Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:19, 14 June 2024

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg

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

Submitting for AfD as I believe there should be a discussion over the merits of this article. While it is backed by reliable sources I believe it can be argued quite easily that this article isn't suitable for inclusion on grounds of lacking encyclopaedic merit.

Boiled down to its core I believe this article is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM in its worst form, namely something that was created and extended as events unfolded but an article where If we apply the 10 year test it's extremely hard to think anyone will be looking back on this after any serious period of time as a notable event of history given it's an article about a non-event that never happened.

As a result I believe this should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems to be a tongue in cheek idea that never happened. It's subjects are certainly notable but the non-fight isn't— Iadmc ♫^talk 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems to be mostly celebrity nonsense. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I might rename this article, but this is pop history at this point. The fight never happened, but the "celebrity feud" was a thing for almost two years. This is about as important as the White Bronco chase a generation ago, but it's a thing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do I think it's rather perverse to compare a non-event media spat to events surrounding a double-murder, your argument is actively in favour of delete given that the White Bronco chase isn't noteworthy enough to have its own article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was no murder conviction, only a car chase, was my point. Oaktree b (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Too soon to delete as Musk recently revived discussion about it. Weakipedist (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Right now, it's worthy of a brief mention on the subjects' pages, nothing more. Astaire (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTALBALL. I think it may be worthy of brief mention on the subjects' pages. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes#ep71. RECENTISM, CRYSTALBALL, all those apply, and clearly this is better suited as a redirect to ERB. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. With respect to the revived discussion, it may be notable in the future (see WP:DEGRADE) but as for right now, WP:CRYSTAL says we can't keep just for the sake of potential notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This "rivalry" is much more fueled by imagination and virtual culture than something real. Nothing that supports encyclopedic content. Svartner (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2024 (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.

Daniel Sepiol

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World Championship win + bracelet win should merit inclusion. Now satisfactory backed up. PsychoticIncall (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PsychoticIncall: As I've asked in other AFDs, please read and understand WP:SIRS and then list WP:THREE references you feel are SIRS. WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability, not just assert it through non-policy means (which is what you are attempting). - UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again - the sources are all there backing up the main statement probably even more obvious than ever before (Las Vegas Review Journal isn't just providing routine match reports). PsychoticIncall (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation. And while notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, the absence of notability can certainly be temporary. If, indeed, streets and structures are to be named after this person in the future, and the topic met our notability criteria, nothing would stop us from restoring the article. Owen× ☎ 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arnon Zamora

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

WP:BIO1E, didn't receive any significant attention before his death, and didn't play a truly major role in the event he is remembered for. Should be redirected to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, but this was opposed by the article creator, so it's up to AfD to decide. Fram (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Fram (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am said article creator, and this is my argument to keep this article:

WP:BIO1E says:

"if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles. An example of this is Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."

The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation made world news and will be remembered an important event within the context of the Israel-Hamas War. Since it's creation, six days ago, it has received 84,000 pageviews!

In comparison, for example, the Occupation of Veracuz has only had 116 views in the last year, and yet, there are 56 individual Wikipedia pages for each recipient of the medal of honor from that war! Essentially, every one of those individuals is a WP:BIO1E exception who rises to the level of fame allowing a WP:BIO1E exception to be made (for an event of large enough magnitude).

How could one possibly argue that the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation does not rise to "rare importance," and Arnon Zamora does not play an important role in this event!?

If we are to remove Arnon Zamora, it would only make sense to remove the other 56 medal of honor winners, as the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation has 724 times more views than the Occupation of Veracruz has over the last year.

Based on this pretext, I would argue that Arnon Zamora undoubtedly rises to the level of notability and fame to be a WP:BIO1E exception. Afdshah (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing something in the news now with something historical is not really convincing. The exampe of an exception in BIO1E is the assassination of JFK: this event here is way, way less important in the long run, and his role in it was run-of-the-mill, but he died and gets glorified by some media, the military and politics, as if dying is an achievement. Fram (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The Occupation of Veracruz has 1124 views, EVER.

The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation will be remembered as a historical event, and a major point in the Israel-Hamas War.

Zamora's role in it was certainly more important than Howard Brennan's role in the JFK Assassination. Unlike Brennan's role as a witness, Zamora actually commanded the operation and was the first person into the building in this historic event! I wouldn't say his role was "run-of-the-mill."

Even if we compare the JFK Assassination to the 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, we can find that the rescue operation has twice as many views in the last six days. Of course, I'm not arguing that this rescue operation was as important as the JFK Assassination, however, the sheer notability and fame that this event has garnished, in my mind, makes it worthwhile of a WP:BIO1E exception.

And why can't one compare this event, which will be remembered in history, to an event like the Occupation of Veracruz? Afdshah (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking; the 84000 pageviews is for the target article, not for the article at AfD. And your numbers for the United States occupation of Veracruz are way off, it gets 300 pageviews per day[1], not your claimed "116 views in the last year". Even the redirect Occupation of Veracruz got 943 views last year, so no idea what you were looking at. The comparison is completely irrelevant, things in the news always get more views, but if you want to make such a comparison, at least make sure that your numbers are correct. You were nearly a factor 1,000 off[2]... Fram (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry- you're right I was way off in what I said - I accidentally used the Pageview tool to search for the Occupation of Vera Cruz which is a redirect to the actual page.

I apologize - I should have checked more carefully before making that claim.

However, my comparison of notability and fame still stands as the United States Occupation of Veracruz only has 1,700 pageviews in the same amount of time as it took the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation to reach 84,000 (since 6/8). There is still a difference of 50x.

While it is true that things in the news get more views, my argument is that the rescue operation is a major historical event just like the Occupation of Veracruz.

There are 56 medal of honor winners with their own Wikipedia page for the Occupation of Veracruz, each one a WP:BIO1E exception.

