Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:28, 13 April 2022

WP:DSBOSS

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Businesspeople. 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:

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 as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Businesspeople|~~~~}} 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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Businesspeople. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

This list is included in more general lists of business-related deletions and people for deletion.

Businesspeople

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koenig Institute

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH miserably. Most of the RS hinges on Edward Snowden coming to India to do something here. That's not in-depth of the subject but of them. Also read the language. Campus is 18,000 sqft. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Providing few significant sources of substantial coverage which satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH;

A news article discussing a prolonged controversy

1-Edward Snowden sharpened his hacking skills in Delhi

2-What Was Edward Snowden Doing in India?

A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization

3-Hero or Traitor Edward Snowden and the NSA Spying Program Main case study page, Author: Laura Winig, Case Number: 2018.0

Publication Date: April 30, 2014, Faculty Lead: Christopher Robichaud, Harvard Kennedy School, Hosted:University of Central Florida

A documentary film exploring the impact of the corporation's facilities or products,

4-Significantly covered in Al Jazeera video news Al Jazeera report. RPSkokie (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please describe 'how' the given sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply listing sources and claiming that they meet CORPDEPTH doesn't have a lot of value. Will be helpful if you can specifically highlight which part of the sources meet CORPDEPTH. TOI is not even counted as a full WP:RS so that's out. Foreignpolicy.com source doesn't have in depth discussion or analysis of Koenig institute. Just a bunch of quotes from spokespersons. Please recall that for CORPDEPTH we need independent analysis, discussion and commentary. Al Jazeera is a generic report that they seem to have filed after this case. No traces of independent discussion of Koenig. In your Harvard source, Koening is mentioned only twice. That's passing mention at best, far away from significant coverage, let alone CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noted that the description of example of substantial coverage is broken or missing important parts. Right descriptions are A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger. And similarly, A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would take a lot of substantial, in depth coverage to make a run-of-a-mill IT training facility notable and this institute doesn't have it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Lee (businessman)

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

His father was a member of parliament, but he isn't. The few sources out there are promotional. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pikavoom, Yes I understand that the person Raza Lee is not a member of parliament but he is prominent business person in Zanzibar, I understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia well. However, talking of the sources cited they are not promotional and I verified them (they are all legit ) before inserting them. Magotech (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:BASIC/the GNG. The sources cited in the article are unreliable blogs, non-independent interviews, and the like, and my search did not find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Similarly, I could find no independent, in-depth coverage. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashima Sharma

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

Searches turn up namedrops and trivial quotes of the subject, but no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Coverage I found seems to come up with a namesake. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage and title is not passing WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heyward Donigan

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

A ceo and entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage, this is tricky and I’d break it down, they do have google hits but unfortunately none are reliable. If you observe the sources (conducting your own research if you may) you’d note they are self published, pr sponsored, sources with no reputation for fact checking, & sources not independent of her, this shouldn’t confuse you, although this can be tricky for a new NPR reviewer. This is largely an WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage of her at all. Everything indicates she's just another ordinary business executive, with no special claim to notability. JBW (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Sourcing is additionally not independent, and also manufactured, therefore unreliable. NiklausGerard (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete. I would love for us to be able to have an article about Ms Donigan. There are far too few role models for women in business at the level of a CEO of a major company, and as such, in a colloquial not wp-technical sense, she should be notable. However, as others have said, the sources that seem to be available are generally just uncritical transcripts of interviews with her. I dug through the first 3 screens of google hits and the best I found was https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-ceo-crafted-a-vision-for-rite-aid-now-shes-launching-it-in-a-crisis-11586955602 and https://greenwichfreepress.com/around-town/arts/from-sunday-school-to-ceo-heyward-donigan-ceo-of-rite-aid-to-speak-at-christ-church-171378/, both of which are flawed in this way. Martinp (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Simms (software developer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little to no coverage outside of self-published sources or interviews (which are generally not considered to be secondary/independent sources). -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a suitable redirect target: Linux Game Publishing. Pavlor (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ancient bio that seems to have slipped through the cracks of Old Wikipedia. No assertion of notability independent from the company. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg L. Witt

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional; appears to be authored by subject; little in the way of independent reliable sources showing notability. Kablammo (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to post an add to solicit your next speaking engagement. The person who put this up may not have been trying to do that, but the wording is all that and only that. The tone totally and completely unencyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sales pitch notwithstanding, this article should be deleted simply because it has inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. The likely motivation definitely doesn’t help it’s case though. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Simmons (author)

