Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Crystal personal.svg WikiProject Biography
General information (edit · changes)
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do (edit)


Biography article statistics

This list is generated automatically on alternate nights.
view full worklist

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.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.

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

Please use on these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page
not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

Contents

People[edit]

Michael Costello (fashion designer)[edit]

Michael Costello (fashion designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Michael Costello (fashion designer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article was proposed for speedy delete (Category A7 - Non notable subject) and was speedy deleted. The article has been subsequently recreated but the subject is no more notable now than on the 18th April 2015. I B Wright (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with LaMona that this looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON but disagree on what should be done about it. Right now, I see one good source that counts toward notabilty, the LA Times article by Tschorn. None of the rest count toward notability for various reasons, most of them either because they're primary sources (including the interviews) or because they're not reliable sources. But WP:GNG requires multiple sources, meaning at least two. One is not enough. Without multiple sources, I have to !vote delete but suggest the article be WP:USERFIED while the search for sources continues. Msnicki (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I was the editor who originally nominated the speedy deletion, and I am beginning to think I may have been a bit hasty in pulling the trigger then. A search of Google News shows that this guy seems to be an actual big deal within the fashion world, at least for now (it is notoriously fickle). However, most of the articles are along the lines of "celebrity X wore a gown by Michael Costello at Event X" and the bulk of the article is about the celebrity and/or the event, rather than being about the guy who made the dress. So the articles mostly support the claims of celebrities wearing his outfits, rather than being about him explicitly. I agree that if the article is deleted, it would be best to userify it so it can be cleaned up and references found. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Raffi Ferreira (Soccer Player)[edit]

Raffi Ferreira (Soccer Player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Raffi Ferreira (Soccer Player)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable soccer player, fails WP:NCOLLATH. After I BLPPROD'ed the article original creator added two sources with very minimal mentions from a primary source. Does not meet the threshold for "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:FOOTY. Out of the three sources, two are self-published published by the college itself, and the third merely copies the first. Not to mention the promotional tone. Refined searches in Google return but a few hundred links to various social networks. Victão Lopes Fala! 03:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    Oops, didn't notice that 3rd source due to the poor formatting, but yeah, still doesn't resolve the notability issues. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom МандичкаYO 😜 08:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Subject fails notability, and the article is without support. It's a mudpie of text, too. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Daniel "Gotts" chalkford[edit]

Daniel "Gotts" chalkford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Daniel "Gotts" chalkford" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial references. reddogsix (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as all my searches found nothing aside from a few News links and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's nothing to suggest that is an option. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hoshei Darius[edit]

Hoshei Darius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hoshei Darius" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I see no references other than ones on Facebook. Eddie 17:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 18:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I am beginning to believe that this is part of a hoax. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iury Snow. Definitely does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Another dubious article about a "successful" underground Croatian boxer. Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Facebook is not a reliable or independent source. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Searches through News and Books quickly found nothing and all sources are social media or otherwise self-published. Even simply look at what a browser search finds, seven results all from Facebook. Absolutely nothing to suggest this is a notable boxer. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Anuthida Ploypetch[edit]

Anuthida Ploypetch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Anuthida Ploypetch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

We don't need an article about every person who took part in a reality TV show. Fails WP:N Rayukk (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Sources do not show any coverage other than in show report. Her performance in the show has not generated any coverage, let alone anything else she did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


Katharina Wandrowsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Katharina Wandrowsky" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

We don't need an article about every person who took part in a reality TV show. Fails WP:N Rayukk (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. The title of the German wep page given as source translates as Gossip and chit-chat. --Ben Ben (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Paul Street (journalist)[edit]

Paul Street (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Paul Street" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC. While it appears Street has written many opinion pieces and some articles, it does not appear that any reliable, independent news outlet, publication or periodical have written about him. Also, the word "journalist" to describe Street does not appear accurate for a researcher and historian who writes his opinions. The three sources in the article are not reliable citations. A search did not find articles about him from 3rd-party sources. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weakest keep: The article reads exactly like a press release sent to a booking agent. It's a brag sheet. The nominator is right that calling this subject "journalist" is inaccurate for his profession, but it's as a "journalist" that the person would be discussed/known outside of teaching. As an editorialist and provocateur, he'll have quotations and responses about. I'm not sure when that ceases to be "to" him and begins to function as "about" him, but I would just barely go over the line to 'keep' here. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've attempted to make the article more encyclopaedic and read less like a press release. I've added some more refs and fix a couple of broken ones. Web-searching for a person named Street isn't straight forward. I believe Street to be notable, although more references would be preferable.Jonpatterns (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    Comment -By adding more unreliable sources, you have cemented the point that there appears to be no reliable and/or significant coverage of Street. Adding more unreliable refs does not make him notable. The TeleSUR source is listed on the site as opinion and it shows that it was written by Street, therefore, it is not a reliable, 3rd-party ref. The HuffPost piece, which is a blog, has a half line at the bottom along with a dozen others, mentioning something the subject wrote, but the subject is not mentioned in the HuffPost piece. You also cited a prnewswire.com post, which is a promotional site. Before working further on the article, you might familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing articles. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Whether a source is reliable or depends on what they are being used for. You are right that the sources you mention do not prove notability, the TeleSUR ref is to show he has written for TeleSUR, the Huffington Post is to show he worked at Chicago Urban League and the prnewswire is a record of his role at Chicago Urban League.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In the New Statesman article that is cited as a ref, just one sentence is about a book by Street - which illustrates the lack of substantial coverage of this subject to warrant an article on Wikipedia. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete I ran a series of searches on the titles of his books that failed to turn up reviews. Only exception was 2 reviews of the co-authored book, "Crashing the Tea Party: Mass Media and the Campaign to Remake American Politics", both in fringe sources [1], and [2]. Like Nom, I failed to turn up secondary sources that discuss him and his work, aside from the single sentence in New Statesman. Moreover, writing essays, op-eds and opinion pieces does not make you a journalist. I did not check all of the fringe outlets where article states that he has "written for" However a search of his name in ChicagoTribune.com; and HNN.org; failed to substantiate the assertion that he has "written for" either the the Tribune or History News Network.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory:Here are a couple of articles he has written for the Chicago Tribute Jonpatterns (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC):-
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-06-17/news/0306170320_1_major-league-baseball-fans-wrigley-field
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-11-06/news/9711060008_1_city-contracts-corruption-in-city-hall-ordinance
He is also mentioned in these articles, mainly to do with his research:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-06-20/news/0306210282_1_cubs-lovable-losers-unlovable
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-15/features/0601150375_1_chicago-freedom-movement-marquette-park-north-lawndale/2
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-11-23/news/0411230329_1_working-poor-families-poverty-line-chicago-urban-league
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-11-02/news/0311020179_1_job-training-jackson-spokeswoman-chicago-urban-league
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-05-28/business/0305280276_1_black-males-white-applicants-affirmative-action
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-09-28/business/0309270285_1_associate-degrees-cards-grads
Regarding History News Network, it appear just one article of his was syndicated from Dissident Voice http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/39738.
  • I'll be back later to take a closer look. (What an annoying website the Trib has). Here's the Street mention in the 2004 article. ""Many families are living in poverty even when the parents are engaged in work," said Paul Street, vice president for research and planning at the Chicago Urban League. "Nobody, working or non-working, should be poor in the richest nation in the world."

The study compared census data from 1989 and 1999. It found, among other things, that three-quarters of people who head families living near or below the poverty line earned just $13,001 a year.

"It's distressing," said Street, a co-author of the study. "The American Dream depends on the idea that if you work, you should be OK. This is a core, I think widely accepted, American value."E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • First, a salute to User:Jonpatterns, searching the Trib it was easy to find an op-ed or 2 by Street, those don't contribute to notability. To find the rest of these he had to comb through pages of hits on "St. Paul Street", and I admire Patterns for having realized that doing so would, eventually, find articles that quote this Street. The site is annoyingly clunky (locks you in). And you then have to read down the page searching for Street. So, with apologies for length, Here are the mentions:
  • "The differences between White Sox and Cubs fans are bigger than not being able to agree on who has the better first baseman.

"There's an aspect of class and race to it, there always has been," said Dr. Paul Street, a researcher with the Chicago Urban League and an avowed Sox fan. The South Side and North Side both have histories that include fans with blue-collar, working-class backgrounds, Street said, but it's changed over the years, so any argument invariably brings up which group of fans better represents the city. "There really is this sense that we're the legitimate, lunch-bucket, Kowalski, South Side, working-class fans down here that appreciate baseball," Street said. "[Cubs fans] are the Lake Shore, Armani-wearing, cell phone-toting yuppies."

  • "Today, the Chicago area ranks as the fifth most residentially segregated metropolitan area by race in the United States, according to a recent Urban League study, "Still Separate, Unequal: Race, Place, Policy and the State of Black Chicago" written by Paul Street."
  • Paul Street, vice president for research and planning at the Chicago Urban League, said that as blue-collar jobs have left the city limits for the tax shelters of suburbs and the low wages of foreign countries, nothing has filled the void. He said money spent on education would help to fix the problem.

"Job training is well proven by research to have big payoffs for unemployed populations," Street said. "You reduce the unemployment rate exponentially when you give people skills." The current "vicious cycle" that urban youths find themselves in cannot be stopped without a serious injection of education programs to make them more appealing to businesses, Street said. "Being incarcerated has almost become a normal experience in black urban life," Street said. "If we could take some money out of [jails] and put it into job training, the benefits would be enormous."

  • Dr. Paul Street, vice president for research and planning for the Chicago Urban League, said the study looked at the suburbs because they have the region's fastest job growth.

"Conventional wisdom in the country right now is that racism in any meaningful sense is largely over," said Street. But "disparities still exist." He is author of "The Color of Opportunity: Race, Place, Policy and Labor Market Inequality in the Chicago Metropolitan Area," a research paper released jointly with the hiring study. Street said employers are reluctant to hire blacks, especially black males, because they are afraid they will steal from them or be unable to relate to white customers because of differences in speech patterns and education levels. "They don't think blacks can interact with white customers." Street believes that if it were done today, the disparities would be even worse due to the impact of the poor economy. Government statistics bear this out. Typically, the unemployment rate among blacks is twice that of whites and worsens in a recession. In April 2000, during boom times, the black unemployment rate was 7 percent, the lowest it had been in three years. Last month, the national jobless rate was 6 percent, but among blacks it was 10.9 percent--compared to 5.2 percent for whites. Street calls the study "a smoking gun," saying it illustrates that changing perceptions is a persistent problem.

  • Inequality in the labor market: Racial injustice hasn't gone away, according to a recent study by Paul Street, vice president of research and planning for the Chicago Urban League. The report also was authored by the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago.

According to Street, "when similarly qualified black and white applicants apply for entry-level managerial jobs in retail companies in Chicago's suburbs, white applicants have a 21 percent higher chance of being contacted for an interview." And, when matched pairs of African-American and white women applied in person, whites received more job offers than African-Americans. The study, titled "Racial Preference and Suburban Employment Opportunities," refutes the notion that racism is no longer a significant problem for African-American job seekers.

  • That's everything in the Trib, except the 2 opinion pieces. The History New Net online republication of the opinion piece form Diddident Voice is interesting because it offers a potted bio:"[Veteran radical historian, journalist, and speaker Paul Street is an anti-centrist political commentator located in Iowa City. Street is the author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2004), Segregated Schools: Educational Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (New York, NY: Routledge, 2005), and Still Separate, Unequal: Race, Place, and Policy in Chicago (Chicago, 2005) and The Empire and Inequality Report. Street's next book is Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis: A Living Black Chicago History (New York: Rowman and Littlefied, 2007). ]" I'm still thinking about this one. Because significant, independently sourced reviews of his books and profiles of him and his career are still lacking. And because with the Tribune pieces that quote him do so as an employee (who co-wrote a a study) of and spokesman for the Urban League, I'm still leaning towards delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ajša Selimović[edit]

Ajša Selimović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ajša Selimović" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

We don't need an article about every person who took part in a reality TV show. Fails WP:N Rayukk (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Being a participant in a reality TV show does not automatically make one notable. The person either has to do something else, or we have to demonstrate their participation recieved multiple sources of coverage outside of the show itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The Pedruco Sisters[edit]

The Pedruco Sisters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Pedruco Sisters" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Nearly unsourced BLP. Fails WP:GNG. Includes unrelated fancruft The Banner talk 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. In the meantime, I will remove all of the article portions talking about the pageants. Even the information box is unrelated to the BLP. --TTTommy111 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Cynthia Chisom Umezulike[edit]

Cynthia Chisom Umezulike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cynthia Chisom Umezulike" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "Cynthia Chisom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Does not meet WP:BASIC. Several source searches are not providing significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Sources in the article are mostly blogs, webzines and directory listings. There is this article from The Nigerian Voice, which appears to be reliable as per their About us page, but not finding much else to qualify an article. North America1000 14:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to me we should create an article on her father. He seems to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article for father can be started; but as for notability, there probably isn't any with my searches only finding browser which found links such this. Aside from this, I found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 16:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Extradition, the Right of Asylum, and Julian Assange[edit]

Extradition, the Right of Asylum, and Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Extradition, the Right of Asylum, and Julian Assange" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Does not qualify as a standalone article per WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. There may be a possibility of some of the content in the article's "Julian Assange as a case study" section being selectively merged to Julian Assange, but not in its present form as a "case study." North America1000 14:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nomination: great essay title but not a suitable title for an encyclopedia article. Any useful content can be merged.TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No brainer per nom. It's an originally researched essay.  Philg88 talk 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, there really isn't any valid content here to merge, but if anyone can find bits that would be useful, I would agree with that. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete At first I thought this was a title of a book, in which case there might be some notability, depending. However as it stands it is not encyclopedia, and has no place in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR--Antigng (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Patience Bacon Miller[edit]

Patience Bacon Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Patience Bacon Miller" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Furthermore, there are significant problems in verifying content in the article, as is being discussed on its talk page. North America1000 13:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Their only claims of notability are that they were the "first recorded woman physician and surgeon in America" and "founder of Northampton, Massachusetts"- neither of these has a reference. If they were the first recorded person, why can no-one find this record? Fails WP:GNG as a result. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The claim that she was a physician is found in various genealogy texts, like [3], but it's just a mention in the midst of a large list of "begats." So there is a reference but it is scant. LaMona (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of verification and the extraordinary claim. The period being discussed is one without "physician surgeons" in general. Surgery was still generally done by the "barber surgeons" before the Civil War. Physicians were still generally medical and avoided surgery. This is even excepting the gender problem, which would have been tougher in that field than nearly any other. Also, umm, isn't this locating her in Virginia Dare territory? Hithladaeus (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tanishq Abraham[edit]

Tanishq Abraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tanishq Abraham" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP:BLP1E, a child genius covered in the context of one event (being a young genius and MENSA member) that would be non-notable apart from this. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Article asserts several things this child is notable for, and provides WP:RS. I have removed much of the united poorly written promotional content to clean it up a little, but it still needs some more work. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: At present, it's still "world's tallest man in the county." It puts a lot of credence, if not veneration, in Mensa, and otherwise it credits a prodigy for having been a prodigy. Academic achievements are awfully transitory. On the other hand, he may well soon do something amazing that will generate loads of RS notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Lawson[edit]

Charlie Lawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Charlie Lawson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Completely unsourced, has been for years. The one "reference" is a website selling a book. The book does not sound impartial. Article has a dedicated speculations and rumour section. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Subject is clearly notable and there are other sources and it appears in newspaper archives. This book is semi-rare and kept isolated in Reference rooms under the eyes of librarians because copies were often stolen. Subject of song "The Murder of the Lawson Family" by Stanley Brothers. Article 1, Article 2, Documentary, This book and this one in addition to the one in the article. There is also wide coverage in sources of that era, particularly contemporary newspapers (not immediately online). Very disappointed that the nominator made zero effort in finding sources.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
And I'm disappointed that nobody else had ever made an effort, until you came along. You wouldn't be here if I hadn't nominated it. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
"You wouldn't be here if I hadn't nominated it." We don't want to be here. That reply reveals an ignorance of the deletion process. Please study WP:BEFORE and take note of Part B. Carry out these checks, #2 "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." and Part D. "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform."
Filing AfD's without doing your due diligence is unacceptable and if you make a habit of it, it may be seen as disruptive. Do this again and we'll be seeking out a ban from you filing another AfD. Your nomination is lazy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Lazy or not, it was far more productive than slapping a "Multiple issues" tag on a piece of original research, and calling it a day for over six years. These things should be deleted, and brought back after someone drafts a reasonably proper article. Leaving it up till whenever that is doesn't make sense. Just sends the message that verifiability and notabilty are merely preferred, and publishing garbage is Wikipedia's second choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
No, it wasn't productive. Trying now to belittle my editing when you have done nothing to improve the article at all? You're in no position to critique as you've done nothing to fix it. But we'll see what others think of your actions as this AfD runs its course.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to belittle your editing, I didn't even know you touched the page. I'm just saying the article is garbage, and this clearly led to sources appearing on the Talk Page. Those make it a little better, so it was productive. I'd bet this survives an AfD, so if you want to clean that turd up using those sources, you'll be undoubtedly more productive than I've been. I'm not looking to win a contest or make an enemy here. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:38, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - zero effort nom. notable per WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article could be improved, because there are sources that could help it now. I suspect the article was written when there was less online than now. (I hear that in the early days, state historical societies were only spotty in their online sourcing and people used to have to rely on paper.) However, this is an infamous crime from a time when the nation could be shocked by a murder. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment So that they don't get lost, I added some of the links above to the talk page for the article. LaMona (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Clare Potter (poet)[edit]

Clare Potter (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Clare Potter (poet)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Unable to find evidence she is an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. No evidence her work has won significant critical attention. Little depth of coverage in reliable sources, except for interviews or self-published works. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - I created this stub due to a low-level subtle harassment campaign by an IP apparently stalking (VERY old) Clare Potter-related edits I had made (making "reversions" camouflaged as edits so that I got big fat red notices that my edits had been reverted when the actual edits made appeared legit to anyone else... a real system gamer.) immediately after the blocking of another (seemingly unconnected) IP-range hopper who was definitely stalking/harassing me via reverting random older edits. For some reason they chose to latch onto Clare Potter-related edits for this targeted behaviour. So I created the stub to kibosh their reverts to an edit I'd made to the incorrect link target (to the article for the designer Clare Potter). I have no feelings either way on this subject, I just wanted it to be known WHY the article was created because it is not something I would otherwise have bothered with. So if it's deleted, it's no skin off my nose. Just making sure there's a record as to WHY the stub was created. Mabalu (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's always hard to find sources on poets, and Welsh poets are harder even that most. I did find Potter listed in these web sites: Writers of Wales, Interview, paragraph. I'll note these on the talk page. LaMona (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unfortunately, even the recently cited notices are not quite sufficient, as one is a WordPress site, and it's darned difficult to assess the strength of the other "national" poetry groups mentioning the poet. Add to that the fact that the poet "performs" her work, and we don't see it as being listed as published in a book yet, and we've got a poet who doesn't pass the current notability guidelines. Again, poets don't generate a lot of ink, so that's a given, but there is a huge puff industry surrounding poetry that obscures the little bit of legitimate (juried/edited) assessment. (The Poetry Foundation and Poetry Magazine hasn't heard of her, but that doesn't mean anything much.) Hithladaeus (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Addison (Scottish writer)[edit]

