada): Coverage of her work.

Kannada Prabha: Career analysis and industry perspectives. Response to the Source Criticism:

The Times of India article is a primary source, but it is still independent and features her career insights.

The Asianet Suvarna News article may translate TOI but does not invalidate other sources.

Movie reviews confirm her roles, fulfilling minimum WP:NACTRESS requirements.

The New Indian Express piece is not just an interview; it provides analysis of her trajectory.

Photoshoot coverage, while not the strongest evidence, still indicates media attention.

Regarding Paid Editing Allegations
While User:Akashmdp may have created the page, the subject’s notability stands independently.

Wikipedia has a system for COI disclosures, but that does not automatically invalidate an article’s merits.

Even if a paid editor initiated the page, the subject’s career must be evaluated separately from who added the content.

Conclusion
Thapaswini Poonacha meets both WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS based on her coverage and career milestones.

The article has been cleaned up to remove promotional tone and improve sourcing.

If further citations or refinements are needed, that can be worked on, but outright deletion is unnecessary.
Thus, the article should be kept. Akashmdp (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're screaming. You have made your argument. Let others speak. Mushy Yank can be helpful here. Consult with them. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTRESS. Multiple significant roles in notable movies and multiple significant coverage in WP:RS, both are available. Zuck28 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: As per above discussion and my search on the subject find this: [97], [98], [99] B-Factor (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep

Thank you, B-Factor, for your input. The references you provided—Times of India, Cinema Express, and The New Indian Express—are credible sources that establish Thapaswini Poonacha’s notability as an actress in Kannada cinema.

These sources provide coverage of her career, film roles, and interviews, which meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Additionally, her role in upcoming films like Gajarama shows ongoing relevance.

I believe the page should be retained, but I am open to improving it by adding more citations or restructuring content for better compliance with Wikipedia standards.

Looking forward to further discussion. Akashmdp (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Akashmdp Is your !vote Keep or Weak Keep? (You don't need to repeat identical arguments over and over, even if it's to thank someone -we understood your point, I guess-, which is perfectly fine, though) Inviting you to "remove" your "Weak Keep" above (with ~~strikethrough~~) (So that it appears ~~Weak Keep~~) if your !vote (the only thing that should be bolded (theorically :D) in a !vote) is indeed Keep. And Gajarama is NOT an upcoming film, mind you. It was released in February and has received multiple reviews in reliable media outlets, this being one of the main arguments (with her other significant role) in favour of retention of the page. -Mushy Yank. 18:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your kind suggestion. Yes, I was confused. Gajarams is released. I am sorry for that. Should I update that in the page? Also, there is no option to remove keep with strike. Should I send new reply regarding that? Akashmdp (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTRESS who has worked as female lead in two films that have been released. Page needs to be improved though with secondary independent reliable sources. Sources with interviews are not independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamadoun Kassogué

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

Cannot find any in-depth information about this actor. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You have a source in the article all about him, a biogra[hy on Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University website and mentions in books like Frame by Frame III:A Filmography of the African Diasporan Image, 1994-2004, Screen World, Directory of World Cinema: Africa and Music, Culture and Conflict in Mali. Not much, but they add up. Also he was in Bamako (film) and Sia, The Dream of the Python, which are notable. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Saigal

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

This is a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Just one film as acting career and one ep for that she received some press coverage. Other than that she is daughter of singer and actor parents but notability is not inherited. Fails wp:NACTOR and Wp:NMUSIC as well. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Film, Music, India, Delhi, and Wales. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:FORBES, Forbes is generally considered a reliable source and can see Forbes covering profile for this person in their article here ^[1] Circular Karma (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

Not all individuals featured in Forbes necessarily meet the eligibility threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.

The subject must first satisfy the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines as a prerequisite for inclusion.

Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established per WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. The sourcing consists of standard PR type promo that one would see for any emerging actor with a press agent, including Forbes, which is not significant coverage, it's simply a photo of her with a caption mentioning her name, thus trivial. The Forbes "profile" link above is more standard PR ~~written by "Forbes Staff", (it does not even have a by-line)~~. I agree with the nom that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few more years this emerging actor will become notable, but at this time, one acting role, Spotify "fans" and famous parents is not enough. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a byline and in my view counts as one piece of significant reliable sources coverage. Another reliable bylined piece in the Hindu here, another bylined piece here, leaning Keep for WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR imvAtlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One film is not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Need at-least three feature films/web series/TV to comply WP:ACTOR. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Two is enough. Guideline says: "multiple" not "several". -Mushy Yank. 14:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage has her meet WP:GNG. At worst a redirect to The_Archies_(film)#Cast is totally warranted so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTRESS. RangersRus (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushi Tiwari