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

Was going to let this one go, as I found a review of Punk Marketing in Publishers Weekly, but then realised that this was deleted at AfD in 2014, and I can find nothing more recent than about 2011 for the subject. There are several people with the same name, so maybe I missed something. Anyway, this looks to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is just not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has indeed written some books, but they are in the discount bins at Amazon etc. The main book, Punk Marketing, was reviewed by Publishers Weekly [1] but that doesn't establish notability. (This is a genre that someone I know refers to as "business porn".) Lamona (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Sanders

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA , who also started Popexpert, as a "walled garden". Edwardx (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject lacks the in-depth coverage needed to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, insufficient coverage indicates lack of notability. Brian O'Conner 23:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarus Balog

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill person. Edwardx (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have a lot of posts on a bunch of sites, but there's no real coverage of him beyond that. If anyone can find more material beyond that, I'd reconsider this, but for now Delete as failing WP:GNG. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As written, fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ejnar Knudsen

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable, and article is basically promotional. Refs are just mentions. PepperBeast (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search for coverage found only press releases and articles in which Knudsen is quoted or mentioned in passing. Independent reliable sources don't seem to have discussed him in any depth, meaning that he fails WP:BASIC/the GNG, and I can't find any logical alternatives to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Pasierb

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

The article sources and a quick internet search reveal no independent sources of any depth. Also, I strongly suspect conflict of interest issues with the two primary authors:

User:CleMad only edited articles related to Partnership to End Addiction's senior leadership
User:Thermanator only edited this article. Daask (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sourcing. As written fails to establish notability in any capacity. WP:GNG not met. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Lozito

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

2019 no consensus, but I am unable to find independent reliable source coverage to confirm he meets GNG. There are name checks, but it doesn't speak to his expertise. His research isn't well cited enough to be notable via that route and his company (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Name Development) was deleted, so nowhere to merge. Star Mississippi 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find anything approaching independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources when I nominated this in 2019, and the situation is no better today. Edwardx (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe

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

Non notable entrepreneur and “managing consulting expert” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The sources used in the article are what is described as fake referencing some of the sources do not even discuss nor concern the subject of the article. A before search shows press releases and primary sources the former is considered unreliable and the latter cannot be used for verification of claims of notability thus is not considered tangible or reliable as they lack independence from the subject of the article. Furthermore, This is a possible WP:ADMASQ. He is also a politician that fails WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article sounds like puffery, he's a tax consultant and failed politician it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Subject fails Wikipedia WP:GNG that includes subject-specific notability and NBIO that includes NBASIC and ANYBIO. A withdrawn governorship bid does not even warrant honorable mention concerning NPOL. A person with a job at one of the "Big Four". Although his employer may be notable the subject could certainly benefit from having a page on Wikipedia. After that you get listed at DBpedia with content extracted from Wikipedia. Just a movin on up. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Farmer

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

This guy's had his finger in several pies, but I couldn't find any reputable sources. All of his roles are small trivial ones on mostly non-notable shows. Zero sourcing in article, zero sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention in a "where are they now" HGTV hosts article, I don't see much else. If he was the host of a show, I'd expect to find more written about him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP:Basic or WP: GNG. Has collected a large number of distinct editors over the past 4 years but fails to show how or why. Firsthand sourcing, COI? That being said, with all the minor roles subject has had deletion seems hasty, but the article as written doesn’t meet notability criteria. NiklausGerard (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find some non-trivial coverage about him. 1, 2,3. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but feel free to remove information that can't be sourced. We have thousands of stubs for actors who have only had minor roles in various projects, and unless we're going to change Wikipedia policy and remove all those I see no reason to single this guy out. He's been the host of a couple notable TV shows, and is a member of 2gether, which is certainly notable (all the other members have articles). Editing rather than removal seems like the proper action here. -R. fiend (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@R. fiend: If we removed the "information that can't be sourced", the article would be blank. Saying that other similar articles exist does nothing for this article's integrity. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough information for a short paragraph about who he is and a list of his appearances on film and TV. Not a great article by any means, but very similar to thousands of other articles on minor figures that, as far as I know, are not nominated for deletion. I still see no reason to single this guy out. I initially created this entry 17 years ago as a redirect to 2gether, and I wouldn't oppose a revert to that except that he's done a fair amount of stuff since then, so that no longer seems like the proper course of action. -R. fiend (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NACTOR is the relevant subject specific guideline here. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions The opening says he is in the lead role for a notable television movie and television series on MTV and a host for the Emmy-nominated While You Were Out (TLC), Freestyle (HGTV), and Door Knockers (DIY). He host a show that was nominated for an Emmy, and all but one of these things have the own Wikipedia articles so must be notable productions. Dream Focus 18:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: So because of that, we're allowed to ignore the fact that there isn't a single source on the entire Internet that says a single damn thing about him? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how it works. He meets the notability requirement for actors so nothing else matters. Dream Focus 18:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the article gets to be {{unreferenced}} forever? And then editors like me who want to improve the article by removing unsourced content have no choice but to blank the whole thing? Vandals can come along and add whatever the fuck they want because we can just randomly choose to ignore "reliable third party sources" whenever we feel like it? For all I know, Evan Farmer is actually Dave Grohl in a heavy disguise, and he just bought the moon for 99 cents. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, that is not correct. The section for Additional Criteria says that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a couple of sources via Newspapers.com [2], [3], [4], [5] Timur9008 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken a quick stab at sourcing a few things from links provided above, and removing most of the unsourced fluff, leaving in his TV and film appearances and his music career, all of which should be verifiable. More work should be done on it still. -R. fiend (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any more sources in the article than were there previously. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not a requirement to keep an article. Dream Focus 03:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per sources identified above, WP:NACTOR #1, and the WP:GNG. Per WP:PROD: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected, this article should NEVER have been prodded. There is not even the beginning of a case for deletion, so not expecting opposition to deletion would be really steep. Kudos to R. fiend for detecting the problem and to Timur9008 and GoldenAgeFan1 for finding excellent sources. gidonb (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timur9008: could you please add those sources to the article? Few things bug me more than tons of people saying "Keep, I found sources" and none of them doing anything to fix the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sorry, I didn't reply quickly, I just got back from work. Timur9008 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Ally