Joseph Addison (Scottish writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Joseph Addison (Scottish writer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:AUTHOR. The subject wrote only one, evidently non-notable (Held in only 14 libraries according to WorldCat [4]), book. The article makes no claim of notability beyond writing a single book. JbhTalk 11:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find virtually no independent coverage about the life of this writer falls way short of GNG --nonsense ferret 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Google and HighBeam return nothing that shows the subject meets notability criteria. --NeilN talk to me 13:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough to be encyclopedic in the context of authors. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I did in fact find a source for his sole novel, Encyclopedia of Literature in Canada - Page 1020 is about "Tesseracts anthologies and the subsequent emergence of Tesseract Books (not to be confused with Tesser- act, 1988, a weak SF novel by Joseph Addison)." Very persuasive of the appropriateness of deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: One can find more evidence of the author's existence (the Ox. Companion that merely lists all books published in a year; National Union Catalog), but that's not sufficient, I'm afraid, and the poor guy will always be dwarfed by his namesake, Atticus (a Dunciad allusion). Hithladaeus (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Makes no substantive claim of notability that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE, and doesn't cite nearly enough reliable source coverage to claim WP:GNG instead. I also note from the edit history that the article was previously tagged for prod as an unsourced BLP, but the creator removed the tag with the edit summary "No references? Why don't you try READING THE ARTICLE?!" — but while the article does list an external link, that link is to a source which fails to satisfy GNG or to demonstrate any reason why he would qualify for a Wikipedia article on any criterion more substantive than "he exists". Mere existence is not what gets a writer into Wikipedia, however — reliable source coverage, supporting a substantive claim of notability, is what it takes. But that's lacking. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Basil Joseph[edit]

Basil Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Basil Joseph" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Director who falls under too soon and may not pass notability guidelines. Wgolf (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - TheChampionMan1234 00:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - TheChampionMan1234 00:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete for now as my first two searches here and here found links but not much significant and there's no target for moving the article elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Shamoun Hanna Haydo[edit]

Shamoun Hanna Haydo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shamoun Hanna Haydo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Even after making every possible allowance for systemic bias, there's apparently just no indication of notability of this person. The only source for the article is this, not WP:RS and now a dead link. The initial version of our article was identical to that page, which is copyrighted 2007; either it was copied from there, in which case it is an outright copyright violation; or that page copied from us, in which case it cannot be a source. In neither case do I see that we can keep this content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - also want to avoid systemic bias, and all signs point to him meeting GNG. From what I can tell there is no common way to spell this guy's name. Assyrian people speak an Aramaic language which my browser likes to render as all squares. The Syriacs today are mainly in northern Iraq, Iran and Syria. In Turkish, it's "Şemune Hanne Haydo" - here's a Turkish-language academic paper written about him (has an English summary). Since he trolled the Turks I wouldn't expect much in Turkish. This French blog here (Chamoun Hanna Haydo) says he saved many people during the 1915 Assyrian genocide. These videos here and here feature a guy singing songs about him. Someone left the comment saying "Chamoun Hanna Haydo! The great Aramean Warrior!" I'm going to ask WikiProject Assyria for help in locating RS to support my keep. I don't know how active they are but hopefully will get some help. МандичкаYO 😜 19:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sara Foroozani[edit]

Sara Foroozani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sara Foroozani" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable academic. 2 of the papers listed as publications appear to be conference papers only, no evidence her work is widely read or cited. Fails WP:SCHOLAR, sources provide no evidence this person satisfies GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't find anything, tried to find Farsi sources, no luck МандичкаYO 😜 15:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is possible that a 24 year old has academic accomplishments, but such a thing would be exceedingly rare. In the humanities, in particular, a career isn't well enough established to be referred to by others until a decade later, at least. There aren't indications in the article that the subject passes the guidelines, either, so this may be accidental vanity or a misunderstanding. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no real claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG .–Davey2010Talk 01:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Can find no indication of notability. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Chowdhury Hasan Sarwardy[edit]

Chowdhury Hasan Sarwardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Chowdhury Hasan Sarwardy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Military officer with trivial coverage in two related news; doesn't have significant coverage. nafSadh did say 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't find significant coverage, I don't think the award it mentions satisfies WP:ANYBIO, “Senabahini Padak” all comes back to his WP article so who knows what it is. I put his name in Bengali on the page and though there are a huge number of results, outside of some brief articles mentioning his promotions, he's only giving quotes or getting mentioned. МандичкаYO 😜 14:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete because there isn't any significant and notable coverage with searches here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The articles say to me he is notable. He coordianted major operations. Just because Western Media choose to not give coverage to the actions of Bangladeshi generals does not mean they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER, which while an essay is the accepted standard for military bios amongst those of us who write them. No article on an American or British officer of this rank would have a hope of being deleted. We need to combat systemic bias, which is obviously going to exist against individuals from countries like Bangladesh which don't dump everything onto the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Only a few Bangladeshi army officers of this rank. The article can be improved but should not be deleted.Sarwardy received the gallantry award 'Bir Bikrom' for displaying courage during a counterinsurgency operation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, he captured the enemy camp after he had been shot. Bir Bikrom (Bengali: বীর বিক্রম; literally, "Valiant hero" in Bengali) is the third highest gallantry award in Bangladesh. There is systemic bias against articles about non-western topics. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Lt Generals are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Unless those advocating for deletion are fluent in Bengali and have searched sources in that language calling for deletion is premature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Nader Soltanpour[edit]

Nader Soltanpour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nader Soltanpour" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:BIO. Only one of the article's references is about the person (a brief bio sketch at his employer, BBC), rather they are news stories he was involved in. Found one source behind a paywall [5] but there doesn't appear to be robust independent sourcing. Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I can't find the obituary. Whatever else, it appears that he is still living and broadcasting on BBC. Jpbrenna (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

John Magno[edit]

John Magno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "John Magno" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Adrian Roks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Adrian Roks" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Standalone WP:BLPs of two people notable exclusively for having been convicted of a relatively obscure crime. They were previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Magno in 2008, in a discussion which closed on a consensus to merge them into a single article about the event rather than standalone BLPs of them as people — but while that article got created at Woodbine Supply fire, the BLPs never actually got redirected to it, but simply stuck around as standalone WP:BLP1Es despite the AFD consensus. They still don't warrant their own separate articles independently of the main one on the event itself — but since it's been seven years, I feel it's necessary to establish a new consensus to either redirect or delete them, rather than simply relying on the original discussion as enough support for an arbitrary action. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

[Note: I've modified my wording here slightly, because I don't want to give the impression that I'm accusing anybody of deliberately ignoring the prior AFD consensus — I fully accept and understand that this was an accidental oversight rather than an intentional flout, so I've reworded the parts that could potentially be perceived as implying malfeasance.] Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect (and delete). This seems to have just been an oversight of the original decision. LaMona (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Woodbine Supply fire. I created the event article independently some time after the discussions mentioned by Bearcat and wasn't aware that they took place until I came across this thread today. When I created the fire article I kept the sections on those two deliberately short because they already had their own articles, but I agree that both are primarily notable just for their involvement in the fire, so expanding those sections in the fire article is better. However, the history of the two bios would be required for attribution, and history-merging doesn't make sense. As for the fire itself, it is notable for being one of the largest fires (according to sources) in Toronto's history, for being a fatal insurance fraud, and for Magno and Roks having been charged under an unusual part of the Criminal Code (all as indicated by sources). Ivanvector (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Woodbine Supply fire as per User:Ivanvector. Heaven preserve us from greed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Jemma Baines[edit]

Jemma Baines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jemma Baines" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

promotional article without reliable 3rd party source. The designation as "australia's top model"by a website in not a RS, and the rest is home-town coverage only (tho admittedly Adelaide is a big city) DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Gerry Adams, Sr.[edit]

Gerry Adams, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gerry Adams, Sr." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Delete or merge with Gerry Adams; obviously non-notable in own right. Only notable as father of Gerry Adams. Quis separabit? 00:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The claim to notability would be as an important figure in the PIRA in his own right. The Guardian describes him as "important in the emergence of the Provisional IRA in 1970" as well as a "seminal" influence on his son's politics.[7] The Times ("Militant Irish republican who helped to mould the Provisional IRA and influenced his son’s hard line")[8] and (UK) Independent[9] also carried obituaries though the latter doesn't give him much importance except through his son. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"as well as a "seminal" influence on his son's politics." -- sorry but notability is not inherited -- in either direction. Quis separabit? 22:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The Independent also carried obituaries though the latter doesn't give him much importance except through his son". Quis separabit? 22:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
If you have an influence on the political thinking of an important political figure, that seems to be a claim to notability, whether or not he's your son. I'm also not sure why you're quoting random bits from my reply; it looks a bit aggressive, or at best psittacine. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure Adams Sr was a veritable Machiavelli. As for the quotes, hey, I am just trying to bolster my argument using street alley tabloid tactics. Now that you mention it, I do suffer from psittacinism. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough independent coverage to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously due to significant coverage. Those claiming "notability is not inherited" do not understand the essay they are quoting. Le petit fromage (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep given the Guardian and Times descriptions and indications of his role in the development of the Provisional IRA. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. If a major newspaper claims "was important in the emergence of the Provisional IRA in 1970", it seems sufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: The Guardian has coverage, but there are consistent references to his role these days. I know that BBC World Service, the last time it talked about Gerry Adams (that I heard), talked about his father's having been involved in the PIRA. (I.e. if I know he was active in PIRA, then there's coverage, because I don't tune in on that history.) Hithladaeus (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Zhenya Gershman[edit]

Zhenya Gershman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Zhenya Gershman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Promotional article on a subject of questionable notability, largely not supported by the given references. The only detailed profile in a reliable source I could find is this Le Monde article, which basically says the scholarly community has largely ignored her discovery. That's consistent with Google Scholar which shows a single citation. Coverage of Gershman as an artist, as opposed to an art historian, is little better and largely confined to blogs or reproductions of her organization's profile. Huon (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep This Zhenya Gershman article is accurately reflecting Gershman as an artist and should not be deleted. Her work is in major public and private art collections and has been on display in numerous international Art Fairs and art complex Bergamot Station, and has been extensively covered by Huffington Post, Monsters and Critics, Arte Al Limite, Jewish Journal, Hollywood Today, Campus Circle to name a few sources. Her work as an art historian is evidenced by her publications in Arion journal for Classics published by Boston University and was featured by Le Monde. She has since, presented her Rembrandt research in academic conferences including AANS Grand Rapids and up-coming conference at Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sini zaichik (talkcontribs) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Sini zaichik (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sini zaichik (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • KeepArticle is true, not promotional, and should not be deleted. The citations provide background to Gershman as a renowned artist with abundant 3rd party evidence. Gershman's published research will be presented at an international conference in Paris in May 2015.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy chessman (talkcontribs) Jeremy chessman (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Jeremy chessman (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Opened a sockpuppet investigation for the SPAs. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment According to Wikki policy this article is qualified for posting and should not be deleted:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

In addition to her exhibition history a TV series and a documentary film has been created about Gershman's work.Jon Deen (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Jon Deen (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete - I'm inclined to delete simply because she hasn't received solid, significant and notable coverage as shown here, here, a browser search found some of the same results, highbeam found two results and nothing at thefreelibrary. Scholar found a few results but nothing that actually looks significant. If she were notable, I would think she could get better and a little more major news coverage than Jewish Journal and Huffington Post. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister please take a look at the references to Gershman as artist. She is indeed notable as reflected by Hollywood Today featuring Gershman's portrait of Bruce Springsteen for the Grammys!, and the documentary film dedicated to her work, Russian RIA Novosti discussing her family and exhibition background, among many other relevant sources.Jon Deen (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - The citation style is messed up, but I agree she meets GNG based on the links at the article now, and the documentary. Sources repeatedly refer to her as "renowned" (supported by this). She's not really an "official" art historian or academic but an artist and "independent scholar." Also, as far as the Le Monde article, I don't think it is as dismissive as nominator portrays ("basically says the scholarly community has largely ignored her discovery", no that's not what it basically says) and I find this annoys me. I would hope this does not influence anyone's vote. Having a good-size feature in Le Monde on your Rembrandt theory is no small feat. What this article basically says is, "Artist believes she has spotted Rembrandt painted into his painting at the Hermitage. Not that rare, as he did this often, and Gershman assumes it has been already discussed, only to discover it has not. Director of the Getty Museum, a noted Rembrandt restorer, is intrigued and encourages her to write an article. Other artist publicly supports this theory. So why hasn't it been widely discussed among art experts? Well, there is the Rembrandt Research Project, which has jokingly been called the Rembrandt Mafia, which dominate this area of research. We have to admit it's true, in general art experts/historians detest "amateurs" ie regular artists. In summary, isn't a testimony of great art the many interpretations it brings?" (Artist slams "the Rembrandt mafia" here, nothing to do with Gershman.) Regardless, ongoing coverage of her as an artist is sufficient to meet GNG. МандичкаYO 😜 00:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on everyone's input I rephrased the article: In addition to her artistic career, Gershman is an independent scholar and a museum educator. Gershman's discovery of a hidden Rembrandt self-portrait in his painting Danaë was published in the classics journal Arion, Boston University and covered in France’s Le Monde newspaper[4].

I added additional references. Including citing her work at the Getty, US NEWS REPORT, and adding a source for a documentary film about her artwork. Thank you everyone for the comments and especially to Wikimandia.Jon Deen (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote above struck as you're only allowed to vote once. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Thanks - up-dated to commentJon Deen (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The HuffPo coverage - all of it, as far as I can tell - is by LuxEco Living. Gershman is a LuxEco Living contributor. I rather doubt that can be considered independent coverage of her. The US News piece is by the executive producers of the documentary about Gershman, not an independent review. This looks like another independent source until you notice it's submitted by Project AWE, which in effect is Gershman. There are some sources that look like reliable third-party sources at a glance, but few withstand closer scrutiny. I'd say the most telling is the "independent scholar" piece Мандичка brought up; that argues she has "convincingly" demonstrated several fringe theories such as that Rembrandt was a Freemason or that "his name is not what scholars think!" I don't think it's a reliable source, but it shows how far from the academic mainstream Gershman's historical work is. Huon (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to talk - even if you disregard Huffington Post entries (which I think is unfair) we are still left with Le Monde discussing Gershman's work on Rembrandt, Hollywood Today featuring Gershman's portrait of Bruce Springsteen for the Grammys!, and the documentary film dedicated to her work, Russian RIA Novosti discussing her family and exhibition background, among many other relevant sources. Her work as an INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR is to take on the mainstream -- that does not devalue it and is supported as can be seen by the Academia as she is presenting at one of France's most prestigious academic venue Bibliotheque Nationale as talked about 3rd party Monster's and Critics (no affiliations there!). I don't think this is to be ignored!Jon Deen (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentМандичка you brought up some great points. To add, though the figure in the Rembrandt's Danaee was obvious no one was able to identify it correctly until Gershman's discovery published by Arion, Boston University. Instead the Rembrandt scholars have confused this figure to be an "old maid" not only being wrong in the identification of a subject but even the attribution of gender! As you accurately quoted, Le Monde points out the "Rembrandt Mafia" wants to hold-on to how they choose to define Rembrandt. Le Monde article shows that Gershman is not afraid to challenge this, and did receive encouragement from David Bomford, then acting director of The J. Paul Getty Museum and one of world's most important Rembrandt conservators.Jon Deen (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with (Мандичка) and (talk). In addition I found a 3-part TV documentary featuring Gershman's career: ICN TV. I strongly believe that Zhenya Gershman article meets GNG based on the links at the article provided now, and the added TV and documentary. As shown, numerous sources repeatedly refer to her as "renowned" and the fact that her discovery was featured by Le Monde speaks volumes in favor of her notability. Jeremy chessman (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In Gershman's favor of notability as an artist (in addition to all mentioned above):

1. See short film created about Gershman's portrait of Bob Dylan for the GRAMMYS, also featured by JLTV 2. See EXTRA TV covering Joe Manginello at Gershman's exhibition who acquired Gershman his portrait as a gift for Sofia Vargara 3. See Larger Than Life Exhibition by Gershman covered by Red Carpet TV featuring her portraits of celebrity including Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicolson, and Bryan Cranston also covered by Art Week LA and Monsters and Critics. 4. See international magazine Arte Al Limite for a full feature on Gershman's Art. 5. Why is Jewish Journal disregarded by User talk:SwisterTwister? It is one one of most read journals in Los Angeles! This issue is a valuable feature article on Gershman's career. 6. Gershman's work has been exhibited by major international art fairs including Art Chicago, Art Platform LA, San Francisco Art Market, Art Miami and is currently on display at LGBT LA Center. 7. Gershman's art was also featured by Zocalo Public Square. I don't see how this can be ignored on the basis is of "questionable notability".Jon Deen (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I must point out that Zhenya Gershman Article is NOT promotional and does NOT "reproduce" her organization's profile. The two vary in information though obviously there is nominal overlap since it is the same subject! Zhenya Gershman article does not promote her organization, instead it sates objectively her contributions to the field of art that are undeniable, unless one objects to her under the cover of disliking Women, Russians, Jews, or individuals supporting LGBT cause. Jon Deen (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete not yet notable, either as WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE: The Prof part is clear enough--she has one one paper on a single picture. That's a good start to building a career, but it does not rise to the extent of being an authority of Rembrandt. When she publishes an academic monograph on him , then ehe will meet WP:PROF. As for being an artist, she does not yet have a painting in a major museum. The articles says she is going to a portrait in a new museum that is scheduled to open in 2017. I do not know if the museum will or will not be considered a major museum, , but if it is, she'll be notable by WP:CREATIVE in 2017. Notability would therefore seem to depend on the publicity for the short film, The Model's Artist. A major motion picture about someone can result in notability. This is a minor motion picture without a WP article. Acting in it, even in the central role, is not notability. So what the actual news stories are about is not things we consider notability, and the external links are promotional fluff. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Brian Lisus[edit]