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

WP:PROMO bio of a non-notable actress; roles appear to be minor roles in notable productions and if there are significant roles they are only in non-notable productions, so fails WP:NACTOR. I don't see a WP:GNG pass either; the coverage in the article and in BEFORE is limited to tabloid or unbylined coverage in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the assessment of current sourcing and everything I find in a WP:BEFORE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTRESS. RangersRus (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A case of wp:TOOSOON. No significant coverage no significant roles. Zuck28 (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rehaa Khann

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

Fails WP:GNG Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero evidence of notability, the sources consist of a photo gallery, a press release, and a music video. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References do not support subject's notability as an actress. Fails WP:NACTRESS. B-Factor (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as actress, model and producer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's getting better but not quite there. Please add more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I checked cited sources and did BEFORE, but found no significant coverage in these sources, the News18 and ANI sources are unreliable as both are PR and SPONSORED. Fails GNG and NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 05:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; existing references (photo gallery, press release, music video) do not establish notability. NXcrypto Message 20:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lance Kramer

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

Unsourced biography from 2006. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Comics and animation. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage for someone with a similar name [100], I don't know if it's this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: [101][102] Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't follow WP:GNG and the lack of sources seems like grounds for deletion. Cottagechez (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm yet undecided. He directed a number of episodes, so there should be sources. Most of the article was written by IP editors, but I reached out to Jdb00. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:CREATIVE#3, as having played a major role (directing) in the creation of a notable work The Simpsons, which has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews. I have found one article about him, from 2000, and several reviews of two short animated films of his shown in animation festivals in the early 1990s. Otherwise, I have found sources that confirm his role as director in the episodes of the Simpsons. I think that is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE#3, as they provide verification of his role. (This person is not the same as the Lance Kramer who with his brother Brandon Kramer has made The First Step and Holding Liat - that Lance Kramer will probably be notable too.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that he means CREATIVE#3 as Kramer is not the "creator" of the Simpsons - that would be Matt Groening. And CREATIVE#3 mentions (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). However, the 3 articles mentioned may meet WP:BASIC. Can you put links to the articles here? Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE includes WP:DIRECTOR and other creative professions - it does not mean just the original creator of a series. The wording you quote is about what form coverage of "the significant or well-known work or collective body of work" can take: the work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work, for example ...". Lance Kramer directed 25 episodes of The Simpsons - it seems to me that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. The sources are in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you, as directing 25 episodes is very minor, out of the 783 (and growing) number of The Simpsons episodes. That is less than 5%. Will review the sources later on. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Cronin

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

Completely unreferenced article about an actor. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them and their performances -- but this cites no references at all, and is written in a semi-advertorialized tone that's not complying with WP:NPOV.
As he's a British actor whose strongest claims to potentially passing NACTOR are television roles from 20 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with better access to archived UK media coverage from the noughts can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any referencing. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, England, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG, NACTOR and SIGCOV. Also contains WP:SELFPROMO, as at least one, probably both, of the IP edits is/are by the subject himself. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing in my search that'd contribute towards GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have yet to find independent RS referencing the subject in detail asides from brief mentions of his roles from what I have found so far.Villkomoses (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in 24Seven, Family Affairs and more recently on stage in The Band Back Together, a stage play by Barney Norris which does not yet have a WP article, but has reviews from The Guardian, The Times and The Spectator, which I have added to this article, and is thus clearly notable. He has also had other stage roles, including in a well-reviewed production of Bouncers by John Godber (which also should have a WP article). RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NACTOR - Had two regular roles on main channels in the UK. I have expanded the article slightly. Thank you for explaining RebeccaGreen - I was able to find sources for the works you talked about using the newspaper archive. Perhaps this just needs extra research, a lot of his career was in the 1990s and early 2000s and the link rot obviously means we lost sources for his early roles. I have sourced some early role info using archives.Rain the 1 21:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would request that this stays open longer since the original rationale and subsequent support for deletion is based on an unsourced version of this article [103] - I have sourced more of the actor's early life and career beginnings since my previous comment. Also pinging @Alexeyevitch:@DerbyCountyinNZ:@Villkomoses:@Traumnovelle:@Bearcat: - should I continue trying to expand it?Rain the 1 22:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by RebeccaGreen and the improvement (WP:HEY) done by RainTheOne. The subject is clearly notable and meets NACTOR. There are also multiple newspaper sources discussing the actor that I can email. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The version nominated for deletion was completely unsourced, and I think the work done since to improve the article means Cronin meets WP:NACTOR. - JuneGloom07 Talk 04:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. In particular, there are now three reviews of his work in the Band play. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.