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

Fails WP:BIO, probable UPE. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing anything notable. Small details should probably be added to The HOW Foundation, of which she is the CEO. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Pozzolo

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

puff piece for a candidate, doesn't meet WP:NPOL, merely a candidate, no sustained coverage other than the typical "x is running" CUPIDICAE💕 21:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage of a new candidate running for office. Nothing special about being a business owner, hasn't done anything notable (yet) as a candidate. Running in a district with a PVI of D+24, likely to remain non-notable. Zaathras (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:TOOSOON for an unelected candidate. KidAd • SPEAK 00:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kidad. MB 01:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future elections — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for aspiring future officeholders to publicize their campaigns. But this fails to establish that he had preexisting notability for other reasons, nor does it suggest a reason to treat his candidacy as somehow more special than everybody else's candidacies. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day should he win the seat, but nothing here is grounds for him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he wins the general election he will be notable. We have decided that in almost all cases challengers for legislative office are not notable, and there is nothing here to suggest that Pozzolo is the extremely rare exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable political candidate. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kidad as an alternative to deletion and as an usual and appropriate outcome. --Enos733 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olasupo Abideen

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

Promotional article on a non notable "social entrepreneur" who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The award they won is largely immaterial, a before search turns up nothing concrete. I’m not so sure returning money mistakenly paid into your account qualifies nor makes one notable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject has no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Gabe114 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, "being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Awards that are conferred to him are not notable enough. SunDawn talk 02:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bukola Smith

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

Possible ADMASQ on a woman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her thus fails to satisfy GNG. A before predominantly links me to press releases & user generated all of which we do not consider reliable. Furthermore being a CEO isn’t a yard stick used to ascertain Notability Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as run-of-the-mill coverage of a business person. You don't get to have a Wikipedia article about yourself just for being the CEO of something. One of the references is a press release, another is an interview, and another is tertiary coverage. The remaining reference, is a gushing promo piece with no byline, that manages to say nothing of value. There's no article about First Securities Discount House Merchant Bank - if there was, redirecting to it per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON could have been an option. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The article subject clearly meet WP:NACADEMIC criterion #3 as a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria. @Timtrent:, you have been around long enough to know that this sort of behavior is inappropriate as it blatantly violates the standard behavior expected in the community. @Celestina007:, I note that this is not the first time you are canvassing people who share the same opinion with you in a discussion unrelated to them. This is a disruptive behavior. Kaizenify (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Note that the editor above is the creator of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaizenify Specify which part of WP:NACADEMIC you rely on. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizenify has added content to the article after the AfD nomination saying that Smith is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, and asserts that this means she is an academic. That is not correct. An academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education. Smith is a qualified accountant, not an academic. The procedure for becoming an FCA is to have been a member, with a licence to practice, for more than five years, or for members without a licence to practice, ten years' experience - and pay N120,000. 1,628 members became FCAs last year alone. This is therefore not a highly selective honour.