If the Occupation of Veracuz rises to the level of historical importance that this exemption applies for 56 people, this historical hostage rescue operation certainly rises to the level of importance that one exception can be made.

And the article at AfD is brand new - I haven't even linked it on the 2024 Nuseirat Operation page yet and it has 104 views. That's more than twice the 43 views that Berrie H. Jarrett has in the last year. I'll link at now and we can see its views in the next 24 hours. Afdshah (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, as suggested by nominator, per WP:BIO1E, WP:ATD, and WP:CHEAP. Zomara is repeatedly mentioned at the target, is only known for this event, and the operation was posthumously named by Israel after Zomara, so a strong bidirectional relationship exists. gidonb (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not significant enough for Wikipedia. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page received 313 pageviews today and is about an important figure in the rescue operation and in the broader Israel-Hamas war.

Many of the pages of the medal of honor Veracruz winners receive fewer than 313 views per year, but are exceptions to WP:BIO1E because the Occupation of Veracuz was a sufficiently significant event.

Clearly, the Arnon Zamora page generates more views than these pages, and he played a very similar role to the medal of honor winners. Are you arguing then, that the Israel-Hamas War isn't a sufficiently significant event?

What exactly is your metric for significance? Afdshah (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: His death is referenced in the article for the massacre at Nuseirat. Much of the article and paragraph surrounding his death comes off as Israeli propaganda and POV-pushing, while the rest is just minor coverage. Jebiguess (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's Israeli propaganda/POV-pushing? The only points about his death are that he was the first into the building holding 3 hostages, he was injured, and that he was evacuated and died in the hospital. Where is the Israeli propaganda?

Are you disputing one of these claims? Afdshah (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Knowing Israeli dynamics, it's a short matter of time before we start seeing streets, schools and so on named after him, just like nobody knew who Yonatan Netanyahu was before the Entebbe operation. He will probably also get a posthumous medal. DGtal (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation. Zamora being likely to receive honors in the near future is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The redirect can always be undone once notability is established. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation. WP:BIO1E, didn't receive any significant attention before his death, and didn't play a truly major role in the event he is remembered for, per Fram. Being killed in a military operation isn't significant in itself in WP terms, regardless of how 'heroic' it may seem to the 'home audience'. There could be future coverage about him, but that's WP:CRYSTAL.Pincrete (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2024 (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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Bharatiya

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. Doesn't appear to have won any elections and majority of sources appear to be promotional/puffery. jellyfish ✉ 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and India. jellyfish ✉ 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOL as well GNG. BLP require strong sourcing to satisfy GNG. Saqib (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and businessman is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: the current article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. However, many sources exist on the subject, so editors can still enhance its credibility and notability. --AstridMitch (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2024 (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. Clear consensus to keep from all participants other than the nominator. (non-admin closure) Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these[3][4][5][6][7]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
- Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
- Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
- The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
- Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
- The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. — Saqib (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. — Saqib (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GM Dogar has obtained significant media courage on various matters. Someone has added links to media coverage given to him below. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. Asadwarraich (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A nominator who regularly argues with everyone who disagrees with them over the course of numerous AfDs (repeat: numerous, not all) may be viewed by some as engaging in disruptive behavior.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:COMMONSENSE as chief of police of a massive city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, Pardon my ignorance but I'd like to ask if being the "chief of police of a massive city" does automatically makes one inherently notable? And as far GNG is concerned, this BLP doesn't meet that threshold as I've done source assessment above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shall I cite WP:COMMONSENSE again... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Necrothesp, OK, this might be my last reply, as I don't want to come across as bludgeon, but I find it intriguing that an editor voted to keep a BLP based on WP:COMMONSENSE. By this logic, every police chief of a massive city would easily gets a WP bio, based on some ROTM coverage. Cheers! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I think that would be fair. After all, we wouldn't dream of not having a bio for the chiefs of police of London, New York, etc. And I'm not sure why you keep emphasising that this is a WP:BLP. So what? There's nothing unsourced here. BLP and notability are entirely different issues. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Necrothesp and excessive use of WP:ROTM (an essay, never vetted by the community) as argument to dismiss valid reliable secondary references is clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Saqib, either stop using this term or be ready for repercussions of wasting our time reading these poorly written cookie-cutter AfD rationales. 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9, And, why don't you just stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING and LOUTSOCKING! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ASPERSIONS. @Doczilla: has an advice for you above. 2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. There is enough coverage (with bylines) to meet WP:GNG:

"Lahore CCPO Dogar suspended by federal govt". DAWN.COM. November 6, 2022.

Bhatti, Haseeb (December 2, 2022). "SC reinstates Ghulam Mahmood Dogar as Lahore CCPO". DAWN.COM.

Malik, Mansoor (February 19, 2023). "Another leaked clip adds to Dogar controversy". DAWN.COM.

Bhatti, Haseeb (February 17, 2023). "SC suspends transfer of Lahore police chief Ghulam Mahmood Dogar". DAWN.COM.