Brian Lisus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brian Lisus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

no evidence for notability, He does not derive notability for the names he placed on a violin. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Maybe delete for now as searches here (same links listed), here (nothing that appears useful), here and here but nothing solid, significant and notable. I would've suggested moving elsewhere to save it but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There are 3 RS: the Ventura County Star, the Independent, and the Strad. The article is stubbish, but the sources are solid. I added a bit more info, but did not exhaust the possibilities. LaMona (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yvette Rachelle[edit]

Yvette Rachelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yvette Rachelle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Actress/model who seems to have not much going for notability as well as TONS of unsourced info on her. It is interesting to note that the creator of the article is named Yvettefan. Wgolf (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I should add that she does sound noble I will admit, and if someone can start to make this page better maybe I'll withdraw. Wgolf (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
AfD is not cleanup. North America1000 02:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of that-but I am not putting a AFD for cleanup but rather if it should be deleted or not. Wgolf (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid using the caveat of considering withdrawal based upon editors here working on the article. The minimum needed herein for article retention in this case is proof of notability; while article improvements are desirable, they're not a requirement of the process here. North America1000 02:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete: There are only two sources, one of which is IMdB, which is not really a reliable source, and the second one is her own website. We don't like to use primary sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is the only article I found that mentions something that is not just a listing of her name in a cast МандичкаYO 😜 08:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Serge April[edit]

Serge April (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Serge April" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable, and this one only gets minor coverage. marked for notability concerns for over 2 years and no improvement made to article. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Penny Reedie[edit]

Penny Reedie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Penny Reedie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. I could only find minor coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

2014 Santa Ana kidnapping case[edit]

2014 Santa Ana kidnapping case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2014 Santa Ana kidnapping case" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Clearly doesn't meet any standards for notability, as I haven't even heard of this case before. It sounds more like local-level news coverage. It is also poorly written, with no attempt by the creator or anyone else involved to fix it whatsoever. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep -"Clearly doesn't meet any standards for notability, as I haven't even heard of this case before" I must have missed WP:OTLHHOAN (Only Things Libertarian12111971 Has Heard of Are Notable). Last I heard kidnapping a girl, keeping her captive for 10 years and impregnating her is not run of the mill "local-level" stuff.... If that's a common occurrence in your community, I think you should seriously reconsider relocating. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], gazillion articles en espagnol МандичкаYO 😜 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Nearly all of the coverage is restricted to a couple of days when the news broke, other than a minor blip when he pleaded not guilty. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
yes, not guilty.... which guarantees there will be further legal proceedings. I don't think anyone could seriously suggest there will be no more news coverage. Unless, like the nominator, they're apparently neighbors with Buffalo Bill and think this is a pleasant human interest story for the local news. МандичкаYO 😜 21:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Clearly not notable. CitiV (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Poorly written, definitely not notable. 75.80.160.109 (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:UGLY.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:EVENT , long term notability is not established through persistent coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is still receiving coverage. Arrested guy claims he and girl were "in love", [17], [18], [19] He is going on trial. МандичкаYO 😜 14:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per reliable sources provided be Wikimandia. Subject received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources therefore meeting WP:GNG. However, as an event, it must meet WP:PERSISTENCE; due to continuing coverage of the case, that is in-depth, the event meets PERSISTENCE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter Murray (journalist)[edit]

Peter Murray (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Peter Murray (journalist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Not notable. Simply a journalist with a byline. Also he had some kind of position in a trade union. This XFD has been discussed before, but this latest version has all the unsourced material removed, and there is really nothing left that makes him Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, at risk of repeating the arguments of the previous AfD. "Simply a journalist with a byline" is a bit simplistic, he was President of his trade union, after all. However, there is no automatic notability of trade union presidents, who have a, erm, presiding role in the running of the union and rarely hit the limelight. I still can't see any significant press coverage about this guy. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to primary connected notability. I searched and found absolutely no independent WP:notability. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with PatGallacher that he is in a prominent elected position, but we need more sources. Is he a news producer? TV journalist? Writer? It's almost impossible to find info on him because about 27 million people have this name, including others who worked for the BBC. МандичкаYO 😜 07:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just can't find "the president of this union is a notable post" in our policies. It's an editorial judgement, going against "notability is not inherited through positions" (there are exceptions, but why should this be one?), and would like to see something more. For starters, what makes the poorly referenced National Union of Journalists notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Stalins's religious views[edit]

Joseph Stalins's religious views (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Joseph Stalins's religious views" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

New article appears to be OR. Sourced to a single non-RS source. LavaBaron (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you volunteering to do all that? If so, I'll change my !vote to Keep. LavaBaron (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I can try. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Shall we move this to draft space for the time being? I agree that the topic is potentially notable but the current version isn't at all suitable for article space. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree that it should be moved to draft space. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 01:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
As per above discussion, I change my !vote to Keep conditioned on article being moved to draft space pending improvement. LavaBaron (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike Hitler, Stalin had no religious views whatsoever. That's why this page is so small. We do not need a page only to tell that Stalin had no religious views. This is just another page on subject that does not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Stalin ordered the recreation of Churches during World War 2, I am sure there are many other interesting facts to note. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
We are not talking about policies by Stalin with respect to religious organizations (recreation or destruction of churches). That would be an important and legitimate subject, and it has been already described on a number of pages. We are talking about his personal religious views. All books I read about Stalin tell nothing about his religious views except noticing that he apparently did not believe in anything of this nature. If you read something about this, please tell me what it was. I would be surprised. My very best wishes (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
What books have you read about Stalin? МандичкаYO 😜 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A lot, from standard Soviet textbooks on the history of CPSU to "The Origin of Partocracy" by Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov. But that's not important. What's important is that no one so far was able to provide any reliably sourced content about personal religious views by Stalin. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Currently a poor article, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. Could clearly be improved with many reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly my point Smile.svg. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep/rename to Religious views of Josef Stalin or even better, Josef Stalin and religion, so in addition to his personal religious views, can discuss his interaction with the church and religious leaders. This has been extensively studied, discussed and analyzed. The length and citations of the Russian article should be a clue. OccultZone if you need help let me know. If there ever was a nomination for the AfD Hall of Shame, this is it. МандичкаYO 😜 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to a better title (no preference now). The Joesph Stalin's views on religion significantly shaped the religious policies of the Soviet Union. These policies have had widespread effect on the modern world. Additionally, a rough machine translation of the Russian article demonstrates that this topic is significantly covered in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously a notable topic, WP:UGLY is not a valid reason to delete it. I also support a move as suggested above. Cavarrone 16:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: A proper subject for Joseph Stalin, but a fork otherwise, and not a particularly fruitful one. Stalin's personal religious views may have had effects on his public acts, but that is an ongoing argument for biography and history. As a public individual, though, which is where we live, we have the facts of his actions and the tenuous and shifting discussion of interpreters. The fact that the maniacs who want to use Hitler's religion, heterodoxy, or theosophism to justify their own ongoing political agendas can sustain a fork article there doesn't mean it's a good idea. This is an improper fork from the biographical article and an invitation to ongoing culture warring via Wikipedia. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what a fork is - if you're talking about a WP:SPINOFF, there's nothing wrong with that and spinoffs are often encouraged. If something is a "proper subject" for the Josef Stalin article, and it's been shown there is sufficient content to sustain its own article, then that's all the reason to make it a spinoff. If you're trying to talk about WP:POVFORK, that makes even less sense. (I'm not even going to ask what "maniacs" are doing to exploit the article about Hitler's views on religion.) AfD is about determining notability, not about what you think is a "bad idea" for an article because it might cause controversy. МандичкаYO 😜 20:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This "article" is just a few unsourced phrases copy-pasted from other pages. Even if it will be deleted, nothing prevents anyone from re-creating this page under this or a different title. Just care to provide some meaningful content and appropriate referencing, please. Right now this is lacking. Speaking about the page on ruwiki ("Stalin and religion"), it describes a different subject: Stalin's policies with respect to religious organizations, not his religious beliefs. He had none to my knowledge, even though he spent some time in a theological seminary. But this is easy to disprove. Just bring the sources which tell something different. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Rattikorn Kunsom[edit]

Rattikorn Kunsom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rattikorn Kunsom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Effectively unsourced BLP (no sources, just an external link that is related to the subject) The Banner talk 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Unable to find any in depth coverage from reliable sources. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject has won a national beauty pageant, about two weeks ago. That alone should be enough to presume notability, analogous to other notability guidelines on people, like national sports champions. (I couldn't find a guideline on beaty queens, off-hand, but I think there is something like that.) The photoes are all over the web, I added some sources, some have text with desciptions of her. She will appear in the news quite a bit when the international beauty pageant, to which the one she won is affiliated, will happen later this year. Kraxler (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, more related external links (= no sources) and still just one event... The Banner talk 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bangkok Post is a reliable metro newspaper, like the New York Times. The other refs are not "related" to the event, except the official site. The other refs are news outlets that talk about this segment, like music magazines talk about music without being related to the musicians. But yes, it's only one event so far. As I said, there should be a guideline for national beauty queens. In the absence of one, I'd like to say that "in-depth" coverage for beauty queens should consist in the publication of their images, not of written texts, because they are notable for their beauty, not for their utterings. Kraxler (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Routine smattering of press release style coverage for appearing in a minor pageant. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A national beauty pageant is not "minor", and winning is not adequately described as "appearing". Your !vote looks like you WP:DONTLIKE it. Kraxler (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
When I actually value your opinion, I'll let you know. There are apparently already several well-established pageants in Thailand, this is a newcomer as as of yet does not appear to be that big of a deal. "Winning" a non-notable pageant does not guarantee notability for the subject. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 18:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Winning a national beauty competition is not always winning a national beauty competition, inasmuch as there is some proliferation of the pageants. Given that her promotion is apparently outside of the "Miss Universe" structure, it's very hard to say that this is a clear indication of notability. I'm sure that this is a great accomplishment, but not sufficiently clear notability for Wikipedia. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Winning a national beauty competition is definitely winning a national beauty competition, especially in a place where beauty is highly appreciated. See more in-depth coverage here: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. Her name in Thai letters gives 83,700 google hits. She's certainly a major celebrity in Thailand. Besides, she was among the Top 10 in the Thai Supermodel contest in 2013, according to her article in the Thai Wikipedia which is well sourced. I'll add something here too. Kraxler (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
But still the article has no sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 22:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
All sources I added conform to WP:RS, and all except the offical site of Thai Supermodel, are also independent sources. I suggest you read the guideline again. Besides, apparently you didn't get it yet, so I'll spell it out for you: Miss Grand International is based in Thailand. The winner of Miss Grand Thailand will take on the rest of the world, at home. Moreover, in developing countries to win a beauty pageant is the dream of a vast majority of girls, and the actual winners are envied, revered, adored, and talked about in the media, no end. That is the essence of notability and the subject of this article is a major celebrity in Thailand, as is demonstrated by the many sources. The notion that newspapers in Thailand would need, or even take, press releases to report on Miss Grand Thailand is absurd. All major media have their own correspondents there, at the pageant and later at any event where she appears. Kraxler (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────*Clearly there is a difference of opinion on this and the related AfD. I think that after endless back and forth it is time to admit that we are not going to reach agreement and further debate is pointless. We will just have to let other editors weigh in and hope for consensus. I stand by my delete vote based on the source coverage being trivial and incidental. Subject fails GNG and BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Parapadsorn Disdamrong[edit]

Parapadsorn Disdamrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Parapadsorn Disdamrong" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Effectively unsourced BLP (no sources, just an external link that is related to the subject) The Banner talk 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Unable to find any in depth coverage from reliable sources. Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject has won a national beauty pageant, and then appeared at two international pageants, and was first runner-up at one of them. I added two reliable sources, the Bamgkok Post and Matichon Online. Kraxler (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Routine smattering of press release style coverage for appearing in a minor pageant. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
According to this source, Miss Supranational is one of the major five beauty pageants of the world. Also, in the absence of a guideline for national beauty queens, I'd like to say that "in-depth" coverage for beauty queens should consist in the publication of their images, not of written texts, because they are notable for their beauty, not for their utterings. Kraxler (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the organiser is likely to say that its pageant is very important. But the fact is that the article is already deleted five times. And even for beauty queens WP:RS should be taken into account. The Banner talk 20:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
First, Global Beauties organizes the Miss Grand Slam cyber pageant, they do not organize the Miss Supranational or any other live pageant, but they say that Miss Supranational and four other pageants are the five major beauty pageants of the world. Global Beauties is a RS for beauty pageants. Wikipedia is based on sources, not on the opinions of the editors. Second, could you explain what "article is already deleted five times"? Not this one, it looks like being the first nomination. Anyway, you nominated it as an unsourced BLP, and it's not unsourced anymore. I suggest you withdraw the nomination. Kraxler (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I checked Miss Supranational, that seems to be the article in question. It was prodded in 2010, then mass deleted with other stuff because of the creator, then deleted as copyvio. In 2012, it was recreated and passed AfD "no consensus" with 4 keep votes. In 2014, it was renominated at AfD and deleted with almost no input, and later speedied G4. That makes it rather pompous to say "was deleted already five times". Fact is that it was kept once, and was deleted once after a rather deficient discussion. Besides the pageant was first held around 2009, and may have attained notability under the Wiki guidelines in the meanwhile. I'll check it out. Kraxler (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
See (in-depth) coverage of "Miss Supranational 2014" (14,200 hits at Google News) in The Times of India, also saying that it is a "prestigious international beauty pageant", in the Business Standard (Mumbai), R7 (Grupo Record, Brazil), Rappler (Philippines), Zeibiz, Inquirer.net and so on... Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment Global Beauties is connected with the subject of the article. That casts serious doubt on claims to being RS. While an OP can withdraw a nomination anytime s/he wants, all it does is remove their delete vote unless there are no other outstanding delete votes. In this case there is, and I stand by mine. I am not seeing enough in depth coverage from RS sources to meet GNG or BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
There are three mainstream news sources in the article, talking about the event/person. Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:Independent sources#Examples and tell me how Global Beauties is connected to Parapadsorn Disdamrong: is it (herself), (her) family members, (her) friends, (her) employer, or (her) employees? Thanks in advance. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Please, see this: Miss Grand International 2014]. That is by now deleted six times as advertising and/or not notable. And she did not win that competition, so no need to hammer it in.The Banner talk 16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't imagine where you got the notion that I "hammered this in". We know she ended up in the Top 10, it's in the article. Anyway, you are quite mistaken: Miss Grand International 2014 was deleted once after a discussion, the other five were procedural deletions, mostly for lack of content, in all those cases the question whether the topic was notable or not was not debated. Besides, I'd rather you stay on-topic. Everytime I refute your arguments you throw another tidbit of info in the room, instead of answering the previous argument. That's a very poor debating style. Please also check out WP:SCNR, it's really good advice. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Kraxler, per your suggestion I went back and rechecked all of the sources and external links. The coverage of the subject is at best trivial and in passing. IMO it does not come close to that required by GNG and BASIC. I will also add WP:1E to the equation. Under the circumstances I have to stand by my delete vote. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

She has appeared in four events, won one, almost won another and scored high in the other two. That's a fact. Kraxler (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
None of which rings the notability bell. Beyond which that sounds like a pretty run of the mill resume for contestants in this sort of field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: We're up against some people promoting beauty pageant winners, and there isn't any established hierarchy or guideline on the subject that makes the decision simple. For the .en Wikipedia, we have some reason to be wary. Think about how many separate pageant confederations there are in the U.S., the U.K., and then how informal the "Miss Universe," "Miss World," etc. pageants are organized. The burden of proof is going to have to be on the article to establish notability, because even if we were dealing with a pageant winner of an unambiguously national competition, there's question about whether being a pageant winner is notable by itself. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, we're up against people crusading against beauty pageant winners. They downplay their achievement (calling national events "minor", and calling in-depth editorial news coverage "press releases") and renominate articles for deletion that have been kept several times before (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination)). But you're right in saying that there's no specific guideline, but there should be one. I think I'll propose one next week, to avoid another time-sink for the community. Kraxler (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:Kraxler, if I might, to prevent the confusion, it might be well to work with validating and establishing the pageant circuits first. When one of those is confirmed as a clear pass, then a given iteration of that pageant would be if that national iteration has strong funding and a consistent host. Then it would be possible to have an article on the individual pageants. That may never get to the point, though, where a winner of a pageant is considered notable for that alone, since winning on "Jeopardy!" or coming in third in a national track meet isn't. People have good reason to default toward "delete": there are loads of independent pageants, and rich men and drinks companies run loads of them. Winning "Miss Pneumatic Tire 1936" might be due to being one of ten women working at the Goodyear plant, while winning "Miss America 1936" would arguably have required a great deal more, in terms of accomplishment. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
To get a clear position on the pageants would certainly help. To establish a guideline would centralise discussion in one place. In the meanwhile, Miss Grand Thailand (nominated for deletion) is/was affiliated with Miss Earth, Miss Globe International, Miss Grand International and Miss Tourism International, all existing articles. Miss Globe International was just kept for the 3rd time, while The Banner tried to lecture a former arb on sources. Miss Grand Thailand is also affiliated with Miss Supranational which is described by The Times of India (the major newspaper of India) as a "prestigios international beauty pageant" (link above), and is counted by The Times of Beauty (an independent news outlet specialising in this segment) among the "four best beauty pageants in the planet" (link below). Kraxler (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Routine press release-like coverage is not an indicator of notability, nor is winning a minor pageant. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Major newspapers/TV stations cover events because they think their readers/viewers are interested in them. And that establishes notability. This one is certainly a major celebrity in Thailand. Kraxler (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
In that case you should be able to add multiple independent sources. But what you added was just a passing mention and a related thingy, no sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
In that case you should be able to answer the question which Ad Orientem did not answer: Please see WP:Independent sources#Examples and tell me how Global Beauties is connected to Parapadsorn Disdamrong: is it (herself), (her) family members, (her) friends, (her) employer, or (her) employees? Thanks in advance. Kraxler (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you are the first one not to recognize a website dedicated to pageants and its contestants as not being related to a contestant of a pageant. The Banner talk 23:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
You better answer my question, guidelines exist for a purpose. Here iyt is again: How is Global Beauties connected to Parapadsorn Disdamrong: is it (herself), (her) family members, (her) friends, (her) employer, or (her) employees [as expressly required at WP:Independent sources]?
+1. Unless I misread something, this is the same org that promoted the pageants she participated in. The source coverage is trivial and incidental and thus simply fails to ring the notability bell. Period. End of story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you misread something. Global Beauties is a site which reports on beauty pageants, like The Rolling Stone reports on music. They promoted a cyber pageant in which the subject finished in the Top 10, the placing is determined by the public who votes over the internet (that's why it is called a "cyber pageant", no physical venue). The ref is used to establish the fact, in that case it is a WP:Reliable source because I assume they know the result of their own pageant. For all other pageants, it is an WP:Independent source because they report on this but are not involved in the organizatuon or have any other financial interest in any particular pageant. It would be like saying the New York Times is related to anybody they talk about because the paper earns money with peddling news, and these people are subject of the news. Anyway, I'm still waiting for The Banner's answer to my question. Kraxler (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Or what about The Times of Beauty which says "The Times of Beauty offers annual coverage of the four best beauty pageants in the planet: Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss International and Miss Supranational. The website and its owner are not related in any form or manner whatsoever with these international pageants..." Kraxler (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, Excuse me, but the very first one I linked is not "press release-like coverage" but a lengthy profile on her. The second one couldn't be called a PR either... Did you bother to click on any of the links? МандичкаYO 😜 17:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Your inability to identity actual reliable sources is beyond my ability to assist you with, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I just must be reliable source-identification challenged, and surely in need of your impressive abilities. So why don't you explain why this Thai newspaper is not a reliable source, for starters? МандичкаYO 😜 18:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Peadar Bracken[edit]