I do not believe I was canvassed to take part in this AfD. I was conversing with Celestina on their user talk page, where I saw they were reviewing an article they were concerned about, and chose to look at the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers they elected are not our business as Wikipedians. Fellowship of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria is a major scholarly society in the field of accounting in Nigeria. Our notability guideline does not cover how fellows should be selected or elected. In the same way we will not care how a legislator or supreme court judge is elected.

Kindly note that scholarly societies are not meant for people who lectures in academic institutions or conduct researches only, it also meant for professionals in that field. Kaizenify (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizenify, you've claimed that Smith is notable under criterion #3 of WP:NACADEMIC, which has two parts to it:

The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or
The person is a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

Assuming you are asserting that they meet the second part of that criteria then it is for editors to judge whether ICAN is (i) a major scholarly society, and (ii) whether it reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. We need not judge the first part, because the second part is clearly not so. If the organisation accepts applications from its members to become a fellow solely on time served and paying a fee then that is not a highly selective honor. But in any event, considering that the notability criteria that you are referring to are a method for assessing the notability of academics, none of this applies because Smith is not engaged in scholarly research or higher education. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep arguments above have been dismantled. We lack the sourcing needed to show notability. We are not about to add 2,000 plus people in one profession from one country a year, so any criteria that would do so is not a valid inclusion criteria at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ide Owodiong-Idemeko

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

Subject of the article is a businessman and politician, he fails ANYBIO and fails NPOL as being a candidate or aspirant doesn’t indicate notability as documented in NPOL Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPOLITICIAN failure, WP:BIO failure. Is this UPE? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I’m not seeing decent coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Warwick

AfDs for this article:

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

The sourcing for this article is mostly blogs and promotional pieces. I found many of the claims were not fully supported (for example, the list of brands she had modelled for, and her birth date, which did not appear in the archived version of the cited source, which was dated later than that cited). The article turned out to be heavily reliant on Thrive Global, which is blacklisted, apparently for being a churnalism vehicle with no editorial oversight. That source may be found archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20201203112748/https:// /stories/inside-influence-one-on-one-with-louisa-warwick/ (insert t_____g_____.com in the space between slashes). Performing a search for additional references today, I was able to add an approximate birth year from a fluff article in UK Metro—like the New York Post, which the article previously cited for her filing a lawsuit, this is a low-quality tabloid—and I found an aggregate "Who is ...?" article that I used to reference some more details and reduce the reliance on Thrive Global ... but that's Time Bulletin, which is also blacklisted. That reference is https:// /who-is-louisa-warwick/ (insert t___b_______.com in the space between slashes). These are not quality sources, I cannot even discuss them on Wikipedia without limbo dancing under a blacklist barrier as if they are going to infect everyone's comp with malware, and they are the only extended informational articles about Louisa Warwick that appear to exist. The lack of reliable coverage indicates to me that she has not achieved notability since the previous article, Louisa Warwick (model), was deleted in October 2015. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst both articles were created roughly a year apart by Sumsphere (talk · contribs), they are not substantially the same. The edits by Louisawarwick1 (talk · contribs) seem fairly humdrum. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For some background on the problems with certain WWW sites involving this subject and several others, by the way, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Markowski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilda Joelle Osborn, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Pierson. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Yngvadottir notes, such coverage of this individual that can be found in the mass media is of almost no merit as evidence for 'notability' in Wikipedia terms. The sources cited in the article are a ragbag collection of promotional fluff, and statements to the effect that Warwick does the things that models/'influencers' etc do. She doesn't appear to have done anything exceptional for someone in her chosen career. Or if she has, nobody seems to have written about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep She's got an article she wrote in Forbes [6] and a mention in the New York Times [7], I think she just makes it for notability. She's featured in Maxim and mentioned by TMZ, which are reliable sources; I can't open Maxim at work, for obvious reasons, will review later for notability. Also find an interview from a local paper in 2009, can help build notability, about her going into modelling. [8]. A reliable mention in Digital Spy about her leaving the Top Model show [9]. I video interview with OK magazine of her via youtube (should be ok as it's from a notable source, posted from their account) [10]. She ran track in high school, competed in an event in Ireland, [11]. She also gave an interveiw in Medium, which isn't as reliable a source, but can at least be used to confirm the athletics claim [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per AndyTheGrump. Also given that Maxim does pay-for-coverage I wouldn't consider it an RS, and the Forbes article appears to have been through the Forbes Council program, which also involves publishing for a fee. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Forbes source is useless for notability. Firstly, it's not actually about her, just written by her. Secondly, it was published under the "Forbes Business Council" fee-for-publication scheme. Per WP:FORBESCON we consider them self-published works. AusLondonder (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the significant secondary sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Striar