2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2024 (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!} 16:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Lekić

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

This page is about a non-notable friend of an anonymous school shooter in Belgrade. It adds no information that isn't present in the main article for the shooting. I can find no more sources that would add anything to this Ionophore (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ionophore (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also cannot find any additional sources related to this. Even if you assume the sources listed qualify as WP:SIGCOV (I don't think they do), there has been no sustained notability for this individual (WP:NSUSTAINED). There was only one burst of coverage in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. The article has a lot of problems in general, and I don't think it can be salvaged at this time. Garsh (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sobovitz

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

Created by UPE user (subject admitted in IRC), a LOT of the references are the subjects own work, therefore nothing for notability. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Israel, and Europe. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not remove the problematic references and keep the other ones? Many of them are from independent media sources (Brussels Times, Times of Israel, Politico, Al Jazeera, etc.). 2A02:2788:224:538:311F:AC6C:14C6:4B14 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're written by Sobovitz; you can't use articles by the subject, those are primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination, can confirm that this is un-disclosed COI as dislosed on IRC in #wikipedia-en-help, and the sourcing is insufficient to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it's a paid job, I won't even bother delving into whether it meets the GNG or not. I've also nominated for deletion an article closely related to Dan Sobovitz, which was also created by the same author as this one. --Saqib (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can this not be speedy deleted, as it was created by/for UPE? Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If not speedy deleted, I'd delete for lack of sourcing. The Brussels Post and one Haretz article are written by the subject. Others are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2024 (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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanus Muller

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

This article falls far short of what is expected of a BLP. Had this been written only a few days ago, I would have immediately draftified it. As it is now a few years old, a discussion needs to happen in order to do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Music, and South Africa. UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough book reviews (now added to the article) for WP:AUTHOR. As for the shape the article is in: despite the plethora of scary cleanup banners, I've seen much worse (in BLPs in no danger of being deleted) and WP:DINC. And calling for draftification of a years-old article with years-old cleanup banners is just a dishonest way of calling for its full deletion after it sits unaddressed for another half-year. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The recent addition of book reviews strengthens the article's compliance with the notability guideline for authors. Deletion seems like a harsh solution. We should improve the article, not delete it. Waqar💬 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:NAUTHOR the subject is notable. While there are some issues with the article, this is WP:NOTCLEANUP. --hroest 10:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I accept the reasons for moving Draft:Friedrich Wilhelm Jannasch to drafts and will continue working on it, @UtherSRGhas also reversed my call to move Draft:South African Music Encyclopedia into the mainspace. Seems like a blanket clampdown on my actions, without regard for the relative merit of the articles. Viljowf (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raba Khan

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

Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. May be she is a celebrity but not notable to be in Wikipedia like the other youtubers. No independent notability other than being a youtuber. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Radio, Entertainment, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. No, we do not have articles for each of them.
The nom seems to be focused on the subject rather than individual. Regardless what they're known for, if they receive enough notable coverage, they are notable. And this person most definitely passes GNG regardless of the causes. It's not limited to a one-off event (the Forbes list) but sustained coverage exist for this individual.
No independent notability other than being a YouTuber That's the most illogical rationale I've ever seen on an AFD nom. We have thousands of biographies on YouTubers. Since when, YouTubers aren't notable solely based on the fact that they are YouTubers? It all comes down to coverage, if they fulfill the notability criteria, they are notable.
And even if taking this fallacy into consideration just for the sake of it, this person has received coverage for other ventures outside their digital content creation on YouTube. YouTube contributed to their initial fame but from then on she has received coverage for other activities such as vlogs on Facebook or media collaborations, UNICEF activities, writing, singing, modeling, etc. X (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlbeitPK, I'm inviting you to do a complete source analysis. You clearly did not practice WP:BEFORE, which is not a surprise, you being an inexperienced user. As a friendly advice, I'd urge you to spend more time on article creation and expansion before hopping onto AFD. Familiarize yourself with the policies and when you get a good grip you may participate in these spaces.
Albeit being largely primary, the Ice Today piece alone is a clear indication of notability. And independent in-depth coverage do exist. Sources are available in Bengali exist as well, all of which are not included in the article, but I'll be happy to list them if one asks. X (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Source analysis:

This is essentially just a paragaph mentioning she posted a video.
Daily Star 30-under-30 #1 has a good paragraph describing her
A short interview with a little more significant commentary
Daily Sun 30-under-30 article doesn't say much other than republishing the announcement
An entire article on her, which is probably sourced from an interview, but the newspaper is the one making statements so I think it's valid.
Another 4 good paragraphs in the Forbes list
BBC Bengali mention in review of Facebook influencers, only a little but it is there
More Daily Star coverage under being a 30-under-30 winner
Article on her, though whether the Vanity Star is a reliable source I don't know
The interview mentioned, which is very long but primary. Good for the article, but probably doesn't establish notability (but the other sources probably do)
Short article

Plus:

So, while a lot of the coverage is just tiny 5-sentence mentions, she does seem to be notable (according to these things) in Bengali online media. The book and the popularity probably push her over "random youtuber", and I think the last two sources + the interview + the forbes list and associated sources all together meet the significant coverage criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Yes, almost all the sources that discusses her starts with something like "Famous social media personality" or "Popular content creator", etc. She also has been the subject of at least 5 full length talk show interviews by the countries largest media Prothom Alo alone. They also dedicated entire episodes of shows on her lifestyle (one about "What's Raba Khan shopping this Eid"). And numerous national and international magazine features. Everything combined speaks for her notability. It appears the nominator is an inexperienced editor, hence they do not have a good grasp over Wiki notability guidelines. I won't say I'm always right, but this is the first WIR article (2nd overall) created by me that has been brought to AFD (I'm taking a Wiki break but had to respond here when I saw the mail, NGL, the nom rationale is ridiculous.) X (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for the source analysis Mrfoogles. I am content that on the basis of those sources the subject meets WP:N. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per source analysis above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2024 (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. Malinaccier (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Sylvia

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIRS. If you feel that the sources pass SIRS, please provide WP:THREE for evaluation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIRS, the references must each be independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. None of them provide significant coverage. You have obviously failed to read and understand WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some people seem to have a specific understanding of what significant coverage means, interpreting that anything other than a biography should be discarded. I see it as being any coverage that goes beyond trivial and passing mentions. Jesse Sylvia is mentioned as winning some significant tournaments, and, to me, SIGCOV is present there. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2024 (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!} 23:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salem K. Meera