Peadar Bracken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Peadar Bracken" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable officer of the early Irish Independence movement. Article is sourced entirely to a single book which, based on the similarity of last names and the fact that said book is the only one ever published by that author, may well have been written by a relative. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This book gives a short account of the incident at Tullamore and a rather longer account of his command of a small but moderately important outpost during the Easter Rising, and there are at least mentions of his (and a colleague's) accounts of the latter in several other books on the Easter Rising. Also, on the formation of the original Irish Republican Army the following year, lists show him as one of the members of its Executive Committee, though otherwise there seems to be little available about his later life. PWilkinson (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (perhaps weak) He is named multiple times in about 20 books about the Easter Uprising [31], often as a leader, and some chronicle his actions during the fighting. LaMona (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yogesh Chander Deveshwar[edit]

Yogesh Chander Deveshwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yogesh Chander Deveshwar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This may get close to WP:GNG the fact he has received news coverage but all of it is pretty much for the company (which it seems he's been with for over 40 years, according to one link) as shown here, here, here and here. The article's information is all sourced with the current links and the links I found but I don't think he's independently notable, his company position was renewed for another 5 years so he never stepped down BTW. I think the better option if others agree is to redirect to ITC Limited. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ellina Graypel[edit]

Ellina Graypel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ellina Graypel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

The article's only source is to the subject's website. There is no claim to anything that would pass the notability guidelines for musicians and the article is further burdened by a lot of trivial details about music exposure in childhood. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Randy W. Martin[edit]

Randy W. Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Randy W. Martin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable alternative health practitioner. Sources are limited to the subject's personal website, listings apparently written by him in alternative medicine directories and Amazon reviews of his self-published books. Hut 8.5 06:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete: Too much reliance on primary sources, also the fact that several sources are poor, such as the Amazon source. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No neutral sources. Both books are self-published [32], and [33] (look at book details for publisher info). LaMona (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Frisko[edit]

Bruce Frisko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bruce Frisko" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article about local news anchor which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. The single source does not seem to function at time of this writing to allow for verification. Google news searches bring up no hits with significant coverage. Article was restored at Deletion Review as a contested soft delete. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails GNG МандичкаYO 😜 13:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Now that it has been undeleted I am working on adding additional information and sources. The original article needed work, and the newscasts he anchors & produces are for 1/4 of Canada under CTV Atlantic. I'm on a mobile device, I could use some regional help.Lady Noremon (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I took another look at this - I'm willing to reconsider my position but need the sources to do so. This is pretty funny, though unfortunately a primary source, but I'm guessing he is one of those local anchors who develop cult-like status as a regional icon/mascot. We need a few articles about him though to support this. МандичкаYO 😜 07:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Before I get into the substance of the article in its current form, I want to point out that the deletion review was at least partially based on a false premise, namely that anybody involved in the discussion ever said anything at all, anywhere at all, about how "little known" he is. The problem was that the article, as written, was not making a substantive claim of notability that would satisfy WP:JOURNALIST, nor was it citing any reliable source coverage — it was essentially just a thinly veiled rewrite of his profile on CTV Atlantic's own website, but slightly rewriting a primary source verification of the journalist's existence without any independent reliable source verification is never how a journalist (regardless of medium, or level of prominence) actually gets a Wikipedia article. Nobody involved in the discussion ever cast a single solitary aspersion on his basic worth as a person — the problem was the quality of the article in its as written form, not anybody's opinion of him as a person.
    That said, while this version of the article is a lot longer than the original one was, I've had to strip almost every single one of Lady Noremon's new "references" as primary (CTV's own video of its own newscasts, Bell Media's own press releases about itself, his involvement in a charity event sourced only to that charity's own website) or unreliable (blogspot) sources — so the article is still not referenced enough to claim a WP:GNG pass, and two of the three references that are left are still covering insubstantial achievements (a best hair award and a social media challenge which forced a coworker to get a tattoo of his face) which do not satisfy WP:JOURNALIST. I'm willing to revisit this if the sourcing and substance can be improved from where they're sitting right now, but in its current form any real reasons why he should actually have a Wikipedia article still aren't being properly demonstrated by this version of the article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - From my talk page: "I have not done any editing here besides this and spelling correction in 7-ish years and this was my first time with references. I really was just trying to add more since that was the problem stated. It was a rushed job done over 2 days from a mobile device, and I apologise [Though the CTV Atlantic page was already linked before I edited it]. Someone else will have to deal with the article or such; I am not cut-out for any of this.". — Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Florencia Sánchez Morales[edit]

Florencia Sánchez Morales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Florencia Sánchez Morales" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed sockpuppet comment Florencia was the subject of Gaby Brimmer: An Autobiography in Three Voices [34] (Florencia being one of the three, along with Gaby and Gaby's mother). Florencia was also the subject of a film Gaby: A True Story, in which she was portrayed by Norma Aleandro, who was nominated for an Academy Award for her performance as Morales. The story of Florencia and Gaby is found in medical journals like this [35] Florencia is also the past president of ADEPAM, an organization for the rights of people with disabilities [36]. 67.55.132.30 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've informed WikiProject Mexico of this AfD as I feel they may be able to better determine notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • More inclined to delete as all these articles could have better sourcing and my searches only found one Books result and a few Spanish links here but not that much. If at all, maybe move to either Gabriela Brimmer or the film. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep/Comment My search shows a long list of references about her here [37]. When doing searches, try to switch Sánchez and Morales, as she has gone by both, more commonly just referred to as Florencia Morales. also in Spanish Florencia may just be Florence. I'm not sure if she is alive or not, she was still alive as of 2000 when Gaby died. Hopefully if the article stays more info can be found and added about her. HesioneHushabye (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - And a more refined search based on the title of the article only shows 50. [38] The issue with your search is that a number of the items that show up are unrelated to the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment- Please ignore the above poster, as he is wrong. There are 10 postings on Florencia in each book listed in this search alone [39], and 50 additional hits is plenty to warrant her own article. HesioneHushabye (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to Gaby Brimmer, while Gaby is notable, I'm not sure how notable her caretaker is, as she is only known because of Gaby and notability is not inherited. The contents of this article will fit nicely into the Gaby article, and in fact, go a long way in taking that article out of stub status. -War wizard90 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Comment - how exactly do you merge the biographical information for Florencia onto Gabriela Brimmer's ? They are two different people with different backgrounds and stories. HesioneHushabye (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Comment - quite easily, you talk about her involvement in Gaby's story and everything else is irrelevant as notability is not inherited and her only claim to notability is through Gabriela, any background information relevant to that story can be included. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Comment- well I do not agree that her notability is solely because of Gabriela Brimmer, if anything it's the opposite, as Florencia is credited for helping treat Gabriela's cerebral palsy so she could begin to write, and without Florencia's care Gabriela's story would not have become famous. A good reference point would be Annie Sullivan, who is famous for being the lifelong caretaker of Helen Keller, just as Florencia was with Gaby. HesioneHushabye (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Janos Delacruz[edit]

Janos Delacruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Janos Delacruz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This was deleted via prod a day ago, but was resurrected. Deleted prods that are resurrected. are sent to AFD, so I'll be using the reason I used in the prod: all sources fail WP:RS. –HTD 15:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with nom regarding sources. Article is largely written like a resume. I have a feeling this is an WP:AUTOBIO. --Non-Dropframe talk 15:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Did the proposer or anyone look for other sources? He has coverage in major Filipino publications: Manila Bulletin[40], Filipino Reporter[41], Filipino Daily Inquirer[42], and a group show covered in the well-known UAE newspaper The National[43]. I'm not quite certain that's enough but it's something. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - has sufficient references to meet GNG МандичкаYO 😜 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think, based on Colapenisula's sources plus another substantive 2012 article in the Manila Bulletin [44] or [45]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Tolibao[edit]

Kevin Tolibao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kevin Tolibao" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Graphic artist that I'm not sure about notability-basically all the "references" go to a personal webpage-and considering the number of graphic artists out there not quite notable Wgolf (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Aside from his work (which someone passing by may think is notable), it's obvious especially from the primary sources, he is not notable yet and a few searches confirmed this and found no third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Navarro Elizalde[edit]

Jerry Navarro Elizalde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jerry Navarro Elizalde" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

PROD with the reasoning that "All references are self-published blogs that fail WP:RS." was removed. References are supposedly added but they still fail RS, or references doesn't actually refer to his work as an artist but on some other career, such as reference #8. Most of the articles is cited from the Wikipilipinas wiki, which fails WP:RS. –HTD 09:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - found references in news articles from the Philippines, but nothing substantial МандичкаYO 😜 09:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Narrow Keep The fuller list of shows etc at ref 9 suggests he has some national stature. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Habib ibn Zayd al-Ansari[edit]

Habib ibn Zayd al-Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Habib ibn Zayd al-Ansari" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I'm not familiar with Islam martyrs but I don't see many sources for this to make it notable. A search here found a few results which repeat alot of the article's current information, but again, I'm not sure if this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - no shortage of results when you search his name in Arabic ("حبيب بن زيد بن عاصم") МандичкаYO 😜 00:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: - Such as what results? SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much what you would expect for an ancient Islamic martyr: [46], [47], [48], [49], also referenced in footnote here in English [50], [51] МандичкаYO 😜 06:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless citations are applied I defer to the user above who claimed to find reliable sources in Arabic. Wikipedia still requires that information which is presented must be followed by a citation to the source from which it came. If someone adds citations to the content, then Keep, otherwise, the minimal standards which Wikipedia demands have not been met. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep -- That an article needs improvement is no ground for deletion. Not being a Muslim, I have no incentive to improve it myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sam Tsemberis[edit]

Sam Tsemberis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sam Tsemberis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Notability is not inherited. All sources are about org, not person Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • speedy keep. Yes , notability is not inherited, but it this case Tsemberis is clearly a primary item of notability here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • P.S. Created by a "drive-by" newcomer editor, the article requires attention of an experienced wikipedian, but a quick google search clearly shows that sources are plenty. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • As the "drive-by" newcomer, I apologize. I have actually been a wikipedia editor for over a decade, but it has been a long time and I am out of practice. I have been meaning to add the Washington Post article link and to convert the remaining sources into Wikipedia's suggested formats, but have not had time to do so. Than you for adding the article link. If you can refer me to tools that will help me efficiently convert the references I added into wikipedia links that would be terrific. Ms Chevrolet
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Staszek Lem МандичкаYO 😜 02:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has a profile in Carlos W. Pratt; Kenneth J. Gill; Nora M. Barrett; Melissa M. Roberts (6 October 2006). Psychiatric Rehabilitation. Academic Press. p. 327. ISBN 978-0-08-046590-6.  , non-trivial mentions in several books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is awful. Most of it is about "Housing First," which would present a good argument for "Redirect." The text of the argument -- ostensibly a biographical article, mind you -- never identifies the subject's place of birth or current residence. Furthermore, it talks about "then" he does this and "then" that, and he always does it "here." Here? Really? That's fantastic! This homelessness cure is here? I'll remember that when my employer folds, because surely "here" means here. It doesn't mean Washington, D.C., does it? I love how people do independent research, see that a person is discussed, and then say "keep," as if that were the end. This article isn't about the person, and it doesn't inform a reader. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Edward William Cornelius Humphrey[edit]

Edward William Cornelius Humphrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Edward William Cornelius Humphrey" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Members of college boards of trustees are not normally inherently notable. The listed references I find are either unreliable (Ancestry, Findagrave) or represent insignificant mentions (the Newspapers.com articles). I could not access the Levin book; I'll have no problem withdrawing this if that or other sources can be shown to add up to meeting WP:GNG. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Actually, even one of the newspapers.com sources is referring to a relative and not to this subject. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (Disclosing that I'm the AfC reviewer) His presence on the national committee of Presbyterian General Assembly was reported in several major newspapers of the time, such as the New York Times and The Topeka Daily Capital. While those pieces could be considered trivial, there is also a large amount of discussion found here which gives significant coverage of him in relation to a court case which he presided over. Apologies for letting this through AfC in this state, it is a tough balance between biting new editors and upholding Wikipedia's guild lines. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I can understand the difficulty in striking that balance. I just think that a consistent, guideline-based approach to notability does the most good for the newbie who is learning the ropes. There are sources, but I don't think that presiding over a local court case, graduating from college, being a lawyer, being related to other lawyers, serving on a national church subcommittee or the other sourced events would really get us over the notability bar. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Thank you for considering the article. I'll continue to work on documenting Judge Edward William Cornelius Humphrey as a notable person. Confusion will arise, however, because of his relation to others named Judge Humphrey and other Judges named Humphrey who are not related. Judge Alexander Pope Humphrey IS a relative of the article's subject, but as far as I can determine the J. Otis Humphrey mentioned in the [52] headlined court case mentioned by Winner 42 as here is not a relative. Thank you for the other suggestions, and I'll keep working on this.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Since seeing the article the first time, I was concerned that the lead doesn't say why this person is notable as leads are supposed to do in succinct prose. I'm neutral right now on whether to keep or delete, although I'm not seeing anything really compelling for a keep so far. Having a presence in a notable religious assembly would make this person notable only if this person led it or was a key figure. I don't have access to newspapers.com -- what kind of a judge was he and where did he serve? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Seems to have been based in Louisville, Kentucky, but I can't find anything that mentions him significantly enough to even specify the type of court. I don't have access to newspapers.com anymore either, but I was able to see the newspapers.com articles that Winner42 clipped by clicking on one of his links. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is no longer an orphan. There are now links at Centre College indicating his trusteeship and Harvard as a notable religious leader and judge with a law degree.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Winner 42. The minutes of the aforementioned general assembly for 1916 also have E W C Humphrey as secretary of some board of directors. In any event, ineligible for deletion because members of a notable body should be redirected to it if they are not notable, not deleted (WP:R). James500 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It sounds like he mostly served on subcommittees as a church elder. I think the discussion is getting a bit muddled because of the number of references, most of which are passing mentions or which concern relatives of this subject. Can you point me toward the BOD secretary reference that we are referring to? Would this redirect to Presbyterian polity? Just trying to understand and learn what I can. We delete articles all the time where people are members of notable bodies like the IEEE, when those memberships themselves don't confer individual notability. I'm just confused at this point. EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I checked about the General Assembly in Presbyterian polity. It says, "The general assembly (or general synod) is the highest court of presbyterian polity." He was the only lay member of the General Assembly referred to in the source given and helped to set the agenda. This is not the same as being a member of a subcommittee as a church elder. The meeting was important enough to be recorded in the NY Times because it involved possible changes in religious creed.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I can understand the confusion, but NYT is pretty clear that he was once on a committee/subcommittee of the general assembly and not one of the leaders of the general assembly. That's consistent with the fact that there are only passing mentions of his name in independent, reliable sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
          • EricEnfermero, your understanding of the NYT article headlined about "Creed Revision" is not the same as mine. The article was datelined Philadelphia, appearing in regard to a forthcoming meeting in NYC of a select committee which had been drawn from national synods to advise the national Presbyterian General Assembly on the important item of creed revision, a major item on the agenda of the General Assembly. The same select committee had previously met in Washington, D. C. to draft their proposal. This article alone establishes that E.W.C. Humphrey was a notable religious leader, and I will add that fact to the lead as suggested by Stevie is the man! Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete (or redirect if applicable) I can't at this point put my finger on anything that makes this person notable enough for inclusion. His participation in activities may have been important in a limited sphere, but that's all I see from the discussion so far. I don't see true leadership. If we listed all members of committees corresponding to national conventions of religions or anything, this encyclopedia wouldn't be so encyclopedic any longer. It would become more of a resume directory. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 09:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • To answer some comments above: I was under the impression that the general assembly of the US Church had its own article, though on closer inspection, I find that it doesn't. The board of directors reference is in this and seems to refer to the Theological Seminary of Kentucky. I don't think "only leaders of a body are notable or listed" is policy. We do have articles on or list all members of certain legislatures and courts. There is such a thing as ecclesiastical law. James500 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying. I noticed on the Presbyterian Church USA website that there have been 221 general assemblies, so I'm just wondering how much general assembly service confers notability. Discussions at WP:AFD/PROF have consistently held that college presidents aren't inherently notable, and I'd think that college BOD members would have an even harder time meeting that standard. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • At the same time, it's very unusual to declare a person notable via one thin reference who has served on a non-governmental board. I don't see any meat on these bare bones. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Orphan tag was removed. "This is the current revision of this page, as edited by BattyBot (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 28 May 2015 (General fixes, removed orphan tag using AWB (10999)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version." Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The article should be kept. The notability of Judge Edward William Cornelius Humphrey is demonstrated by additions I made today showing that the creed changes brought about at the Presbyterian General Assembly were headline news and that Judge Humphrey was instrumental in shaping the final vote. I uncovered many more articles in Newspapers.com simply by searching for Judge E.W.C. Humphrey rather than by his full name. Thank you to the editors for your patience with this article.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, largely on the basis being "appointed by the Presbyterian General Assembly to serve on a national committee" does not seem to confer notability (even if it was an article about someone living today with all the available news sources). The biographical info is largely WP:OR from original documents, while the news coverage seems to be about the creed changes, rather than focusing on Edward Humphrey. Sionk (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read the news article and its context before commenting.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Please read all previous discussion, including that before this new discussion before arriving at a consensus.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to say that criteria 6 actually makes most presidents of colleges notable. I think the president of Centre College would pass those criteria. However board members do not. Humphrey might merit mention in the article Presybyterian Church USA General Assembly of 1902. That is a topic that might be worth covering. There is nothing about Humphrey that stands out enough to make him notable. He was a lawyer, a college tustee, and a presybyterian elder who was on a General Assembly committee. Unless we have articles on the other 5 members of the committee Humphrey does not merit one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The improved article shows that former U.S. President Benjamin Harrison was a member of the creed revision committee up until the time of his death. He is shown in a group photo with Judge Humphrey along with other members of the committee.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but Harrison is famous for being the President of the United States, not for being on a religious committee with Judge Humphrey. Sionk (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Harrison's role in that committee is not even mentioned in our article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead section of the Wikipedia article on Harrison refers to him as a "Presbyterian church leader," and his participation on the creed revision committee is mentioned in the press of the time.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexander M. S. Green[edit]