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

Run-of-the-mill businessman. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per G5. Article was created as one of only a handful of edits by a now-indeffed sockpuppet ... and as it happens, looking at the investigation archive [13], the modus operandi of the gang was as paid editors who would disguise their new article creations around a handful of trivial edits. Lo and behold, this is the only article the sockpuppet created, and the sock made exactly two other edits over 16 bytes. Advise salting. Ravenswing 01:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, Ravenswing. I have already been through the contributions of all the socks and nominated all but one (a minor historical figure, long dead) of their extant new article creations for deletion or speedy deletion. Just in case you were thinking of doing the same! Edwardx (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of any kind of real and significant notability. The aroma of the promotional verbiage comes on stronger than that of wet socks: "became a fixture", "was quick to capitalize", "received international attention," etc. Why, oh why. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Unreliable and not independent. I am concerned with tone as well,WP:ADMASQ. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Enge

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

Run-of-the-mill businessman. Fails WP:GNG. References provided look to be mentions-in-passing or rely on company produced material, press releases and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources as listed are not independent, nor do they cover the subject in detail. Two sources are broken links. Fails to meet WP:GNG. NiklausGerard (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the article could do some work, but feel that the subject is still noteworthy enough. -Nzgabriel (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nzgabriel, as you created this article over five years ago, it would appear that you have had long enough to do the work. On the subject of work, your initial creation has many of the hallmarks of paid editing. Are you familiar with our policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and do you have a declaration to make? Edwardx (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is, not though for lack of trying, a non-notable businessman. The photoportrait is impressive, the sourcing anything but. We mostly have, to be brief about it, news items about business developments, corporate moves, etc, but very little about the person itself. And cramming the article with weak sources is always a warning. I mean, what is this, for example, supposed to prove? -The Gnome (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Scott (businessman)

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

No demonstration of notability. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by the subject himself.

Was up for deletion in June 2021 (no consensus) as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Scott (businessperson). Edwardx (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still nothing notable found since the last discussion to delete. Largely self-promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Great spot Edwardx I'd love to know how this got this far - as nomination says the article was created and edited by the person in question. Massive undeclared COI. Deleting this page isn't sufficient - he should be blocked as an editor! MaskedSinger (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it did go through AFC, so perhaps it should have been picked up at that point. Edwardx (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding everything about this peculiar. Could sockpuppets have been involved? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, MaskedSinger. No evidence of socking here, but if you look at "View history" for Logz.io, Nreatian and KelWright are possible socks for Sjscott80. Looking at Special:Contributions/Nreatian, two of the other articles edited, Ness Digital Engineering and SilverPush look to be of questionnable notability. Edwardx (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ness is a huge IT company in Israel and a strong player also elsewhere. Extremely notable. gidonb (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to be shut down and these pages need to be scrubbed from Wikipedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the author and, yes, the subject of the page in question. Please take a look at the Talk page.

There, you can see that I submitted the page for review through the proper AFC process and identified my COI. I solicited feedback and made improvements and then resubmitted for the independent review. It was approved independently. The history is all there. 109.64.180.197 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And while it is not my place to argue whether I am notable or not because I have an obvious bias, I will refer people to the arguments in the prior debate on this very topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Scott_(businessperson). 109.64.180.197 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You dare talk about proper process where everything about your presence here is a stain on Wikipedia. If you were someone notable and edited your own page, it would be a problem. That you create your own?!?! That you create one for the company you work at?? And you think this is fine. You're a bit too slick for your own good and you've been caught out. Your account/s should be shut down and this page should be salted. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete did not expect the author to admit it's just an ad for himself. Gabe114 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (simple). While we absolutely can clean up WP:COI, the subject does not pass the threshold of the WP:GNG. So we can clean up but the article should still be deleted. In other words, the discussion above is not all that relevant. OK, if the person socked, that may still have an impact on other articles. We can review that. But not everything that was written by a sock or in COI has to go. This article does. We should take rational decisions, each article on its merits, and not work from spite. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Methods aside, subject has inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Sources are not independent nor reliable. From what I have gleaned from the links posted, in that industry, mentions are potentially standard and not indicative of notability. NiklausGerard (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Kaushik

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karanvir Singh

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

No indication of notability. The article relies exclusively on self-published or press release sources. M4DU7 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: do not think this meets notability criteria Tow (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable person failing WP:N. Likely promotional page created by a single purpose editor. Jupitus Smart 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why the article is deleted? There are proper citations and true facts recorded for the person. Enterpreneur wiki (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McMillen

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

COI article, most of the coverage is about his company's products/instruments. Namechecks doesn't qualify under WP:GNG. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adryan Fitra Azyus