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

No sources, no claim of or sources for notability — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only mention is in Wikipedia rip-off sites and this youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCro0duFrlz7wjS9wr0g0AA with less than 100 views on each video. I see no reason to keep this article. [Unsigned by User:Spiralwidget]
Delete: This article lacks reliable sources, it's difficult to assess the article's credibility. I vote for deletion. Waqar💬 16:31, 13 June 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Shueh-shuan

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

No real sources and fails notability test. A search turns up only social media — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Huang, Xiaojun 黃筱筠 (2013-02-24). "前綠委兒子劉學軒打造女子國樂團　開拓大陸" [Liu Xuexuan, son of the former Green Committee member, creates a women's Chinese orchestra to explore the mainland]. China Review News Agency [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-13.
  The article notes: "劉學軒1969年生，2008年創立“無双樂團”，創立樂團之前是作曲家，創作種類多元，包括管弦樂、室內樂、打擊樂、現代國樂乃至於電影、電視、動畫配樂、兒童音樂及數位音樂。應邀擔任國家國樂團“2006精緻系列”四場音樂會製作人及音樂指導。也曾幫母親翁金珠製作選舉歌曲。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan was born in 1969. He founded the "Wushuang Orchestra" in 2008. Before founding the orchestra, he was a composer and created a variety of genres, including orchestral music, chamber music, percussion, modern Chinese music, and even film, TV, animation soundtracks, children's music and digital music. Invited to serve as the producer and music director of four concerts of the National Chinese Orchestra's "2006 Exquisite Series". He also helped his mother Weng Jinzhu compose election songs."
2. Tang, Yawen 湯雅雯 (2009-02-23). "推手劉學軒翁金珠的兒子" [Driving force Liu Xuexuan, son of Wong Chin-chu]. World Journal (in Chinese). p. A10.
  The article notes: "文化大學助理教授劉學軒擅長將傳統音樂創新，融合交響樂與電子音樂，打造跨界音樂型態。 ... 如果不說，很少人知道劉學軒就是立委翁金珠的兒子，他從事音樂創作十多年，管弦樂、大型民族音樂、電子樂都擅長，甚至擔任樂團、劇場音樂企畫，頗受好評。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, an assistant professor at the Chinese Culture University, is good at innovating traditional music, integrating symphony and electronic music, and creating cross-border music styles. ... If not mentioned, few people know that Liu Xuexuan is the son of legislator Wong Chin-chu. He has been engaged in music creation for more than ten years. He is good at orchestral music, large-scale ethnic music, and electronic music. He even serves as a music planner for orchestras and theaters, and is well received."
3. Zhang, Qiongyue 張瓊月 (2011-09-15). "無雙樂團 13日驚艷匹茲堡" [Peerless Band Stuns Pittsburgh on the 13th]. World Journal (in Chinese). p. C9.
  The article notes: "文建會金獎作曲大師劉學軒目前任職文化大學。2008年12月成立無雙樂團，從旗下十名團員開始，刻增至42名團員。由前台灣國家國樂團樂團首席王明華擔任無雙樂團藝術總監。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, a master composer who won the Gold Award from the Council for Cultural Affairs, currently works at the Cultural University. Wushuang Band was established in December 2008. It started with ten members and quickly increased to 42 members. Wang Minghua, former concertmaster of the Taiwan National Chinese Orchestra, serves as the artistic director of the Wushuang Orchestra."
  The article notes: "劉學軒親自設計團員身穿的現代版旗袍與12公分的高跟鞋表演，更將她們所受的美儀訓練全新呈現給觀眾。... 劉學軒成功地重新包裝國樂，結合交響、流行與電子樂風，顛覆一般人對古典音樂的刻板印象，使無雙樂團所到之處大受歡迎。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan personally designed the modern version of cheongsam and 12cm high heels worn by the members for the performance, and also presented their beauty training to the audience in a new way. ...Liu Xuexuan has successfully repackaged traditional Chinese music, combining symphonic, pop and electronic music styles, subverting the stereotypes of classical music that ordinary people have, making the Wushuang Orchestra very popular wherever it goes."
4. Huang, Junming 黃俊銘 (2004-10-23). "瓦薩里劉學軒因石獅結緣" [Vasari and Liu Xuexuan became acquainted with stone lions]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C6.
  The article notes: "瓦薩里二度訪台，除帶來波希米亞風的德弗乍克，重頭戲是演出劉學軒「三峽祖師廟的石獅」，這是他向畫家李梅樹致敬之作，紀念李主導重修祖師廟。曾修打擊樂的劉學軒加了舞獅、北管樂，曲子譜完，昨天得到瓦薩里的熱情相擁。"
  From Google Translate: "Vasari visited Taiwan for the second time. In addition to bringing the bohemian Dvorchak, the highlight was Liu Xuexuan's "Stone Lions of the Three Gorges Ancestral Temple". This was his tribute to the painter Li Meishu and commemorated the reconstruction of the Ancestral Temple led by Li. Liu Xuexuan, who once studied percussion, added lion dance and northern wind instruments. After composing the music, he received a warm embrace from Vasari yesterday."
5. Wu, Yuzhen 吳玉貞 (2004-10-20). "布達佩斯交響樂團來台演出台灣作家作品劉學軒創作獲肯定母親翁金珠欣慰" [Budapest Symphony Orchestra comes to Taiwan to perform works by Taiwanese writers. Liu Xuexuan's creation was recognised and his mother Wong Chin-chu was delighted.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. CR2.
  The article notes: "現年卅五歲的劉學軒南門國中音樂班畢業後考上國立藝專音樂科，再到美國加州大學長堤分校專攻作曲，學成後回國一直致力音樂創作，劉學軒說，三峽祖師廟的石獅是他回國後在家當了七年超級奶爸的作品，在家創作也帶孩子，要把作曲當職業真的很辛苦，還好撐過來了，"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, now 35 years old, graduated from the music class of Nanmen Junior High School and was admitted to the music department of the National Art College. He then went to the University of California at Changdi to specialize in composition. After completing his studies, he returned to China and devoted himself to music creation. Liu Xuexuan said that the stone lions at the Three Gorges Ancestral Temple This is the work of him who worked as a super dad at home for seven years after returning to China. He was composing and taking care of his children at home. It was really hard to turn composition into a career, but luckily he managed to survive."
6. Hei, Zhongliang (2004-09-17). "三峽祖師廟的石獅獲瓦薩里選為巡演曲目劉學軒曲融台灣情布達佩斯樂團為新曲目添中國鑼鼓" [The Stone Lions of the Three Gorges Patriarch Temple were selected by Vasari as a tour piece. Liu Xuexuan. Qu Rong Taiwan. Love Budapest Orchestra adds Chinese gongs and drums to new repertoire]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. A12.
  The article notes: "今年35歲，出生於彰化的劉學軒，有一位著名的「縣長媽媽」翁金珠，但更有一位「影響自己更深」的父親劉峰松（現任台灣文獻館館長），從父親在文化界勇於任事的過程中，學習到尊重本身文化的重要性，使得擅吹中國笛的他，"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, 35 years old, was born in Changhua. He has a famous "county magistrate mother" Weng Jinzhu, but he also has a father Liu Fengsong (currently the director of the Taiwan Archives) who "affects him more deeply". In the process of working, he learned the importance of respecting his own culture, which made him, who is good at playing the Chinese flute, ..."
  The article notes: "劉學軒表示，媽媽在聽到自己作品將由布達佩斯交響樂團演出的消息時，幾幾乎是以「跳起來」的興奮心情，來祝福兒子的幸運，畢竟昔日母親以鋼琴啟蒙了如今的他，而後進入南門國中音樂班、前國立藝專音樂科就讀，退伍後曾考進實驗國樂團，再赴美國加州州立大學長堤分校專攻作曲，1999年才學成返國。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan said that when his mother heard the news that his work would be performed by the Budapest Symphony Orchestra, she almost jumped up with excitement to wish her son good luck. After all, his mother had inspired him with the piano in the past, and then entered the South He studied in the music class of a junior high school and the music department of the former National Academy of Arts. After being discharged from the army, he was admitted to the Experimental Chinese Orchestra, and then went to the California State University at Long Beach to major in composition. He returned to Taiwan after completing his studies in 1999."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Shueh-shuan (traditional Chinese: 劉學軒; simplified Chinese: 刘学轩; pinyin: Liú Xuéxuān to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard. Besides, the subject person has won once and been nominated twice for the Golden Melody Awards.[8][9] Fulfills WP:ANYBIO#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:56, 15 June 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 18:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Karr