Alexander M. S. Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alexander M. S. Green" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

There is certain aspect of notability of the person being in the legal system and possibly civil servant, but I couldn't find any credible mention in the web that the notability is strong enough to include the article. In addition, the creator looks like the person himself ( basing on the talk page), which adds conflict of interest and shows the article is clearly self-promotional Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added a first reference, to a 2010 article concerning the Court of the Lord Lyon, of which the subject is Procurator Fiscal, objecting to a small football club's badge. There was subsequent reporting of that case (STV, 2012) and recent similar cases (Daily Record March 2015. The Scotsman April 2015). However these later pieces report the body and role but without naming the person currently occupying that role, indicating that it is not of clear biographical notability in itself. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Judge in the Employment Tribunal and in the First Tier Immigration and Asylum Chamber. Procurator fiscal for the Court of the Lord Lyon. Satisfies GNG: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. COI is not a grounds for deletion. The article is not promotional. James500 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: There isn't notability guidance for lawyers, but I think it is fair to say the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. The creator of the article clearly did have a conflict of interest but there has been several contributions from other editors since. I agree with James500 that in this instance the COI would not be sufficient reason to delete the article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Nayakuralu Nagamma[edit]

Nayakuralu Nagamma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nayakuralu Nagamma" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

The article is not intelligible and has sources but those are not clear. Searches here and here found results but nothing to improve the article. A browser search found this (I'm not sure what it says) and this (which like Books confirms this person has been portrayed in movies). There's simply nothing to improve this article and nothing to significantly support it (at least with English sources). SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (assuming that it is not a hoax). Since it appears to have some sources, I find it hard to think it is a hoax. If what it says is true, I am most surprised that she has not been a feminist heroine, since medieval stateswomen were few and far between. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - I did find mentions of her and her name in Telugu is "నాయకురాలు నాగమ్మ" [58] МандичкаYO 😜 08:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Billington[edit]

Chris Billington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Chris Billington" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST as they have only received low quality coverage in local newspapers. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What part of WP:ARTIST#4? The Jülich Museum may or may not count as a notable museum, but it's clearly not "several notable galleries or museums". Colapeninsula (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Shocking comments! How on earth will you consider the "Jülich Museum" non-notable simply because it has no article on the English Wikipedia when it does has an article in the dutch Wikipedia (de.m.wikipedia.org/.)? The truth is that there are multiple reliable sources that establish his notability only that they are not in english. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 11:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
http://www.rambulation.com/ is just a random blog and the analysis there is ridiculous. I don't think that world-arts meets RS either - it's clearly autobiographical. His work is in 'a museum' but it's not an art collection that is at all noteworthy. SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
How on earth will you consider "World Art" unreliable source? Will you also consider the The Art House Gallery, Gallery Liverpool Achieve, Daylight Project unreliable? Perhaps we may need to take the sources to the RS Notice board. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 11:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Because: World Arts gives you the artist the opportunity to advertise, promote, display and sell your work with no commission fees. The first two aren't unreliable, but they're of little use to demonstrate notability as they are just routine exhibition listings or selling his work. The daylightproject is a site run by Velux as PR. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per these prices on a gallery page. A notable artist would be more expensive. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Harvey Tolibao[edit]

Harvey Tolibao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Harvey Tolibao" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non notable and hardly referenced. Fiddle Faddle 10:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Does that explain why the AFD notice on the article is removed so often, but that the student(s) do not come here to offer opinions? Fiddle Faddle 14:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would guess so - likely inexperienced editors who don't understand the AfD process. МандичкаYO 😜 10:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Eliezer John Cabangon[edit]

Eliezer John Cabangon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Eliezer John Cabangon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

PROD was removed with a rather lengthy reason, so just look at the history. The gist was "all references are legit". All but one reference is reliable. The others seem to be websites of galleries that showcase his work, so they fail WP:PRIMARY. The only truly legit reference is the Manila Times article but it is rather short and is just one, failing multiple reliable sources that are required. –HTD 07:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment.- I added other related references and content about the artist with three google books, please reconsider this article not to be deletedAnthonyAguila24 (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • These "books" are either associated with this person, or is written by himself so they're all WP:PRIMARY sources which aren't allowed. –HTD 09:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can you reconsider some of the reference links on the article as Secondary Source? such as the links where EJ Cabangon was featured in an online newspaper, like in the businessworld online (businessworld published the article about their exhibit last April 7, 2015)? Another is websites that did a review on his past solo exhibitionss? please reconsider HTD :( AnthonyAguila24 (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This is the entire snippet about this person from BusinessWorld:
      "Cabangon takes on cartoonish images and morphs them into “abducted” pieces."
    • The Philippine Star has quite a longer discussion:
      Cabangon takes on cartoonish images and morphs them into “abducted” pieces of liquefying constructs that can be viewed as metaphors for loss of innocence or a world turning into a playground of misfit melting toys. The strategy of “abducting” can be seen as something politically charged (the perils of living in a third world country) or something entirely existential and universal.
    • It's almost certain that these fail WP:BASIC. All others fail WP:RS. –HTD 11:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If that's the case is it okay if i just place links that are not qualified as a reference to Related Links to prevent the article to be deleted? thank you thank you so much for guiding and criticizing my article HTD :D I just really want to show everyone on the web how amazing EJ Cabangon is as an artist AnthonyAguila24 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No, you can't place links that are "unqualified" to another section. You'd need links that pass Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia isn't for promotion. You should try Wikipilipinas instead. –HTD 11:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Well if the prevention of the deletion can't be reconsidered tomorrow i'd like to request for this article "Eliezer John Cabangon" to be moved to the Draft Namespace in order for me to look for more references that are qualified with wikipedia's rules and regulation about primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The reason i am doing this article about EJ Cabangon is not for his promotion, i'm doing this for the Filipino painters who aren't familiar with a painter like EJ Cabangon who is one of the sought after painters in the Philippine art scene. Please HTD, allow me to research more on his works and related sources to his article and develop the article so that it can be placed in the live space of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyAguila24 (talkcontribs) 11:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: -- fails GNG. Quis separabit? 03:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy - This article needs to be greatly revised as it does not follow WP style for the most part. First, the long list of shows should be reduced to a short mention of a few key shows. (We don't list full bibliographies of articles for professors or journalists, and we should not produce a long list of shows for an artist.) Next, the actual text of the article needs references that back up the facts there. Finally, adding a list of every mention found on the web actually detracts from the article -- for external resources, the artist's own site should be sufficient. The Manila Times article [60] is one good RS and can be used to reference some of the facts in the article. A few more such sources are needed to reach general notability. LaMona (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, that lone Manila Times article does not suffice to establish notability, there's nothing else out there, and the article is largely unsourced in violation of WP:BLP. Huon (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Ryan (fire chief)[edit]

Matthew Ryan (fire chief) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Matthew Ryan (fire chief)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable person Zackmann08 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - found some local historic references, but not enough to meet GNG МандичкаYO 😜 05:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G12 as the article is completely a copy of webpage found here [61]. --Non-Dropframe talk 07:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Non-dropframe: That article is a copy of the Wikipedia article. A big clue is the bottom part that says "Source is from Wikipedia". МандичкаYO 😜 07:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: You are quite right. My mistake. --Non-Dropframe talk 07:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • DeleteA minor official, neither notoble in their own right or ex officio. TheLongTone (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

James J. Kenney[edit]

James J. Kenney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "James J. Kenney" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable person Zackmann08 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's very convincing reasoning. EEng (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep [62] [63] [64] [65], plus the newspaper obit from which the article is taken. EEng (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Being mentioned is not sufficient; the death notice is typically considered a standard mention. Please see WP:GNG; significant, long-term coverage in multiple sources is required. The article has a single reference with no title - is that the obituary? I have no way of seeing the Berkeley Daily Gazette, March 24-27, 1916. МандичкаYO 😜 07:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
An extended obituary of a public official is not a "standard mention" (by which I think you mean WP:ROUTINE); that you can't see it is neither here nor there. And contrary to what you say, multiple sources are not required (not strictly, anyway) and your notion of "long-term coverage" is completely made up -- see WP:NTEMP: 'once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.' EEng (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable certainly in local history. Refs are not numerous, but exist. Tmangray (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Individual seems inherently notable and above refs further demonstrate this. Nominator hasn't offered any reasoning to suggest non-notability. --Non-Dropframe talk 07:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Non-dropframe: Nobody is inherently notable. "Non-notable person" is shorthand in this part of Wikipedia to indicate the subject does not meet WP:GNG. That's all the reason necessary. Anyone who counters that must provide solid evidence that the person meets the stated requirements. Unfortunately not a single reference listed above comes close to proving notability. Please review the requirements; if you can find better references, please post them here. МандичкаYO 😜 07:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: So your argument is that unless other editors can prove a subject is notable, it is not notable? All one needs to do is claim something isn't notable? Seems to me like the nominator and those who agree with the nominator have the onus when it comes to establishing non-notability. Establishing "significant coverage" by today's standards for a subject who died nearly 100 years ago isn't possible. Rather, we have to accept a different standard that allows for the fact that 100+ year old documentation isn't always available online. --Non-Dropframe talk 07:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Non-dropframe: - Yes, that's how AfD works. You might scroll through all the ones from yesterday to get a better idea of it goes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 12, or read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion. It's actually not too hard to prove someone is notable, even from 100 years ago, thanks to the huge amount of digitization and Google Books, etc., not to mention continuing mentions. МандичкаYO 😜 08:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: Cool, well, I'd love to stick around and have you talk down to me some more but I've made my point and I don't expect to sway you. --Non-Dropframe talk 08:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Non-dropframe: I'm sorry if you think I was "talking down" to you - I was trying to be helpful by suggesting a way to get more familiar with the AfD process. МандичкаYO 😜 08:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The WP:BURDEN of proof is on the one claiming something, including notability: it is easier to provide a source that shows something is notable when it is, than demonstrating that no source ever (even outside the internet) proved notability when it is not. This does not mean sources can be dismissed without argument. If there is indeed an extended obituary (i.e., not a 5-line mention in a local newspaper) he would be notable in my view; does someone have access to that? Tigraan (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, BURDEN applies to article content -- content, if challenged, can't survive unless a specific source can be located and named. In establishing notability however, we only need to conclude that we believe appropriate sources exist -- they don't have to be explicitly enumerated. If, for example, a brief editorial mentions that "every paper in the city has carried a dozen articles on Topic X in the last few months" then we don't have to actually go find those articles to conclude Topic X is notable. This is the basis for many of the notability guidelines such as WP:ACADEMIC's Point 2, "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" -- it's not that such an award makes the recipient notable per se, but rather it's the way of the world that recipients of such honors will almost always be covered in multiple reliable sources, and we're allowed to presume the existence of such sources without having to go find them right now.
I'm only mentioning this for the record. The sources in the article are more than adequate. EEng (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Basically Uncertain because it seems there aren't many available sources and my searches found results here (the best entirely and it's only a few links all from the early 1900s) with minor mentions here. In a way, I like the article because it's interesting, neat and at least sourced but there could be better sources so maybe delete for now and maybe mention somewhere else. SwisterTwister talk 15:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Emil Rengle[edit]

Emil Rengle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Emil Rengle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

In terms of "sources", we have three links to Wikipedia and four to YouTube, which I think can be summarily dismissed. We then have a dead link and two functional links to the subject's official sites/business ventures, which again are dismissible. Finally, two other things:

  • A tabloid article; I think the headline speaks for itself: "Shocking scenes involving Antonia at the mall! The whole time, she held hands with a cute lad and let him fondle her behind!"
  • A blurb in the local Forbes; even if it sounds vaguely impressive, we should note that a) the same issue featured nonentity (encyclopedically speaking) after nonentity after nonentity after nonentity after nonentity after nonentity after nonentity under the very same headline ("portrait of a trendsetter") - in other words, being part of this feature in no way suggests notability; and b) in any event, even if it did, WP:BIO requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources", which we don't have. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note As an administrator, I declined the A7 because it made some assertion of notability.
Delete lack of WP:RS. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete If nothing else WP:TOOSOON for this performer. It's hard to judge the reliability of the publications here, but there are only a few that would remain after deleting the youtube and WP sources, and also the sources that do not mention the subject of the article (i.e. #13 "WorldRedEye"). Also, I seriously suspect that the article was created as a promotion; it has much promotional language; the professional-looking photo portrait was uploaded by the article's SPA and is listed as "own work;" said SPA deleted the first Speedy Delete tag from the article. This might have been a simple mis-understanding of WP procedure, but it doesn't bode well. LaMona (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Vera Sidika[edit]

Vera Sidika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vera Sidika" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Subject fails the notability criterion; article more of a promotional text than anything. Sources cited belong strictly to gossip outlets. The Gnome (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
According to Google's Year in Search 2014 (mentioned in AllAfrica here), Vera Sidika was one of Kenya's leading searches. Also says she "was the top trending person in 2014" (I don't know if that's Google, Twitter, or what).
This is a class example of current article content being really poor, but the subject very clearly notable (I don't even know how notability could be the basis for this nom). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt to check for background before proposing a deletion on the basis of lack of notability. For what it's worth, and not surprisingly, the same results you listed above were returned in my search and I found them almost all within the category of gossip columns. (Yes, even the BBC has gossip aplenty! They're "getting with the times", presumably.) I believe that self-promotion can be accepted as justification for a Wikipedia BLP only if it reaches critical mass in mainstream media, as in the case of Paris Hilton or the Kardashians. Otherwise, every "trending" topic or any "top google search" is fair game. Wikipedia's rules state that "persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Notice that having a "high profile" due to self-sοught media attention does not make one necessarily notable. But I could be mistaken. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayne Quilliam[edit]

Wayne Quilliam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Wayne Quilliam" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This guy does sound like he could be notable but with no reliable sources other then a page that is basically a el. (also almost sound like a advertisement) now if someone can make this article better and more better source I will withdraw. Wgolf (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This article is atrocious. That said, I have a question for Wgolf: How much time did you put into looking for reliable sources? ¶ The reason I ask is because I immediately noticed the claim that this person is/was "A recent finalist in the invitation only PrixPictet [sic] in Paris", reflected that the Prix Pictet really is a big deal, duckduckwent "prix pictet quilliam", and arrived at this little newspaper article that appears to back up the claim. Actually Quilliam doesn't seem to be mentioned in prixpictet.com, so I suspect that he wasn't a finalist; but I do wonder about the degree of work that's gone into this nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Chakradhar Swami[edit]

Chakradhar Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Chakradhar Swami" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

First of all, this article is not very easy to understand and searches to the best of my ability found nothing good. It appears both Marathi and Polish Wikis have what appear to be references but I'm not a speaker of either language so I'm not sure how good those sources are or if they're relevant at all. My concerns are the understandability and no apparent sources to support this, at least at English Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I have identified additional sources on this personage. I also have a sense there are even more sources in Maratha and maybe Hindi, but have no knowledge of either language. A google search showed echos of such sources. We need much more work, especially on the movment that he is said to have founded. This movement still exists today, or at least existed past the founding of the current government in India in the 1940s. The article being hard to understand is not reason for deletion, but inprovement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Brian Armstrong (diver)[edit]