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

Non-notable marketer. Coverage is weak. Fails WP:GNG. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WP:BEFORE search turns up no sustainable coverage, the last news piece is just he is acting as a speaker at some event, which is not notable. Per WP:ANYBIO, I don't see anything that is satisfied by him. His achievements of being on the social media team for Barack Obama and Joko Widodo are not notable. There are two sources that provide in-depth information about him, from this blog and this media. Both are interviews, and all of the claims are made by him are without verification at all, which in my opinion, failing WP:V. The first source from bisnisdavit.com also does not qualify for WP:RS. SunDawn talk 04:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill seo consultant. 85.211.128.50 (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to lack of participation. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Merlino

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

Most cited sources are non-independent. VentureBeat has only a passing mention. It does not seem to pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is a biography of the co-creator of Apache Druid, a technology widely-used by thousands of organizations, including Wikimedia's Wikistat project. This seems to qualify under WP:AUTHOR: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" There are multiple sources cited for this article. alumnius.net, apache.org, and datascienceassn.org are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While they are not secondary sources, they seem to fall under the guidelines for inclusion in WP:PRIMARY. I've added an additional paragraph, with a source of an independent reporting source, SF Scala. Briskmad (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Apache Foundation is not an independent source when considering notability of its projects or its committers. Yes, you can use it in the article, but it doesn't count for notability. I don't think software developers generally fall within the intended scope of WP:AUTHOR, but assuming they do, not every software product can be considered a significant new concept, theory, or technique (as much as I appreciate Apache Druid). In the field of computer science, that would be something like Relational algebra, Discrete Fourier transform, or MapReduce. MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Two relistings have not generated any further input. Apart from the nominator, the calls have been for keeping the article, and the arguments, that her work has seen significant coverage in newspapers such as Boaton Globe and Wall Street Journal, has merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Whalen

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been quoted in a couple sources, but none of the sources are specifically about her. Everything is WP:PRIMARY and I couldn't find anything else. Previous AFDs in 2011 and 2012 closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I tidied it up a bit and then went to look at what could be decent sources, but but WSJ and Boston was paywalled. Can anyone comment if there is good coverage there?

There's a lot of book talking about her in Google books, but then she is a SEO expert, so this might just be really good marketing. Would welcome comments about their quality. For example, what's the result of your WP:BEFORE analysis User:TenPoundHammer, did you review all of this and discount it?

Even google scholar has stuff about her, but I am blocked by paywall: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1431525

CT55555 (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The 2007 Boston Globe article is available via ProQuest, and a quick look reveals sections of the WP page are copyvio from that article. I have edited the Wikipedia article to address that problem. That being said, the Boston Globe article is WP:SIGCOV as most of the 1140 words in the article are about Whalen. I added in a few more citations, but there is more to be found. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the newspapers.com clipping to the Boston Globe article [14]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are multiple by-lined articles about Whalen and her work, the Boston Globe article I provided above is but one example. The article includes multiple other examples (i.e., Wall Street Journal, Inc. magazine). In the mid-2000s she also appeared in books guiding people on how to use the internet, back when books were published on the topic. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Boston Globe article and the Wall Street Journal combined provided sufficient independent, reliable coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was no consensus. Further discussion regarding the tone of the article can occur on the article's talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dzigbordi Dosoo

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

Promotional and lacks reliable third party sources Philafrenzy (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Fashion, and Ghana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems WP:PROMO and lacks secondary sources, failing to prove notability. CT55555 (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the most jargon-riddled promotional articles I have ever seen, and I have nominated 100s for deletion. Edwardx (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gets one mention in the NYT for a company show owns, rest isn't notable. High performance coach? no. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article just lack proper sourcing which can be found here. Deleting this article is not useful, we can all come together and properly source with the appropriate referencing. Thanks Siagoddess (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be deleted. I crosschecked the article's edit history and realised its been vandalised several times which had left the article in that state. I restored it to the best possible state before the vandalism and edit warring started. The article must be kept and improved on Ampimd (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources - this, this, and this. Lamona (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article must be kept and improved Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has won an international award [15]. This, along with the sources Lamona included meets WP:NBASIC.