AfDs for this article:

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

This article certainly looks impressive, but not one of the sources used is significant coverage from an independent reliable source. IMDB and MVDB are user generated and should not be used at all. Allmusic lists everything, so while it may be ok for verification it doesn't get us anywhere for notability. Websites owned or operated by the subject are possibly ok primary sources but again, no use as far as notability. VideoStatic, I'd never heard of but the coverage there is just crediting this person for their role in various projects, there's no depth of coverage about this person.

My own search didn't turn up anything any better. He certainly seems to be prolific in his industry, but somehow apparently has not been the subject of significant coverage. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Film, Visual arts, and Photography. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Working commercial photographer, with a too long list of everything they've ever worked on here... Wiki isn't for your CV. I find nothing covering this individual, not even PR items. There just isn't coverage about them. Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used now in the article is primary or simply a name drop... Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources are reliable, and as mentioned in the nom, not SIGCOV. The article is PROMO for a commercial photographer just doing his job. Performing one's job as a creative does not automatically confer notability. I saw on his website a claim that his work was "the subject of an exhibition at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) which gave hope that he might pass NARTIST if he were in the collection and other collections could be found at notable museums or national galleries. However a search of LACMA's collection resulted in nothing, and a basic search of his name on their website revealed no hits at all [10]. Netherzone (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is interchangeable with an IMDB page... WP:NOTRESUME (if the people in the first AFD were correct in assuming this to maybe be autobiographical.) The fact this survived so long after its first AFD is amazing. IceBergYYC (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2024 (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!} 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanasis Kaproulias

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

Unsourced BLP with no claim to notability — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Greece. — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further info Note that he goes by Novi_sad so don't confuse with the city in Serbia. Still little under this moniker though. Also note the two sources in the article are either dead or fail verification. I forgot to PROD this article. Sorry about that! Sources do exist for Novi-sad: Sedition Art, again, Bandcamp, Discogs, eBay, lpdr, Horizons Music. But these are really promo sites or sites for selling the music. This is about the only thing that might help with nobility as all other sites for "Thanasis Kaproulias" are bios on IMDb, Discogs, AllMusic or the like. Not enough coverage in truly reliable sources so fails WP:GNG (especially WP:SPIP), WP:SINGER and WP:NBLP. — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is clearly not enough coverage to meet the GNG. I would say this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but this article has existed since 2008 and is largely unchanged since 2010. Toadspike [Talk] 15:07, 26 June 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 21:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Dan-Azumi

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

Fails WP:NPOL, the sources are almost entirely routine coverages and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources. Occupying the position of Chief of Staff to the Speaker of a House of Representatives does not make a subject presumptively notable. This subject also fails WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 12 June 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 21:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olanrewaju Smart

AfDs for this article:

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

My rationale from the just concluded AfD still stands. The subject fails WP:NPOL, the sources are almost entirely routine coverages and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources. Occupying the position of Chief of Staff to the Speaker of a House of Representatives does not make a subject presumptively notable. While there is no source to verify the "Senior Special Assistant to the President on Intergovernmental Affairs" position, it also does not makes the subject presumptively notable. This subject also fails WP:GNG in general. This was previously deleted on this ground and was undeleted and moved here again without any improvement. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the political importance of some of these Federal public servant roles in Nigeria isn't grasped here. What we can note is that the appointment of Smart was a news story in itself in various national media, see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] this source gives indication of how these posts are politically sensitive and fought over. --Soman (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be a cultural/demographic issue. Federal Public service roles are notable and successive roles for someone that has also achieved academically and regularly contributes to the political space should be able to have a wiki profile, lower profiled people do have one. I believe the article was improved upon Dondekojo (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with that comment implying that the role of Federal public servants isn’t grasped. There are several branches of “federal” public services which makes me think saying “federal” public servants are presumptively notable, it opens room for inappropriacy. And Dondekojo, I think you have a COI here which you’re not disclosing. Please do the needful per WP:COIDECLARE so that we’d know where we stand. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying every federal public servant is inherently notable. But in Nigerian politics the Chief of Staff positions are important (in part demonstrated by the fact that their appointments for roles like these are national news in itself). We have to understand that the key posts (like speakers, ministries, etc.) turn into fiefdoms, and where the CoS are movers in negotiations and as such public figures. --Soman (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion under WP:G4: (1) No improvement of previous writing: you cannot recreate the same article without addressing the issues outlined in the previous nom (which was closed as deleted. (2) Notability status has not changed: Between the last nom and this one, definitely he did not just met the requirement outlined in the last discussion. we either respect previous discussion or just re-debate things infinitely with no new substance and that is coming from some one who voted keep last time around. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2024 (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. Seems to be the consensus to keep in light of new sources, though other keep arguments are weaker. Malinaccier (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Engel

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

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. No rule about number of bracelets won to determine notability. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article was previously created by blocked user, deleted, then re-deleted as G5. New article is fresh and not a G5 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on potential impact I will not disagree about there not being a rule about what is notable in the poker community around here but there is much inconsistency. If Engel is deemed not to be notable, then probably at least over half of legacy poker articles on here need to be wiped. I noticed the nominator's other tagged deletions, which I agree with because they do not bring much to the table. Bracelets are considered the gold standard in the poker community and three is nothing to scoff at. The circuit rings record alone should warrant merit but that is justm y opinion. Major titles won, money earned, or major impact historically on pop culture through the game should be what merits a player's notability in my opinion. It would be nice to have a set standard on what is deemed worthy so time on improvements is not wasted. Red Director (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have been around the poker community on here for years so although it would be sad to lose legacy articles, some of these do not warrant merit existance at all if this is the standard we want to place. Engel has more accomplishments of note than most of these on a quick glance. Red Director (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"major impact historically on pop culture through the game" - surely someone has described that impact. Then, it's just a matter of writing down who that person was, and we have a source that contributes to notability. The thing we can't do, on the other hand, is that one of us, a Wikipedia user, is the one who discerns the cultural impact. It has to be verified by another party. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engel definetly does not check the box of culturally impactful poker player lol. The only things that maybe make sense for the article being retained are his accomplishments which gulf many other players here who do not even come close to that pedigree. I do not care if this article stays or leaves personally. Existing articles make a case for keeping is all I am saying. Red Director (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existing articles make a case for keeping is a WP:WHATABOUTISM. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article to have more information, references, and an external link section. I personally did not think he warranted an article based on what is considered to relevant in this day and age of poker, but he is close in my opinion. One more WSOP bracelet puts in him in a good class of player in the modern age. However, poker is a funny game. He could win his next tournament or never win another one. It seems the fact that a previously blocked user made this page seems to be what put Engel's article on a deletion path when it is not deserved based on what has been allowed to be on here. It just seems odd that we are drawing the line here on this one page when there are plenty of untargeted articles on players who have not done anything of note in one or two decades where their only major accomplishments came during 2003-2007's poker boom. I fully expect this page to be deleted though so no worries if that is the consensus. Red Director (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is still WP:WHATABOUTISM. If you know of other articles that don't measure up, then please nominate them for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, I found this [17], a primary source where the subject talks about himself. I still don't see enough in RS to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Red Director. The bracelets merits inclusion alone but then there's also the record holding of circuit rings (17). Atleast the main events at each circuit tour stop is pro-amateur. There's also a million plus score in a highly regarded event. PsychoticIncall (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those satisfy our requirements for notability per WP:NBIO. Please read WP:SIRS and respond with WP:THREE references that each meet the requirements detailed in SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG [18][19][20][21][22] Also, the two newspaper.com clippings are from the same article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep while the directory listings don't help, there is plenty of sourcing in the article that counts toward WP:N (unless PokerNews isn't a reliable source for some reason, then the numbers drop a lot). Hobit (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by WikiOriginal-9. One of the newspaper clippings is broken, though. Not sure why. By the way, we also have a dewiki article on this fellow – I've now connected the languages via Wikidata. Toadspike [Talk] 09:10, 20 June 2024 (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 merge‎ to Malek Ashraf. ✗plicit 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temürtas

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

I could not find any coverage in WP:RS to justify inclusion per WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Malek Ashraf as ATD. I agree the subject isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations. The section at Malek Ashraf#Family is also uncited and I couldn't find any reliable sources either. As a second choice, redirect to the father on the basis of too little coverage for a stand-alone article. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Malek Ashraf. Subject non notable to be a stand alone article. Piscili (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Malek Ashraf.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2024 (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 19:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McCready

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

Only claim to notability is serving one term as a local councillor in Derry. Fails WP:NPOL. Media coverage is mostly local and routine - for example, coverage that he changed parties or chose not to seek re-election. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Northern Ireland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:politician as he was only a councillor and has no other claims to fame. — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:57, 12 June 2024 (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 11:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Meyers (businessman)