Brian Armstrong (diver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brian Armstrong (diver)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Dubious notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO. Many of the sources are affiliated (e.g. self-published by Armstrong or from the Rubicon Foundation, of which Armstrong is a founding member). Other sources are primary, or give passing mention of Armstrong (or none at all). Being a crew member of a team that does something noteworthy does not grant notability, just as the workers who build a famous skyscraper don't warrant individual articles. The television appearances may possibly indicate notability if they focus on Armstrong specifically, rather than just in passing or as a crew member, but this needs verification. Lastly, the article was written by User:Gene Hobbs, who is also a founding member of the Rubicon Foundation. We need significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, can't find any sources about him МандичкаYO 😜 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No vote for COI - In a small field such as this, multiple television appearances, being the model for numerous cover photos of various diving magazines, being requested to join multiple projects, and being active in a leadership role of an organization in the field (source of my COI) all make him noteworthy to the field for which the article was written. As a project diver, it is expected that the project will get the news and not the dive team. Other things of note are that Armstrong recently completed the requirements for the Sheck Exley award from the NSS-CDS along with only 23 other divers. Earning the Exley does meet the first criteria in WP:ANYBIO. I would also argue that his involvement in multiple projects that have yielded results for the public good also makes him eligible to meet the second criteria.
Both the B25 and Gertrude Tomkins projects received significant media coverage and Armstrong was mentioned by name in at least one project related publication. My failure to expand the project specific sections to show the notability of these projects should not reflect on this nomination. If requested, I could find time to expand these sections.
Thank you Animalparty. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The Sheck Exley award indicates someone has completed 1000 safe cave dives. While that's certainly more than me, and probably more than many divers, the award only counts towards notability if reliable, secondary sources routinely use it as a metric of notability (the low number of awardees in itself means little unless put into context such as how long the award has been available). And I would argue being mentioned by name alone in multiple sources does not confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) no matter how much public good (should every crew member on the Gertrude Tomkins Project be granted a biography?). My own name has appeared in a couple newspapers and technical reports, and I have worked with people who probably satisfy Wikipedia notability guidelines, but that does not constitute significant, verifiable coverage to merit my own biography, no matter who writes it. Notability and the Core Content Policies require that we as editors cannot imply or assume importance or prominence that is not adequately documented in secondary sources. With all due respect, we need sufficient evidence that people aside from yourself or affiliated sources have considered Armstrong particularly noteworthy in his field. Should such secondary sources exist and be cited I have no objection to the article's retention. If not, Armstrong could plausibly be redirected to perhaps Rubicon Foundation and/or discussed in articles about the recovery projects, if appropriate per due weight and balancing aspects. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Gene Hobbs - unfortunately those things you listed (multiple television appearance, cover model for dive magazines, being requested to join projects) are not sufficient on their own to establish notability. What we need is enough reliable coverage (i.e. secondary sources) in which he is the subject. We have to have material from which to write a credible biography after all. This is a very strict guideline that you can read about here: WP:BLPPRIMARY. Also about the award, there is almost no information about it. Searching for "Sheck Exley Safe Cave Diving Award" or "Sheck Exley Award" brings up mainly online forums discussing it. For an award to be considered, it must also receive coverage in secondary sources. But has he ever been featured as a profile or interview in any of the diving magazines? Diving magazines are considered secondary sources; any kind of feature on him would probably satisfy the basic requirements, so this is probably your best bet. МандичкаYO 😜 13:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait. The article has survived since 2011. Give Gene Hobbs some time to improve the article as he requests. Gene, How much time do you need to deal with the issues? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not concerned Peter. It turns out that he and his wife were both interviewed quite a bit in the “Return To The Bermuda Triangle” special on TLC (TV network) but I doubt that is enough to make this group happy. I'd need to spend more time to find more and I just don't have much time at the moment. Thanks though! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pbsouthwood and Gene Hobbs, don't worry, articles will stay a minimum of seven days after someone proposes deletion. Sometimes articles are relisted multiple times until a consensus is reached. This is plenty of time to look for sources, improve the article etc. Also, even if articles are deleted, the content can be restored by an administrator at a later date. So if an article gets deleted because of a notability/secondary source requirement, and a source is available six months later, you don't have to start from scratch. МандичкаYO 😜 19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I would consider the "Return To The Bermuda Triangle" documentary on The Learning Channel to be almost sufficient in itself; when you add in the reporting by the Columbia Star and ABC, it seems there's enough independent coverage. If Armstrong's notability was related to just one topic, I'd have some sympathy with turning this into a subsection of e.g. Rubicon Foundation, but it is clear that he has come to the attention of the public over a number of topics - Bermuda Triangle, B-25 Bomber, Gertrude Tompkins, etc. - so WP:BLP1E isn't relevant. We don't normally disperse a BLP over multiple topics, and I've seen no justification of why that should be appropriate in this case. Even if some might still consider the independent coverage borderline, his part in establishing the Rubicon Foundation and his notable collaborations with Michael C. Barnette provide a diversity of publications that recognise his work and add to the encyclopedic content that we have available for his BLP. This isn't a stub based on a couple of passing mentions, but a substantial article with potential for further expansion. --RexxS (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it so clear that he has come to the attention of the public for his actions? Notability requires verifiable evidence and notability is not inherited by working on notable projects nor with notable people. The first clip from Return to the Bermuda Triangle shows contains about a minute in total of Armstrong talking about things he did or saw with his team, and while verifiable (and interesting), does not help establish independent notability. The second clip is more of the same. The interviews are not significant coverage about Armstrong or his contributions (nor are they independent of the subject), and assuming his appearances on Mega Movers are the same sort of first-hand testimonial, would contribute to notability no more than a firefighter who's been interviewed more than once about the causes of a fire, which, even if quoted in a newspaper, don't extend beyond the normal duties of a professional, even if that professional has some neat stories to tell. You state "This isn't a stub based on a couple of passing mentions", and I would say no, this is a beefed up start-class article stretched over a couple of passing mentions, padded with some other sources that don't mention Armstrong at all, implying but not demonstrating that Armstrong was a significant part of the story. The Background section is largely unsourced. I haven't found more than one sentence about Armstrong in any independent source (not even the Rubicon Foundation website). If Armstrong is independently notable or played an objectively important role, the current sources simply do not not support this. He is often simply listed as one of several crew members (does every one listed in The Gertrude Tompkins Expedition achieve instant notability? Per WP:Golden rule and WP:GNG, we need multiple, significant coverage from sources independent of the subject. The fact that very few articles currently link to Armstrong suggest that Wikipedia would not be significantly disrupted should the existing article be removed or condensed into a section of Rubicon Foundation. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As a hypothetical example, pretend someone wanted to write an article on their good friend John Q. Person. "Person went to XYZ high school, where he was head of the Chess Club (verified by yearbook). Person graduated with High Honors from notable University (verified by list of names in commencement ceremony), which has several Nobel laureates as faculty. While in college, Person marched in some notable anti-war demonstrations (verified by caption in a photo) that received international press coverage. Person later got a job working for a notable Company (verified by HR documents), which is a well known Company in America. Person has written many documents for his company, as well as editorials published in newspaper and trade magazines (verified by said articles), and has presented at several conferences (verified by list of conference presentations and abstracts). When Person retired from Company, he was honored for his contributions with a life-time achievement award. Person died in 2010 (verified by obituary)" All of the above might be true and verifiable, and appear to show a person was widely known for something, but is actually a cobbled-together narrative from primary or passing mentions when the published record actually shows an individual was only tangentially or trivially involved in notable entities. Relevant essays include Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability and WP:PAGEDECIDE. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, you don't need to badger every commentator at this page with walls of text.
Next, your understanding of our notability guidelines is seriously flawed. It is clear that Armstrong and his work has been brought to the attention of the public through reporting by independent third parties. The Learning Channel did the interviews with Armstrong and had editorial control over what was broadcast. You can't simply dismiss TLC's part in that documentary as if Armstrong had made his own video and uploaded it to YouTube. When a programme maker with the circulation of TLC devotes a significant amount of screen time to Armstrong's expeditions, that does amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Your firefighter scenario is a false analogy; notability for a person is concerned with the attention that the media has paid to the individual for what they have done and it clear that Armstrong is unique in his contributions in that particular field, which cannot be said for a firefighter who was doing their job in the same way as any other firefighter. You might as well say that coverage of a soldier who receives a medal isn't notable because his actions did not "extend beyond the normal duties of a professional".
I do state that is a lot more than a stub and you concede that it's a "beefed up start-class article", for which I'm grateful. One of the features that distinguish start-class from stub-class is the question of notability: "The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant." - Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment,
Which are these sources that don't mention Armstrong at all? The Background section actually has five sources, which is not "largely unsourced" as you claim. If you feel the first paragraph needs a source, the correct action is addition of {{citation needed}}, not deletion of the entire article. Armstrong is independently notable and the current sources do support this, despite your unsupported assertions to the contrary (assuming "the current sources simply do not not support this. was a typo, not a double negative). The criterion for notability is significant coverage in independent sources, which Armstrong has - TLC, Mega Movers, ABC, etc. - not whether or not the encyclopedia would be disrupted by its removal. After all, there are plenty of articles on notable topics with fewer than the four proper incoming links that the article Brian Armstrong (diver) possesses.
Take the hypothetical example of John Q. Person, who did all the things you say, but was also a major player in several well-publicised expeditions that attracted public interest; so much so that two well-respected documentary makers interviewed him to get the story of what he did on those expeditions. Not only that, but a published author chose him for his expertise in these sort of expeditions as a collaborator and wrote about him. Enough for notability? You betcha. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
RexxS, unless I'm missing it, there's nothing on his article nor mentioned here about him being featured in a book or article by said "published author" - what are you talking about? Additionally, let's look at the "five sources" you mention for the "Background section"
  1. something called "'Continuous service award (10 years)'. North Carolina State University Physical Education Department." - no link, no publication given, clearly not even an article based on the title, by all guess it appears to be likely a list of people who have been working with the North Carolina State PE department for 10 years, and strangely is the exact same reference on Gene Hobbs aka Brian's friend (who wrote the article about him);
  2. the article of incorporation for his own organization!!!
  3. cover photo of Florida Scuba News; which appears to be a self-published free publication like that's mainly ads and given away at scuba stores, yet, still didn't write anything about him, and for all we know, the photo is a group shot of 27 people
  4. documentary not about him but in which he is interviewed as a witness
  5. same as #4.
The same pattern goes for all the rest of the "sources" in the article - how in any way are ANY of these the required significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail (the topic is Brian Armstrong himself, not his observations or thoughts on an activity or job he did or movie he saw or sandwich he ate) in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject? Is there a single source that meets that clear requirement? One? МандичкаYO 😜 21:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - can someone tell me where to look for him in the Bermuda doc? I tried to skim through it and couldn't see him and I don't want to watch the whole thing. Thanks. МандичкаYO 😜 18:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
He appears at around 7:45, 8:05, and 10:15 on this clip. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, yeah it's doesn't change my vote. МандичкаYO 😜 10:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Very marginal when one asks for specific credits for the individual. Then again, when I think about the tens of thousands of "was a footballer who played for Fredonia club side C 1960-1961" "articles" on the project, the "is an album recorded by Interchangeablepopband on MySpace records and went double plotinum" on the project, we're looking at a person who, as an individual may be sought. I.e. a person might hit a search engine wanting to know more about the person seen on the TV special or magazine cover; therefore, there is a function for an article on this individual. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Hithladaeus: That's because there are specific criteria for a few categories of people (ie athletes, artists, politicians, academics etc) in which they can meet notability guidelines through a specific achievement, such as football players (must have played in professional league is one) and musicians (having an album or song that goes gold or higher etc). That way it keeps AfD from being flooded with all these bios and helps article selection stay neutral (ie prevents subtle influences like, "I hate that team so I'm going to vote delete for all those players, but make bios for all the people who have played for my team," "that kind of music is horrible so I'm going to say delete," or the ever popular, "I've never heard of that person so they must not be important.") МандичкаYO 😜 17:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I know about the guidelines. I remember when they were forged. I advocate that people start always with knowing what the thing is, though, and what purpose it serves. After that, ask how it functions. In contentious cases, a group consensus might help, but it's no substitute for reason. I can be more specific, if you wish. In the case of the poptarts, the footballers, the little high schools, and the like we had constituencies of fans among article creators, more than anything, who wanted to protect their right to serialize and would willingly support one another's mutual rights against "deletionists." Consequently, the bar got set proportionately lower as the group of article writers felt itself to be persecuted by "elitists" and "snobs." We can argue that the principle by which such a constituency set such a standard operates analogously between the single season club footballer and the expert diver, or we can argue that the keep/delete debate go back to whether or not the article is likely to be useful. I think it's better not to slavishly wave guidelines, myself, and to ask whether the article serves readers (rather than writers). Hithladaeus (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
        • That's a very reasonable attitude, but unfortunately it relies on everyone being equally reasonable. The guidelines were always designed to avert repetition of the same arguments; and the snag with that is that they have evolved without any shades of grey at the margins. The criteria for musicians for example, implies that any artist who has a record in a national record chart will be notable. As that includes the Billboard 200, for example, then there will be artists who manage to have one album spend one week at position 200 there. Similarly a footballer who appeared as a substitute for the last 10 minutes of a single match in Football League Two will still pass our Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guideline. Most of the time, we won't have these edge cases and the guidelines serve a useful purpose, but at times we really need to be able to step back and see beyond them as Hithladaeus (is that Hithladeus in American-English?) proposes. Respectfully --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
          • In this case, if I were to ignore all notability guidelines, I don't see how this article serves readers. Animalparty above summed it up perfectly with his example of the pseudobiography. The claim of this person having "come to the attention of the public over a number of topics" is the lamest thing I've heard in a while. I would like to know why, if he is prominent in the diving community, he has not been featured in any diving publications. There's a whole lot of them. One of his claims of notability is that a magazine used his photo on the cover, but where was the story to go with it? Did they even know who he was or did they buy the picture because it looked cool? Seriously, not a single Q&A? No feature on the guy who's the expert on so many topics? No mention on a diving news website about any of his achievements? And the magazine was Florida Scuba News so apparently not even within the Florida diving community is there any evidence he's notable, or at least he is equally notable as the guy on the cover of this issue. This here is the only thing I found in relation to him being a diver, and it's a picture he sent in himself, and it's not a publication, and it's a promotional photo. That single thing. There is even less information (as in zero) about him in relation to his nonprofit he founded. There is not a single indication that he is prominent in the diving community or has achieved notability. I don't mean to insult him, but this is what happens when people make Wikipedia pages for their friends, like happened here, as the article creator has already admitted. If I ask who this article is serving, it's people who are buddies with Brian Armstrong. МандичкаYO 😜 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I would point out that I do not qualify as "people who are buddies with Brian Armstrong". I have never met him and have no connection or association with Gene Hobbs or RexxS other than that we all edit underwater diving articles on Wikipedia. Nevertheless I consider the article of sufficient interest to myself as a recreational scuba diver to be worth keeping. Besides, how would the article serve "people who are buddies with Brian Armstrong"? They already know him. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Pbsouthwood, The article was created by Gene Hobbs, his friend, not you. People making articles for their family and friends is nothing new - they do it because of their feeling that the person they are connected to is important and "deserves" an article, and the article's continued existence reinforces that belief. It's self-serving. That you consider it of sufficient interest personally is totally irrelevant. An article in my local paper about the amazing sixth grade teacher is of sufficient interest to me, and I enjoy reading it. Would I use that as an argument to give the teacher a Wikipedia article? No. The subject of the article must meet the criteria of WP:GNG and that is simply not the case. The topic must have received significant coverage (coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Brian Armstrong does not have a single article written about him, or a radio interview, or a profile on the local TV news, etc. Not one. So the continued claim that he has had any significant coverage is absurd. МандичкаYO 😜 10:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
                • I'm not a a buddy of Brian Armstrong either, and your insinuation that Gene Hobbs is incapable of writing neutral articles about notable people that he knows is a disgraceful assumption of bad faith. It doesn't matter a jot who creates an article, except perhaps that someone who actually has knowledge of the subject is likely to make a better job of it. The only thing that's absurd here is your inability to comprehend that the coverage by TLC, ABC, Mega Movers, Barnette, etc. constitutes "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only reason we're having this discussion is that diving is a niche topic that doesn't have the copious quantities of fan magazines and websites that provide coverage of so many insignificant celebrities who make up so much of our BLPs. Whenever someone who is actually notable in this field has an article, it's all too easy for commentators like you to artificially raise the bar of notability on the assumption that subjects have to have the same sort of volumes written about them as a pop singer. They don't. It is encyclopedic if there's significant independent coverage. Armstrong has that, and no amount of your asserting otherwise will change that fact. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Apparently, we disagree, and apparently that is tolerable to some, not to others. It may be that my personal knowledge of the geographical areas and projects affects my view a little, as I know that the dive groups in those areas are, in fact, more and more likely to end up in a TV producer's Rolodex. This is just a thing I know. (See, for example, the same knowledge I brought to my reasoning on the Canadian talking head on "off beat and goth" topics. I was much more willing to extend a benefit of the doubt due to this "Rolodex distortion" for her.) That can't be codified. Expertise, as we all know, also can't be codified. Nor should it be. Instead, it has to live in the realm of judgment. For Wikimandia: the "rules" for delete and keep are consensus among editors and closing admins., not notability guidelines (which are tools for consensus, not laws overwhelming it). If the voting and closing group goes entirely nuts, then that is the proper conclusion. Many times in the past, as I can imagine, it must have happened that floods of voters have shown up to "save" wretched articles on favorite topics. I would imagine that when little high schools were first being debated such sudden voting floods occurred. My own opinion is that this particular person has crossed over to the point, primarily because of the Discovery-TLC documentary, that interested viewers may want to know more about the person they saw. You do not agree. I'm just one archaism. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Maybe marginal, but for me on the keep side of the line. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep After checking that more can be added. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
What else can be added? МандичкаYO 😜 01:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Kelly Hutchison[edit]

Kelly Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kelly Hutchison" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Delete: as pure copy/paste, promotional OR hagiography. Quis separabit? 11:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I am the original author of this article and I worked very hard on it under the advice of a seasoned editor on Wiki that also wrote articles on visual artists. I am not affiliated with the artist, and I understand it has been edited by various others since it's creation, but I am familiar with the sources that the pages cites and know it is not a copied/pasted article. It is not of my opinion that it displays information in a biased manner as all information is cited, however if there is something specific that would need to be changed I will volunteer to do so. The page was not created for any promotional purposes. If there's something there now that should be fixed along those lines I will volunteer to do so.Crystalh1982 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirect to Murderabilia, possibly adding some content from these references. The article suffers from cite spam, unfortunately. There are no articles listed that are about the subject, although there are mentions. Some of the links, however, do not mention the person at all (e.g. #16, #21). Other cites are to blogs, individual web sites, etc., and no reliable sources have an article about the artist. In fact, the thrust of the articles is almost exclusively the phenomenon of "murderabilia". LaMona (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'd suggest that the full length article in juxtapoz counts as an article about him.©Geni (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe that interviews may be considered primary sources and thus original research. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_note-3 I don't know how to know when they are not OR. LaMona (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: @ Geni, I agree the full length article in juxtapoz counts as an article about him. @ Lamona, I disagree that the interview is considered primary research after reviewing cite note 3 mentioned above. My understanding is that it would only apply to an "oral history interview", such as an interview about an accident that took place and referencing an interview from a witness. I can see your point that perhaps the murderabilia info isn't valid within the artist page, however many articles mention personal information about the subjects, and I can see why someone may have thought to add it because it is a big part of his life/what influences him(#21 does mention the artist by the way). However you claim that the murderabilia section is the main part of the page. It is actually a section only titled "personal collection", the rest is about the artist himself, no? As far as the individual web sites, blogs, etc.: What about Thrillist Media Group? They made upwards of 100 million in 2014 with more than 300 employees according to Wikipedia. Per WP:BLPSPS "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". Therefore, just because it's a blog, doesn't mean it's not legit. Also, Reference #2 may appear to just be a "personal website" but it's actually a local newspaper that is printed, and the articles just happen to be reposted in blog form online. I also obtained a copy of Inked Magazine (Reference #12) and indeed the article does exist about him as listed - so although it's not available online for free I believe it's still a valid reference. I also have for example, an article about him in print from San Diego City Beat that isn't on this reference list, and I'm not sure why local publications are not valid? I really respect all of your opinions, and am trying to figure this out. As I am sure you can understand, I do not want my hard work going to waste and again volunteer my help if something can be done to prevent deletion.Crystalh1982 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

*Keep I'm satisfied by the number of sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC) -- delete comment by banned sockpuppet. Quis separabit? 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Thank you to those that have relisted this in hopes of reaching a consensus, which I hope can happen soon. I am very concerned about this article being deleted from Wiki and my offer still stands to help improve the article if it can be saved. I noticed the link to sources above only searches for the artist's name which is a very common name, and while he still pops up first and in many entries, most artists are better found when adding additional search terms such as "artist", etc. just a thought. I am hoping others can weigh in here and express their opinions, and most importantly some ideas on how this article can be saved/ improved upon. I can't remember the shortcut to sign my name and it's not providing it on this mobile device so this is user crystalh1982 at your mercy, signing out, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalh1982 (talkcontribs) 05:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ethel Farrell[edit]