Comment An "international award" means almost nothing. Awards and award ceremonies have proliferated in recent decades - see vanity award. Wikipedia does not have an article on these awards, or the awarding organisation. It is not a notable award. And that article is a promotional puff piece. Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one doesn't like the beauty business or this particular award, her show is seen in 46 countries in Africa, it's also shown in the UK, and in Europe. She is a beautiful, successful Black business woman who has achieved a lot. There's enough here to meet WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources help support WP:BASIC notability, e.g. Women's Wear Daily refers to her as "West African spa pioneer Dzigbordi K. Dosoo" in a 2010 article with a focus on her and her brand Kanshi, and the 2014 NYT article is more than a trivial mention of her and her brand Kanshi. There is also in-depth coverage of her and her TV show: 2012 MyJoyOnline (e.g."most recently she graced the cover of Leadership Life & Style Magazine, where she was touted as “Africa’s Oprah”"), and brief coverage of her as a consultant: 2021 MyJoyOnline, 2021 Ghana Broadcasting Corp, 2021 Graphic Online and 2022 MyJoyOnline, and another award: HAG outdoors Most Distinguished Women Changer Makers in Africa (MyJoyOnline, 2022), and coverage of her in Graphic Online in 2021. (See Wikiproject Africa Sources List - Ghana). Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. Sources are what makes me say Keep hereBabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most Delete opinions were before recent editing improvements. I'd like to relist just once more rather than closing this today as No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and none appears likely with virtually no input. I feel for the subject, but cannot see any way to close this as delete within policy Star Mississippi 01:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Steiner

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability issues since 2012. Article subject requests deletion. VRT Ticket 2022032410007624 Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability tag was inserted in 2012 but I saw that several references from highly reliable sites has been added since then. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a NY Times article about his role in Whitewater that is substantially about him, as is the WaPo article that is already a reference. Lamona (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to default to no consensus with subject requesting it and possible sourcing. So hoping for more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is appropriate because I'm not an expert on your policies. As you can see from the above thread, I requested that you delete the page. My understanding is that if the committee does not reach a consensus, it's possible to delete the page. I hope you might do so. In the absence of doing so, I hope you might then remove the "notability tag" since you've made a decision that it does merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Josh Steiner 67.254.226.129 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashif Shaikh

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

~~References are too weak and the article is too big without proper citations. @@@XyX _talk 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. @@@XyX _talk 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Check the page creator name and page title both are same. Definitely written by the user who is in the article. @@@XyX _talk 22:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Angad.uday (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD discussion as a Soft Delete but later noticed the very low edit count of the two participants. So, I restored the article and am relisting this AFD, in the hope of getting editors with more experience reviewing articles to participate in this discussion and evaluation of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Note that quite a bit of text is uncited. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - plenty of references in news and books; some just passing, others more in depth. Springnuts (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hello User:Springnuts, I am the nominator of this AFD can you provided the reference of the article you said has in depth coverage or you can update the article so that we can see @@@XyX _talk 22:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a third relist, just relisting for Bijoy2020 as their recent relist didn't take effect except for leaving the note above. Consider this the second relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here’s one from news: [[16]]

But the nomination is odd: no valid reason for deletion is given - though problems with the article are alleged. Did you try to improve/clean up the article? Springnuts (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Springnuts: Per The Logical Indian source you provided I personally think Mr. Ashif Shaikh in that article is completely different one. Correct me if I'm wrong? On Googling I found an Indian actor Aasif Sheikh I personally can't find any proper sources about this person, but you are very old and experienced editor finding to vote this article as Strong Keep I would love to takedown this nomination if you improve this article, I hope it won't take much time as you already have some good indepth references as you said earlier. @@@XyX _talk 23:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bijoy2020:It appears you are wrong. Did you read the reference? Line 3: "Mr Ashif Shaikh, founder of the Jan Sahas Organisation". The article, line 1: "founder-director of the community and survivor focused non-profit organisation Jan Sahas". Friendly regards,Springnuts (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well with respect it’s for you to consider alternatives to deletion (such as cleanup or tagging etc) WP:BEFORE nominating. Springnuts (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Springnuts: Not found any valid reason for tagging any tag like cleanup or something; I found less(no) WP:RS or any borderline to consider it for any other tags, I was thinking to tag WP:PROD but later considered to start an AFD. @@@XyX _talk 05:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the "Autobiography cleanup" tag - that's a start. I can't give any more time to this, but the closing editor will need to decide whether WP:TNT is justified. In my opinion it is not, but there we go. That's why we have these discussions and seek consensus. All good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO.183.82.108.172 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources found include: ^[1]; ^[2], .. and plenty more; Google "ashif shaikh" "jan sahas" (ie both the terms at the same time) and you get plenty of good results. Springnuts (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep For notability, consider these two ^[1]^[2] which discuss him significantly and not just his NGO. An op-ed in Hindu - ^[3] - also discusses his activities at some length, as does a World Economic Forum post^[4]. News search shows that a number of publications like Guardian, Reuters, France 24 and SCMP (apart from Indian papers like IE, Hindu etc) have carried his quotes; thus further supporting the notability argument. Hemantha (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mehra, Preeti (22 June 2015). "Fighting for Dignity". Hindu BusinessLine.
^ Sharma, Unnati (23 September 2020). "Indian NGO founder who helped migrants in lockdown on Schwab list of social innovators". The Print.
^ "The rise of collaboratives for social impact". The Hindu.
^ "How to build long-term resilience in vulnerable communities". World Economic Forum.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis required for late added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources indicated by Hemantha are enough to demonstrate GNG being met. The article however needs extensive cleanup and should be tagged as such. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like an advertisement. Lack of indepth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those !voting to keep have not managed to present policy-based arguments supported by linked sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed "The Hawk" Shahid