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

A non-notable businessman. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Can't find any notable works other than founding his company which barely passes WP:ORG. I recently AfD'd his company's article as well. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fred Meyers is also an American retired actor and paramedic while Fred Meyer is a company. I'm having trouble separating them out — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any search has nothing about this guy and plenty about others of the same name: [23][24][25] etc. The article does nothing to establish notability — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 June 2024 (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 Draftify‎. We don't have a "keep until" disposition for an article. The closest we have to that is a draft, and its six month life meets the requested timeline, allowing for a clear consensus. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dancey

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

Appears to be campaign advertising for a non-notable individual. Fails WP:NPOL. Nothing in his life or career up to now indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in less than a month he will either be an MP or an also-ran, and the political notability will be entirely clear, so the timing of this AfD is puzzling. I've no view as yet on possible Olympic notability. Ingratis (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not puzzling at all. It's normal practice on Wikipedia to not create articles for candidates for political office with no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until after the election on 4 July, when it will be clear whether this person meets NPOL or not. There's no point at all in deleting the article and then immediately re-creating it. Common sense, surely... Ingratis (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article in national press (Daily Express): https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1877309/Labour-candidate-immigration-Stockton Bram880 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notability due to his Olympic involvement. Also agree timing of this AfD is poor, as it is highly likely that he will also be an MP in 23 days which will establish the notability on the political aspect. ClevelandUpdates (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an "executive assistant to Lord Seb Coe, the chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games" is not a free pass on notability. The one source regarding his involvement in the Olympics, a local newspaper, states "He was among the first 200 people who started organising the Games" - are all those people notable? We need significant, in-depth coverage of the role he played personally. Not seeing that at all. AusLondonder (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and quickly. This is currently WP:TOOSOON. His Olympics work does not make him notable, the article referenced states "He was among the first 200 people who started organising the Games in 2008" and is just about a visit to a local school. I think it's ethically very dubious to state a candidate is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry while they are actively campaigning based on a non-notable career to date. Orange sticker (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. People are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates for offices they have not already held — and no, the fact that the campaign is currently underway does not create a special moratorium on deleting them, because that would completely defeat the entire purpose of that rule. Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign brochures for as yet unelected aspiring politicians, but the election campaign is precisely the time when such people most want the publicity they think a Wikipedia article would provide them, so such a moratorium would simply set us up to have to accept a flood of campaign biographies for every single candidate in the entire country every time there's an election anywhere on earth.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in July if he wins the seat, but simply being a candidate is not grounds for an article in and of itself — and restoring a previously-deleted article if necessary is not difficult enough that any special dispensations would need to be given for candidates in current election campaigns. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: As it currently stands, this subject lacks the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article in national press (Daily Express): https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1877309/Labour-candidate-immigration-Stockton Bram880 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign coverage, which is simply expected to always exist for all candidates and thus does not make this candidate more special than other candidates, contributes absolutely nothing toward passage of WP:GNG in advance of winning the election. Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2024 (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 merge‎ to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Please make the merge if you have the time, LilianaUwU. Malinaccier (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Meyer Davis

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

WP:BLP1E. Could easily be merged into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Illinois. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges per WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:GNG, standalone page not warranted. Sal2100 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2024 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourabh Chowdhury

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

Doesn't meet GNG and reliable sources for inclusion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Asia, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I can find are variations of this story [26], which don't contribute to notability, and I'm unsure if it's the same person. The article now is very PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously confused if the person of the article is same or not? Common man, there's no chance to be confused because he is a social influencer and, therefore, you can easily watch his channel and cross-check those achievement on official website of organizers.

Yeah if you think it's a PROMO, just feel free to give your touch and delete whatever word you think as promotional.

Thank you Strikingstar01 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the major cause for deletion is insufficient sources and a little bit promo content? OK, if I fix both causes, then will you guys agree on retaining the article? Strikingstar01 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is clearly PROMO, created by a SPA. The subject hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage which is not enough to establish GNG . Saqib (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assalam o alaikum,

I don't know but would like to listen why you think it's a promo and I'm a SPA?

1) the sources clearly varifies that the person got 1st rank in multiple national and global tournament, You can't buy the organizers to mention your name in 1st place yearly events because they can mention names of only one and actual winner.

2) Common man, How could you expect churnalism from government's site?

3) Yeah the article could be PROMO because I've just started this journey with tons of guideline and could make several mistakes. Please mention sentences which indicates promotional content. Strikingstar01 (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO page. The subject has not made any significant achievement, notable to warrant a page on him. This page reads clear promotion of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think, if a person have more than 40 Million impression and bunch of golabal achievements, he deserve a page? Strikingstar01 (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2024 (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!} 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jemiah Jefferson

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

This subject appears to fail both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Drmies offered this one a speedy nearly 13 years ago, which was contested by the creator. No apparent notability has emerged since that time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Colorado, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the article does not satisfy either WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. The references provided are insufficient to indicate notability, and a search for the subject in the news yields no results. In terms of reviews, there is: a review on a personal blog from 2021 and a forum post from 2007 and that is all. Manyyassin (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, JFHJr. Fun fact: I once interviewed for a job at Reed, and one of the perks was that you could bring your dog to class. So that speedy template was removed a few times by the creator, as was a PROD by User:Karl 334. Yeah, I agree--there seems to be no proof of notability here. Delete. Oh, thank you Manyyassin for looking into it also--those things you uncovered don't help here. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was the cat policy? AFAF. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An author, for sure, but other than confirming the publication of her books, all I found was one review in Publishers Weekly (not terribly enthusiastic) - and none in Kirkus, which reviews a heck of a lot of what gets published. She writes Horror and there is one paragraph (which I believe is a PR blurb because it seems familiar after checking book sales pages) in a book called "100+ Black Women in Horror". Unfortunately, it's a Lulu-published book. That's it. I can confirm that she works at Dark Horse Comics in Portland. Beyond that a few name-checks. Lamona (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lamona: I agree. I saw that review WP:BEFORE and I came to the same conclusion as to the publisher. It's a Who's Who from Lulu. It got my hopes up at the time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (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. Weak Keeps and Weakish Delete but reviews tilt it over to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Lynn