Ethel Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ethel Farrell" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Another non-notable supercentenarian. Attempt has been made by both User:Waenceslaus and User:Ollie231213 to "expand" the article but we still see no information that isn't already available (and already sourced) in List of Australian supercentenarians and elsewhere. Simply living to a certain age does not make someone notable. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - There is information that isn't elsewhere. What you have linked above is not a guideline, but an essay. That represents the opinions of the people who wrote it, but that doesn't make it Wiki policy. Personally I think that the oldest person in a country is notable. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - As with any pre 90s article sources are next to none impossible to find which is why leniency is given, Personally I think expanding the article is better than deleting imho. –Davey2010Talk 17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - But this isn't a "pre 90s" article. The sourcing isn't there because there hasn't been much coverage on her. The most recent article on her was in November 2012 for her 110th birthday. The only recent information I could find is a brief one sentence mention that simply states she is the oldest living Australian back in October 2014. Ollie231213, what "information" is in this article that isn't already present in List of Australian supercentenarians? CommanderLinx (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Biographical information (marriage, descendants, health habits). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article has been recently expanded and new sources have been added. User:CommanderLinx, by admitting that the GRG is the reliable source, there appears the need for you to consider those, who are verified by the Gerontology Research Group as the oldest living people in their respective countries, as notable. Only one person can be the country's oldest resident at a time. Mrs. Farrell has been recognized by the media and the proper citations have been provided for the article. Moreover, there is great probability, that the article will be expanded further. -- Waenceslaus (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Mrs. Farrell is listed by the Gerontology Research Group among the Validated Living Supercentenarians as of May 1, 2015. Here is the link: http://www.grg.org/Adams/TableE.html -- Waenceslaus (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - How does a mention in a GRG table establish notability? Yes, sources have been added but they contain no new information that is not already available in List of Australian supercentenarians. Again, living to a certain age does not make someone notable. Pinging User:DerbyCountyinNZ who also has experience in this topic area. CommanderLinx (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Pinging someone you know will agree with you. Do we all get to "phone a friend"? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Every information, which is not merely a mention of name in a table serves here as a new piece of information, which is not available in List of Australian supercentenarians. These include the detailed information about the person's life, the citations of which have been provided. Living to a supercentenarian age, in my honest opinion, does make someone notable. It does even more if the person is the oldest resident of her respective country, which is a fact in Mrs. Farrell's case. -- Waenceslaus (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mrs Farrell is the oldest person in Australia. And most of the info in the article is not on the list of Australian SC's. So that's why I'm going for keep.
To CommanderLinx: Why do you want to "destroy" longevity and supercentenarian articles? That's all you do these days, isn't it? I can name countless supercentenarian articles that you have tried to delete for no good reason! -- Bensonfood (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2015 (Greenwich Mean Time)
  • Keep - Being the oldest resident in a specific country is enough for me to vote in favor of keeping one's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talkcontribs) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just wanted to say 2 things:
1. New information has been added that is not present in the list of Australian SC's, which is why we should keep Ethel's article.
2. Sorry for my overreaction there. -- Bensonfood (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2015 (Greenwich Mean Time)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - Can any of the above "keep votes" explain how she passes the WP:GNG when there is nothing available on her after November 2012? Or do we keep this article because of encyclopedic information such as "she used to smoke" and "has children and grandchildren"? Coverage is minimal at best and again, the sources in this article tell us nothing of value that is not already present in List of Australian supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge to List of Australian supercentenarians. As noted above, debatable/negligible encyclopedic content and nothing to justify a separate article. No indication of WP:SIGCOV. Note that almost all the entries at List of British supercentenarians#People have more substantial content than this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in my opinion, being the oldest person in a country qualifies one for notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of Australian supercentenarians. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of Australian supercentenarians. I don't see being the oldest person in a country as inherently notable. I was expecting that she would meet WP:GNG, but it just isn't there. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep opposed to delete. She is not only Australia's oldest living person, but second oldest person ever born in India, 9th oldest Australian ever (If she is alive until October 2015, It will become third oldest Australian person ever) and last known living Australian person to have been born before 1905. I think that article of Orma Slack is should be deleted than this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources provide her as the oldest living person of a major country which should convey notability, information like "she smokes" provide historical context of her field (centenarian), she has reached the top of her field. GuzzyG (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of sources would be really helpful unravelling this. There are a lot of no policy based votes here that make finding a consensus extremely hard. Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Article currently has 3 sources: 1 is from the GRG which establishes her age but confers no notability, 1 (from 2012) mentions that she has become a supercentenarian which is not the notability claimed for her and 1 is a passing mention in a story about her predecessor as oldest Australian. In short none of the sources are sufficient to justify an article about the notability claimed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Nailed it. I will also add that the WP:WOP wikiproject states that articles such as this one should be redirected to a list as sources don't demonstrate notability and don't provide significant details on anything but her longevity. As DerbyCountyinNZ shows and I stated above, these sources tell us nothing interesting that isn't already available (and sourced) at List of Australian supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It's one source confirming her age is verified, one confirming that she is the oldest Australian, and one that gives biographical details. For an article which is currently only a stub, that isn't bad. All are reliable sources. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, on the basis she's already listed appropriately at List of Australian supercentenarians. Supercentenarians are much more common these days, as evidenced by the tiny amount of news coverage about her so far. Fails WP:GNG at the moment. Sionk (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ollie Luba[edit]

Ollie Luba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ollie Luba" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable individual lacking independent, secondary non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep: Ollie Luba was the creator/head designer/project manager of the creation of the GPS III, working for Lockheed Martin. He and his team wrote a paper, titled GPS III System Operations Concepts, which outlined the creation of the GPS III, its uses in the Air Force, and connectivity worldwide. The article provides sufficient and reliable sources. Luba is significant through the cyber-security and aerospace workforce. Alexsmith125 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to GPS III - unfortunately I can't find any sources, coverage or profiles on him that support notability. МандичкаYO 😜 00:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: notability established, IMO. Quis separabit? 13:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 02:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyatham Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Chant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Chant


Academics and educators[edit]

George Siopsis[edit]

George Siopsis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "George Siopsis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline for Academics nonsense ferret 19:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment His h index is 20. I do not know if that is high or low for this field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeinabu irene Davis[edit]

Zeinabu irene Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Zeinabu irene Davis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I'm a bit on the fence with this because there doesn't seem to many significant, notable and solid sources. News mostly finds passing mentions over the years, Books found the most out of all my searches, several at Highbeam, thefreelibrary (the best link is probably this which lists awards). IMDb also lists some of her awards here. Searches at some of the newspapers listed found passing mentions here, here and here while Newspapers Archive only found this. The article obviously needs a rewrite but I'm not sure how much will remain afterwards and considering there aren't that many good sources. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While I agree with the nominator above, generally, I own a print source entitled Women Film Directors: An International Bio-critical Dictionary by film scholar Gwendolyn Audrey Foster (a radical feminist viewpoint). Foster devotes two solid pages to Davis. In addition, Foster points to further sources on Davis -- don't know if these are accessible online -- but articles in the Village Voice entitled "Exile and Cunning" (Jan 13 1987) page 68. An article in Angles: Women Working in Film and Video 1.2 Winter 1992, 6-9, 22, by Ann Filemyr, entitled Zeinabu Irene Davis: Filmmaker, Teacher with a Powerful Mission. At the same time, I don't think this filmmaker has any mainstream activity, or how much influence there has been, but I think there has been influence. And, I strongly agree with nominator that the current article is seriously bloated with fluff and junk and I'm almost in favor of deletion for that reason alone, although I know it's not a valid reason. Hope this helps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Antti Lange[edit]

Antti Lange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Antti Lange" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

unclear notability Fgnievinski (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails GNG as academic and unelected politician МандичкаYO 😜 07:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Karen DeSoto[edit]

Karen DeSoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Karen DeSoto" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Academic who does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Previously speedily deleted as spam as Karen desoto, but I don't think the current version is unambiguously spammy. bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails GNG. No articles about her. МандичкаYO 😜 10:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Easy delete: no notability claims. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles A. Lewis[edit]

Charles A. Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Charles A. Lewis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 16:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Inez Storer[edit]

Inez Storer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Inez Storer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Poorly referenced BLP I dream of horses (T) @ 04:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - I do not believe that being poorly referenced is a reason for deletion; however, not having significant coverage in reliable sources would be. I do not see many returns in Google News; however, Google Books returns quite a few. Not sure at this point.--TTTommy111 (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: She appears to be arts faculty (if only occasional) and a working artist. Her work gets noticed when it's exhibited, but I rather suspect she needs to be talked about -- a retrospective or a discussion of her place in an arts development -- to generate the RS that will satisfy notability. If those are found, then consider my opinion moot. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • weak delete Keep after added refs. Her work appears in many gallery listings, but I can find no RS about her. LaMona (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets 4(d) of WP:ARTIST as she is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". I've added some reliable sources and think that the article now meets WP:GNG criteria. gobonobo + c 03:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I added a couple of sources from HighBeam that discuss her work. There are other sources there, but they seem like brief mentions. I don't have an opinion right now as to whether or not this adds up to enough. I don't know anything about the notability of artists or art galleries. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gobonobo's argument. Having works in the permanent collection of several major public collections is a strong indication of notability. Considering her age, there is likely to be offline coverage about her, in addition to the online coverage already found. Sionk (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bashir Abu-Manneh[edit]

Bashir Abu-Manneh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bashir Abu-Manneh" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

young, not widely noted professor. 1st link on page leads to an online, undergraduate, group blog where writer reports on student objections to Abu-Manneh being turned down for tenure, normal thing for a literature professor who has published zero books. He seems to have subsequently taught briefly at Brown University, and is now a "lecturer" at University of Kent. Unclear if Kent is a tenure-track or temporary appointment. All other references on page are to essays he wrote in small, political magazines. Can find no in-depth coverage of him or his work. He has published some articles in his field of study of Palestinian film, but I cannot find that he has been widely cited, or or had a substantial impact. Certainly fails WP:PROFESSOR It may simply be WP:TOOSOON, he is young, but I'm seeing nothing to justify a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't have evidence for passing WP:PROF (and we have some evidence against, in his denial of tenure). @E.M.Gregory: In the English system, lecturer is a ladder rank below senior lecturer, reader and professor, roughly equivalent to assistant professor in the US. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The guy was denied tenure because, as best as can be discerned, his scholarly output was not up to par with what was expected. Being a "well liked" professor alone is not enough to make someone notable, especially when this comes from a publication at the institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

P. Kanagaraj[edit]

P. Kanagaraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "P. Kanagaraj" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMICS or WP:BASIC. There is this article in The Hindu that provides significant coverage, but not finding much else. News articles found in searches are primarily written by the subject. North America1000 13:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Zeshan Qureshi[edit]

Zeshan Qureshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Zeshan Qureshi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This reads like a resume-not sure how reliable the refs are given that only one is a link and he isn't even mentioned there. (And you have to love how he was given a award in June 2015-yes the future!) Wgolf (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - That award seems to have been changed to April now instead of June but I'm unable to find a source either way, Scholar found a few results but I'm not an academia expert so I'm not sure how useful they are and Books found passing mentions (including second page, with one "Zeeshan"); other searches News, thefreelibrary and highbeam found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Have: 1. Added a reference for the award, and reworded the statement. 2. Added more hyperlinks to some of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.104.55 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete No indication that he meet notability under wp:prof. Citations in pub med appear to be valid but the writing of esoteric papers and textbooks which are not covered in a secondary fashion by other refs does not a notable academic make. BakerStMD 02:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Pippa Norris[edit]

Pippa Norris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Pippa Norris" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Likely the person is notable per WP:NPROF, however this article is so promotional and spammy. It's an autobiography that's now being maintained by the user. Needs a complete rewrite, and I believe the only solution is to stubify, per WP:TNT. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - she meets GNG, but I don't think the article is as bad as TNT. Just needs someone to take an axe to it. МандичкаYO 😜 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just been trying to add references to external published materials to the existing text, as requested by an editor earlier. I am not sure why it is said to be 'spammy' or 'promotional' when all the contents can be verified from materials in the public sphere, such as books published, prizes awarded, positions held, and so on and so forth. In this regards, its the same model as most Harvard faculty bios in Wikipedia, and I have been seeking to comply with Wiki policies. I can easily add more references to other secondary sources, if useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PippaN (talkcontribs) 22:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • PippaN, I don't agree with the nominator's assessment of it being overly spammy, but I think it's a little... enthusiastic :-) Adding more sources never hurts. МандичкаYO 😜 23:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. OK, really user:PippaN shouldn't be writing WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY of herself here - she can do it on linkedin instead if she wants people to know about her work. But actually, I think the article is fairly factual and it's not too bad in terms of neutrality/promotion. Le petit fromage (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sara Foroozani[edit]

Sara Foroozani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sara Foroozani" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable academic. 2 of the papers listed as publications appear to be conference papers only, no evidence her work is widely read or cited. Fails WP:SCHOLAR, sources provide no evidence this person satisfies GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't find anything, tried to find Farsi sources, no luck МандичкаYO 😜 15:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is possible that a 24 year old has academic accomplishments, but such a thing would be exceedingly rare. In the humanities, in particular, a career isn't well enough established to be referred to by others until a decade later, at least. There aren't indications in the article that the subject passes the guidelines, either, so this may be accidental vanity or a misunderstanding. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no real claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG .–Davey2010Talk 01:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Can find no indication of notability. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Randall Pearce[edit]

Randall Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Randall Pearce" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP:BLP of a political/PR consultant, relying on minimal reliable sourcing and reading far more like the kind of biographical PR blurb, shading toward prosified résumé, that one might read on the subject's own website than like a genuinely substantive encyclopedia article. While there are certainly statements in here that might get him over a notability hump if they could be expanded and sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, nothing here satisfies any of Wikipedia's "automatically eligible for inclusion because X, Y or Z" tests. I'm willing to revisit this if the sourcing can be substantively improved, but there's not enough of it here in the article's current state to get him over the bar — even the two sources which are present in the article merely namecheck his existence rather than being about him in any meaningful way. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication of notability. Local politician with no significant media coverage; nothing regarding his scientific endeavours found via Google Scholar. The best source I found indicates he merely featured amont the "also ran", getting 17% of the vote in some election. [66] Huon (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, No significant coverage in the news. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Sock comment struck. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:BIO. Yes he's worked for notable people but that doesn't make you notable yourself. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Khan Noor Muhammad Khan[edit]

Khan Noor Muhammad Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Khan Noor Muhammad Khan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I can't find anything related to this name, although there are several Noor Muhammad Khans, without the first name. There are no usable references, at the very least we need to establish that this guy existed/has the right name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete unreferenced, unverifiabe, without prejudice against recreation when sources found. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree, didn't find any sources. Unless author provide reliable sources, has to be deleted. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete:-per nom. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 06:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm posting the comment from the nominator, Alibilal9999 here. It was removed because it awas in the wrong place, but he's entitled to post here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Khan Noor Muhammad Khan was a well known personality in education circles of Punjab Pakistan who not only served regular education in Punjab in different capacities like Inspector of schools Lahore division and then Director of education Punjab but also initiated department of special education in Punjab before him there was no such department in Punjab and he was the first director of special education Punjab who set up a large net work of vocational institutes and schools for blind and mentally retarded people in the province. there are many other services for general public and government of Punjab under his belt. the city government of Faisalabad has named a busy avenue in the city in his name as "Khan noor Muhammad khan Avenue" in recognition of his services for the country. I hope this humble introduction of him will not stand him in the deletion list of Wikipedia. you will agree here with me that references of www.youtube.com or any other social website are self generated but the services of a man speak by itself}}

Elizabeth Losh[edit]

Elizabeth Losh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Elizabeth Losh" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Notability Ucsd1234 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Doing general due diligence as described in the article deletion page, Losh has written a few books, but no other books really mention her. She is the author of multiple academic articles in Google Scholar, and they are good. However, these articles are not substantive enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. She does plenty in femtech, but the article was written at a conference where she played an integral role, where someone likely felt her presence was more powerful than her impact outside the conference.