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

Subject is a mixed martial fighter. Subject fails NMMA for not having at least 3 top tier promotion fights and subject also fail GNG for info of the fight is merely routine reports Cassiopeia talk 09:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 09:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 09:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sportspeople. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an MMA fighter he may not be notable but as the president of Brave FC, he has received a fair amount of coverage that I think leans towards passing GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Brave FC is not a notable / top tier promotion, the fight info of him is as per mentioned was a routine report.21:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiopeia (talk • contribs)
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Keep as Mohammed Shahid is not only the president of BRAVE Combat Federation, but a notable in the MMA world who looks to change MMA from an event business to a sports business. This could be seen from the recent BRAVE International Combat Week event which took place few weeks ago in Bahrain where top International Mixed Martial Arts Federation countries could fight for the spot of the best Amateur mixed martial arts federation with a price and a trophy to be won by the top federation. This is a first of it's kind in MMA world where team fight against other teams. This vision only came true through the initiative and organization of Mohammed Shahid and Kerrith Brown, president of International Mixed Martial Arts Federation. Shahid fails NMMA as he is no longer a mixed martial arts fighter but rather a notable MMA organizer and with vision to impact lives. Rather than deleting, his wiki page should rather be updated. Ryan mambo (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC) — Ryan mambo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Being the president of a MMA org does not mean the subject merit a page in the Wikipedia, but the subject needs to pass the Wikipedia notability which none of the above editor demonstrate the necessary requirements. Cassiopeia talk 23:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable as the CEO of Brave Combat Federation receiving citations from tier 1 publications and national media. He has also received national media citations almost on a daily basis. The page needs to be updated. Haribhagirath (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being the president of a MMA org does not mean the subject merit a page in the Wikipedia, but the subject needs to pass the Wikipedia notability which none of the above editor demonstrate the necessary requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiopeia (talk •
Comment: Body text and sources have since added after my comment above, but the career section is about the company/org and not about the subject himself. No relevant to contribute to GNG for the subject as notability is not inherited. Subject still fails notability guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 04:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 08:56, March 26, 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is a charm. The keep votes are not policy based so if we are keeping we need gng levl sourcing showing please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is not notable for his sports achievements. He appears to be an active promoter of sporting events and is frequently mentioned in articles. However, looking through the sources I don't see much coverage of him as a person--only as a promoter of this or that event. That doesn't seem like significant coverage to me and he doesn't appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. I'm leaning delete unless someone can show me specific coverage that meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since no additional coverage has been shown, I am voting to Delete this article. Papaursa (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a fighter and became a businessman, He even has sources in Arabic Mila vecto (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is borderline promotional; sources are of dubious significance and independence (unless somebody can bother to point out WP:THREE among the mess that is currently this article) and do not appear to amount to anything ressembling WP:SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First he was a MMA fighter, then he was a businessman because there is no sources for the MMA classification. There is no effective sourcing as a businesman either. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A very very poor article with promo problems. scope_creep^Talk 23:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing to meet the required notability-criteria. We keep reading above that "there must be sources", or that "surely, sources exist in other languages", or that "the subject already is or must be notable" --yet no support for these assertions has been produced. Diagnosis: No legs to stand on. -The Gnome (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.trustconference.com/profile/index2.html?id=644b4b99-babc-42b2-8af0-26d6e83ef684

[2] ttps://indianexpress.com/profile/columnist/ashif-shaikh/

[3] Mehra, Preeti (22 June 2015). "Fighting for Dignity". Hindu BusinessLine.

[4] Sharma, Unnati (23 September 2020). "Indian NGO founder who helped migrants in lockdown on Schwab list of social innovators". The Print.

[5] "The rise of collaboratives for social impact". The Hindu.

[6] "How to build long-term resilience in vulnerable communities". World Economic Forum.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ==Businesspeople==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koenig Institute}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raza Lee (Businessman)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashima Sharma}}