  • User:Ucsd1234, Welcome to WP. It is unusual to see a new account apparently created for the sole purpose of nominating an article for deletion. And intriguing to have a SPA named ucsd created for the purpose of deleting the newish page of a UCSD professor. If you are Elizabeth Losh and are using this as a method of deleting the article because yo would prefer not to have a WP article, you should know that deletion can be requested by academics who, like Losh, are not household names. If, however, you have a personal grudge....E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article is promotionally written — e.g. the pull quotes from the reviews appear to be chosen as quotes that make the books good rather than ones that tell us anything useful about their content — and that should be fixed. But getting reviewed at Times Higher Education is something of a coup, and although I can't find quite as high profile reviews for her other book Virtualpolitik it also has some published reviews [67] [68]. That may be enough for WP:AUTHOR, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep What User:David Eppstein said. Plus this review [69] in Nature (journal). She clearly passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Klaus Solberg Søilen[edit]

Klaus Solberg Søilen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Klaus Solberg Søilen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BASIC. All but one of the sources cited are written by the subject and a search for other sources produced nothing. Google scholar suggests that the subject has not been widely cited. The only potential notability would be due to PROF #8 as he is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business but again, based on a search the journal doesn't appear to be particularly important. (The editor has declared a COI). SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The topic meets at least 5 criteria of WP:ACADEMIC (probably more), and I do not know you think otherwise. Søilen is a respected expert in his filed with dozens of papers written that were published in notable magazines. As you said, he is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, which is an additional proof of notability. --BiH (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Which parts of ACADEMIC? A "respected expert" according to who? Unless JISIB is shown to be a "major well-established academic journal" then him being the editor is moot. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Parts 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9.. JISIB seems notable to be according to this and this as it is included in journal databases and has continuity since 2011. Moreover, its publisher is Halmstad University, Sweden. --BiH (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Add: Even Google Scholar says on its web: "A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey." so notability can't be assessed only with Google Scholar. As I said, JISIB is an open source journal. The journal is already cited by SCOPUS even though it is not more than 3 years old (found an evidence here). The argument that it is not well known should not be used as no new journals are well known. Their development and usage should be taken into the account as well. --BiH (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
#4 Sources? #5 only a normal prof, #7 sources? #8 again we need sources that are currently lacking, #9 did you read that criterion? SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • weak keep Just qualifies under WP:PROF, but promotional and full of exaggeration, especially in the publications section. I generally think that any full professor at a research university can be assumed to be notable; in decisions at afd every one of them has been found notable in the last five or six years, except 1/ in fields where the opinion or perhaps prejudices of WP editors is that the field is insufficiently rigorous --some of these have been fields traditionally dominated by women, and this opinion or prejudice has contributed in some part to our gender bias; 2/where there is a prejudice against the individual because of their espousal of ideas that are unpopular at WP, generally in fields other than their primary notability--in the past they have often been those very few scientists who have some involvement with parapsychology or alternative medicine; more recently a few have been in climate science (I have fought every one of such deletions and shall continue to); 3/in a few special cases where there were other contributing factors. The question is whether this falls in the third category. Obviously we have deleted hundreds of articles on professors, usually for copyvio, and sometimes for blatant promotionalism--but these are matters other than notability. I first considered whether the promotionalism here is sufficient for deletion on that basis alone, but it isn't. In the last year I and others have been arguing that in all fields the combination of borderline notability and substantial promotionalism should be grounds for deletion--and many articles have been deleted on that rationale. Taking this into account, it's a weak keep.
The basic criterion for WP:PROF is to be recognized as an authority in one's field--the other parts of the guideline are just shortcuts. The normal way to toshow recognition as an expert is by a person's professional publications: He works in a field where bother books and journals are significant, so I will analyze both. Despite the impressive appearance of the bibliography, , he is the author of no academic research level books by a major publisher whatsoever. The only internationally known publisher here is Springer, and his book with them is not an academic book: Exhibit marketing and trade show intelligence : successful boothmanship and booth design Springer, 2013. (in 273 worldcat libraries) The publisher "Studentlitteratur" is a Swedish publisher of academic theses--it is still the custom in Sweden and several other countries that academic theses must be actually published, and the candidate pay for that himself--their publications are best regarded as self-published. Wirtschaftswissenshaftlichen Fakultät Universität Leipzig, Germany is another publisher of theses, this time in German. Ventus is a textbook publishers. Copenhagen Business School press is a very minor university publisher. The purported other books aren not even books, but just chapters in books. In the hierarch of academic publishing they not only dod not count as books, but rank considerably below journal articles, as they are rarely actually peer-reviewed. As for the journal articles, none of them is published in a first rate journal. Journal impact factors are a very rough way to evaluate journals, but they can yield some information; the best of the journals, Journal of Business Research is only 107th of the 239 business journals listed in Web of Science. Journal articles can be characterized in google Scholar--again this is only approximate, and it under-rates non US/UK publications, and also under-rates fields where publication is in books. Nonetheless, the highest cited articles there has been cited 8 times only, which would normally be considered insignificant in any subject .
The key possibility here is one of the auxiliary criteria: being editor in chief of a major journal Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business is listed in Scopus, but no other selective index. It was started only in 2011. It might just count as borderline notable here, but in no sense is it a major journal. It does not seem to be the major journal in its niche; rather, that is Competitive intelligence review which has been published since 1990 by a major publisher (Wiley). consideration as the major journal in its niche. To be editor of the major journal is a smal lspeciality is probably notability. None of the other qualifications in WP:PROF are even approximately met. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Studentlitteratur is not primarily a publisher of theses (not sure they publish any theses at all, but it's possible) but of textbooks, and I see no reason to see these as "self-published". (There is no reason to regard Swedish doctoral theses as self-published either in any way that would make sense to most English-speaking wikipedians, but that issue is probably best saved for another discussion.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @DGG: Thank you for taking a look. I'm a bit confused by your reasoning though as you seem to be saying that there is little evidence that they are important, but because they are a professor, the article should be kept. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#General_notes is very relevant in this discussion since there are zero independent sources discussing the subject and therefore we shouldn't have an article per BLP. Essentially, the only reason they could be notable is that they started a journal 4 years ago, which any academic could do, and for which we have no sources to demonstrate that it is an important journal. As it stands the article is basically a resume and since there are no sources, if it was made BLP-compliant, there would be nothing left! SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
any academic can start an OA journal ; relatively few would be able to maintain it for 4 years, because unless people respect the ed in chief and thing the venue worthwhile, they won;t sent in articles to publish. He's at the low end of notability by the basic WP:PROf criterion being an authority in his subject, but he's arguabley within it. When we have general practices, we shoudl decide specific borderline situation in to maintain them, if only to avoid confusion/. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as above. J 1982 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Prasant Palakkappilly[edit]

Prasant Palakkappilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Prasant Palakkappilly" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No notability. VagaboundWind (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Procedural comments:- I think is odd and bizarre for the nominator to simultaneously nominates article for deletion per WP:CSD#A7 and through WP:AfD. I remind the nominator that A7 does not applies to articles with claim of significance even if the claim is unsupported by reliable sources. Thanks! Wikigyt@lk to M£ 20:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : I personally know him he was our principal in my college and my uncles Basketball playmate. I know him very well, and i wonder why he has a biographical article in Wikipedia, yes his name was in the newses some times, it's because he is the principal of one of the India's historical and 3rd biggest college in South India, which got many countless acheivements and recognitions and what not. So every news reports about the college got a mention for principal (you can check that). Is this made him a wikipedia article?. Someone fooled someone. VagaboundWind (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment "what makes him notable?". He has been the principal of two schools/colleges. While at each, he has promoted agricultural improvement. I would question whether that is enough to make him notable. but I do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete : Then there should be many wiki articles about a lot of unimportant persons who was principal of more than one colleges. And i am a person who know him. VagaboundWind (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep College President, that alone makes him a keeper. But also because there is lots of RS coverage of him and his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Mahidhara Nalini Mohan Rao[edit]

Mahidhara Nalini Mohan Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mahidhara Nalini Mohan Rao" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Basically unsourced article with one link that appears to be a blog, but from what I can tell, doesn't cover what the article says. Of all my searches, Books was the only one that found a few results (this particular one supports the Indira Gandhi Award but that's pretty much it). Searches at News, Scholar, thefreelibrary and highbeam so it's likely good sources are non-English and offline but I don't see why this article should be kept given the longtime issues. SwisterTwister talk 15:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Vaclav Zizler[edit]

Vaclav Zizler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vaclav Zizler" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

does not meet notability criteria in WP:GNG and also does not meet WP:ACADEMIC --MATThematical (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google scholar (for author:v-zizler) shows citation counts of 923, 229, 160, 144, 131, etc. For a low-citation subject (pure mathematics), this is a lot, enough I think to pass WP:PROF#C1. He also has multiple books with multiple in-depth published reviews, possibly enough for WP:AUTHOR, and the article (which has been significantly improved since nomination) now also includes a national award of unclear significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Randolph Clarke[edit]

Randolph Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Randolph Clarke" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

As seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-stage model of free will, the article creator, User:Cmsreview, started a bunch of articles with problems. This one relies on a couple of primary sources, so there is no third party notability established. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep His h-index is 17, which I think indicates that he has been widely cited by third parties. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that philosophy is typically a fairly low-citation field. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

*Keep: Widely cited by third party sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete A published academic, but does not meet any of the specific criteria at WP:ACADEMIC that would make him notable by WP definitions. LaMona (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Gotzmann[edit]

Andreas Gotzmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Find sources: "Andreas Gotzmann" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR

Lacks notability. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. In addition, heavily promotional page which not comply with Wikipedia's neutrality policies. Fails WP:PROMOTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninanu123 (talkcontribs) Ninanu123 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This looks like a sufficient body of work on an important subject for us to keep. However I find it difficult to work out how much of it is an article or chapter in a book and how much whole books. I note he has won a prize, but I do not know its significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable scholar. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The chair he holds at Erfurt may by itself qualify him as notable. This article could use more clearity, it does not need deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Janet Lilly[edit]

Janet Lilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Janet Lilly" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

The subject fails the general notability requirement of WP:BIO. A Google search brings up a few biographies from schools she has worked at, and one article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but little other third-party coverage. JohnInDC (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Principal dancer for Bill T. Jones is nothing to sneeze at, and the sources indicate that she continues to be at least modestly notable as a choreographer. For example, here is a feature about her in the The Sunday Times of Sri Lanka, and here is a piece in The New York Times that talks about her work in some detail. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The itsy bitsy spider went up the water stout. Down came the rain, and washed the spider out. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 05:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Fil Delacruz[edit]

Fil Delacruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Fil Delacruz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Just like the WP:PROD said, this failed WP:GNG with just one presumably WP:RS. –HTD 10:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Weak keep - this is probably something that hasn't been fully established yet for Philippine-related articles, but a visual artist who has received a "Thirteen Artists" award from the Cultural Center of the Philippines may be considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The Thirteen Artists award is an established triennial award who includes notable Philippine artists like Manuel Baldemor and Antonio Austria. It given to young, promising artists (at the time of the awarding), and receiving one such award would help improve a visual artist's chances of being nominated as a National Artist of the Philippines (although this has yet to happen, AFAIK). That said, this article has room for improvements (this reads much like a biography/CV), and some of the awards could probably be eliminated if they can't be considered to be very important awards. (I plead ignorance for things related to the local visual arts scene, so maybe another editor with better knowledge of the visual arts could probably help improve this one.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If such "Thirteen Artists" award is truly notable, it should have been covered by independent third party sources. The references of him getting such an award are from the Wikipilipinas wiki and his own freely-hosted website. That's not reliable at all. –HTD 16:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
With regard to the "Thirteen Artists" awards per se, it is (somewhat) notable, just not on the same scale as being appointed a National Artist. That said, I do agree that this article in question needs more citations to use. Especially not Wikipilipinas --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
There are two things that have to be done: 1) Show that the award truly is notable by using references from multiple reliable sources, and 2) Show a reference from a reliable source (or more) that this person won said award. That's the only way we could gauge the notability. –HTD 15:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Article has been significantly improved since nomination. As well as the thirteen artists award (about the significance of which I am dubious) we have better evidence for notability: his art is in the permanent collection of the National Museum of the Philippines (reference 2 of the article, spelled as "Fil dela Cruz"). We also have several in-depth and reliably published sources about the artist listed as sources (here's another: [70]). I think he passes WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: The text surely needs to be rewritten to escape the CV format. At present, it really reads more like a job application than a retrospective or contextualization of an important and referred-to artist. However, the subject himself passes notability. It does seem as if this points out a need for solidifying the awards structures of nations .en Wikipedians will be less familiar with so that nominations are clearer. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yury Serebryakov[edit]

Yury Serebryakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yury Serebryakov" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Notability is in doubt. No sources found using Google and philatelic databases. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea but you may want to specifically ask some of the Russian speaking philatelists. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails GNG. I'm not a philatelist but there is simply nothing found that supports notability, as a stamp guy or for anything. Profiles in a few other wikis with mention of his treatise about the destruction of the Russian ethnic identity that appears to be FRINGE at best. I couldn't even link to it here because it's on a blacklisted site. МандичкаYO 😜 22:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still sourced only to a deadlink and a wiki, after all this time at AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Norman E. Amundson[edit]

Norman E. Amundson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Norman E. Amundson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable subject. A single book by this writer won a single award from his professional association. The article is primarily a list of languages the book was translated into, with new ones being added as new translations are published. No references, and a search found a single quote from him (one of about ten people quoted in the article) in a single article about an unrelated subject. No mainstream mentions of him/his book. Page is an orphan except for a link from surname Amundson page, which was added the same day this page was created. valereee (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I don't think this person passes GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC. I say "weak delete" because I don't know the importance of the awards in his particular field. For example, I found that he was given the Stu Conger Leadership Award by the Canadian Career Development Foundation [71]. It doesn't look like it would raise him to notability, but I'd like to hear if anyone knows differently. LaMona (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: A h-index of 28 and nearly 3000 citations is probably a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Esquivalience t 03:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Esquivalience - could you point to his profile? I don't see it on Google, so you must be accessing it elsewhere? thanks. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I calculated his h-index and a script with Google Scholar. Esquivalience t 01:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I find that the scholar calculator includes a lot of false hits (e.g. J Amundson on a search for Norman E Amundson). I don't think we can use that alone to determine notability. LaMona (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The weakest of keeps per Esquivalience. This is a very borderline case, but I think there is sufficient scholarly coverage to pass the academic notability guild lines. Additionally, Good-reads reports eight separate published works by him.[72] which is confirmed by amazon.[73] He also appears to be featured as an expert on some sort of video series.[74] Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

George de Menil[edit]

George de Menil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "George de Menil" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This was recently deleted at AfD, then recreated, and I think it at least deserves a thorough discussion again. As I see it, the basic problem with this subject is that we have no in-depth coverage that would confirm notability, per WP:PROF or WP:BIO. We have citations to titles of his books, as well as one of his articles, which are fairly meaningless in this context. We have a capsule biography published by one of the institutions with which he is affiliated, as well as a publisher's blurb, neither of which is independent. We have his CV - no comment. And a directory entry, and something he runs. None of which amounts to very much, from a standpoint of encyclopedic notability.

Also, while not directly bearing on notability, let's point out that the article is written by the subject's daughter - can you say "conflict of interest"? - Biruitorul Talk 13:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support delete. It seems like he would deserve an article but as nom said, there are just not enough secondary sources at this time. Elgatodegato (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (but cut down). I think anyone who thinks that there is a dichotomy between "independent sources" and "non-independent sources" is severely lacking in clues and quite honestly shouldn't be attempting to write an encyclopedia. We can rely on the non-independent sources for basic non-controversial concrete facts, especially in the academy where lying about one's achievements is not considered to be appropriate. Many of the "independent sources" rely themselves on the non-independent sources, and can often be less reliable - we need to consider the context. After the irrelevant stuff about Latin club is cut down we wait with a cut down version until inevitably the unfortunate happens. As regards COI, his daughter should concentrate on ensuring newspapers or academic journals have information to publish an obituary on his death (even though I hope that this is not for some time yet). Le petit fromage (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, Le petit fromage, yes, there are sources which are independent, and those which are not: WP:BASIC speaks about them, as do a host of other guidelines. Sure, no source will come labeled independent or non-independent, but it's usually rather easy to tell which is which. I base my work here on this premise, as do, presumably, many other editors.
    • Having said that, it would be useful if, rather than opining on various extraneous points, you could say exactly why the article should be kept, in other words how the subject passes either WP:PROF or WP:BIO, and just which independent sources demonstrate his notability. - Biruitorul Talk 03:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh FFS, read what I wrote above. No, there are very few sources that are truly independent, and those that are non-independent are not necessarily unreliable. This is such a basic point of scholarship, that it is probably more difficult to misunderstand (as you have done) than understand. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
All right, Le petit fromage, so you don't actually have any independent sources, as demanded by WP:BASIC and contemplated by WP:RS, about this subject. Fair enough: I just wanted to make that clear to any other participants. - Biruitorul Talk 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
He meets WP:PROF with reliable sources, ergo he should be kept. The fact that you couldn't recognise a reliable source if it bit you on the arse is irrelevant. End of discussion. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I found this source, which states that he was "founding director of the economics research division of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris". I believe that that, stated in the New York Times, is sufficient to establish notability under WP:PROF criterion 6. The rest of the (non-independent) sources can be used to establish facts. However, I feel that the rest of the sources do need a bit of a trim. Origamite 20:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment To pass WP:PROF #6 he would have to be Director of the Institute itself, not one of its divisions. And only if this Institute is a major academic institution (which it may well be). Kraxler (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This person seems to have done enough to be notable, but there is almost nothing in the article that is sourced to a reliable source, and I can't find anything. I even tried searching his name in French newspapers and got nothing. If someone does find reliable sources, this article will need to be entirely re-written using those sources and only those sources. LaMona (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I think he may qualify as WP:PROF, which combined with his role as adviser to the presidents of Ukraine and Romania (and his subsequent publications about their economies) make him notable. I've run into this before when trying to compile info for a bio - economists are very rarely the subject of articles and with so many journals and papers it's hard to know which ones are truly important. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about economics/academia can give insight. МандичкаYO 😜 21:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: The subject fails WP:PROF#C1 if only papers are considered, with a h-index of 9 and 500 citations. However, the subject seems have some significant publications and contributions, as evidenced by the article, which may pass WP:PROF#C1. Esquivalience t 03:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it needs work, but I see he can pass WP:GNG at least. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Namgi Park[edit]

Namgi Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Namgi Park" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Ignoring the vanity scam awards (which should be removed from the article regardless of outcome) I'm not convinced that being president of a small teaching college with a one-line unreferenced article is enough for WP:PROF#C6: it's a highest level academic post but not at a major academic institution. And that's the only criterion he seems to come close to. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep:- Subject of the article clearly meet WP:PROF#C6. University world News confirmed him as former President of Gwangju National University of Education, a recognized and accredited university of education. I sourced the article and did some cleanup. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Created by subject himself, this is essentially a bibliography/CV. These kinds of lists of publications are not favored as WP pages. I do not see anything that rises to the notability requirements of WP:PROF. The university has a WP page that is a stub. I found little about it online, but it appears to be what in the US we call a "teacher's college" -- and if so, it affords little prestige to its president. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep:As per User:Wikicology, Park seems to me to pass our WP:Prof. His former presidency of an acredited Korean university ([75]). This seems to me to meet WP:Prof 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. The notes to which say a significant accredited college or university. National teaching training colleges with both UGs (1500) and PG (700) students would seem to me to fall into what is wanted here. Also his publications include the highly cited (GS 293) Mauch, J., & Park, N. (2003). Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation: A handbook for students and faculty (Vol. 62). CRC Press. So this might help with establishing notability by pulications. Also his role in the World Council for Comparative Education Societies [[76]] seems to me indicative of notability. Editing to remove excessive publications and over promotional tone is all that seems to me to be needed. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment on article improvement: The list of awards has been removed and I have also removed most of his many publications (both english and all the Korean ones - am not sure if this last thing was the right thing to do). Have also added a review in a peer reviewed journal to one of his books and evidence of the Uni he was president of being an acredited national univeristy in the Korean system. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC))
PS: Interested (and patient - as it is slow downloading) editors can see a picture of Namgi Park with Prime Minister Han Seung-soo on the Office for the Prime Minister's Sectretariat's website in Oct 2008 at the ceremony of appointment to his post as president of a national university. [77]. (Text for picture Korean: 081023_한승수총리_박남기_광주교육대학총장_임명장수여 English: 2008 23rd Oct Prime Minister Han Seung-soo and Park Namgi Awarded Appointment of President of Gwangju National University of Education.) (Msrasnw (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 08:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Academics and educators Proposed deletions[edit]

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