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

This subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here, but a weak one, following some rework. I've added some sources and reworked the article. I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work. Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line. Mdann52 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-ish delete I think it's close but not quite GNG. He has written one book that was reviewed in major local newspapers. He has written and adapted plays in that same locality. In 2020 his book was adapted to the film as a short. (I don't find much about it at IMDB) That's about it. At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it. Lamona (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Guardian review and [27], Kirkus reviews. We should have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Guardian being on another continent counters the argument about local press, though I did find yet another local review: https://www.austinchronicle.com/arts/2015-12-11/rules-for-werewolves/ . Furthermore, the writeup in a year-end list by Anna Wiener at Longreads seems like editorial content. Would this summary at NPR count as secondary comment? This is more passing than significant coverage. I would not be opposed to transform this into an article about the book, where the film also would be covered. Geschichte (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (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!} 21:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myrlin Hermes

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I can't think of any other applicable grounds for notability for this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, India, England, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added several refs and details to the article (while removing unsourced content). There is no significant coverage of Hermes. Her first book won a Lambda Literary Award for Bisexual Literature in 2011, but even if that's considered an important enough award for WP:ANYBIO #1, I consider that the absence of any coverage of her outweighs that. I found a few reviews of her first book in major newspapers, so an article on Careful What You Wish For could be justified. (But I'll note that the Washington Post reviewer generously concluded, "Myrlin Hermes is 23 years old, an age at which having published a book at all is a substantial accomplishment. There's plenty of time for her to turn into a real writer."[28]) Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2024 (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.

Doreen Kyazze

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

I reviewed this article thrice to determine whether it is considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Firstly, I saw there were good sources as though a reviewer will do. I now checked the sources and almost a good percentage weren't reliable per WP:RS. Religion of sources and lack of WP:SIRS definitely defined this type of article.

In second checking for confirmation, I discovered so many sources lined her perhaps a single line other quote while addressing her as a worker at Penal. I would have said this should be redirected to the organisation page but didn't see any advocacy worthy enough for WP:ATD. Another subtle was drive by the award nomination. This cannot be called WP:ANYBIO since it was once nominated and wasn't won (it's is also a lesser award, thus not major like ANYBIO. I've therefore brought this to the table proper discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The award from the EU seems notable [29] and [30]. I'm ok with the sources given. At least enough for BASIC Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, EU human rights award is nothing but a less major award. Though must have come from a notable form EU, but the article bearer was a nominee and was only once. How does that satisfy WP:BASIC? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find coverage [31], [32], [33] and [34]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oaktree b, the sources you listed all were independent of the Ugandan academic Spire or nearer to that. However, one nominated award is never enough for a career that isn't established. For example, a writer that has written extensively and appeared in reaserch paper may be considered even with the writing and more when nominated for an award like this. In this context, however, the article doesn't meet GNG of her career or any significant impact or SIGCOV of her advocacy ad work. Arguing about an award that is not even won is likely biased for me. It's simply a reminder! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the source presented, I don't see how this person won this award. She seem to be a runner up which didn't mean she won a significant award or has been invited for it many times (stated in WP:ANYBIO). While the sources listed by Oaktree b is about the announcement of the award, source 3 and source 4 still were about Dr. Spire who won the award, and little coverage of the runners up. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Masake

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. While the notability of Chapter Four Uganda is questioned, I simply may conclude redirecting there per this source. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find several sources where he has a non-trivial mention, but all of these are simply related to his role at Chapter Four Uganda. https://www.pulse.ug/news/chapter-four-resumes-operations-appoints-ag-executive-director/bms1s5p https://nilepost.co.ug/news/147338/poor-cultural-practices-violence-hindering-africas-development https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422020935790 I would suggest Redirect to Chapter Four Uganda- he does not need his own article in my opinion.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. In the future, if you "correct" a comment, the protocol is to strike the old phrase and insert the new one, don't rewrite your nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Nyakana

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

Am article about a boxer that doesn't meet WP:SIRS on source assessment. The article in general doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Bodybuilding, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aside from the fact that WP:SIRS is for organizations and the nom misidentifies him as a weightlifter when he's actually a boxer (seriously?), there's substantial existing precedent that a podium finish at an elite international event generally makes an athlete notable - for example see WP:NTRACK, WP:NGYMNASTICS, WP:NTRIATHLON. The commonwealth games isn't the Olympics, but there's also WP:NOLYMPICS where any podium finish makes the cut. The commonwealth games is one of the most prestigious sporting competitions in the world, I think a gold medal makes the cut.

He was also the subject of a documentary - https://www.badlefthook.com/2015/8/13/9147775/titleshot-20-year-old-boxing-film-seeks-completion BrigadierG (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error that can be avoided. I have corrected it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BrigadierG (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I gave enough reliable sources if you had properly checked those sources before tagging it for deletion. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2024 (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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swatting of American politicians (2023–2024)

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

Propose article be deleted or at least moved to draft. At present this article seems to be little more than a list of news articles with no wider encyclopaedic merit (WP:NOTNEWS). There doesn't appear to be any evidence to link any of these events other than a rather arbitrary time period that feels created by editors, which there amounts to Wikipedia assigning correlation where there may be none (WP:OR).

Given the contentious topic nature of the subject matter feel it's best that the article be removed from at least main space until such a time it's improved or demonstrates merit for inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Politics, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as discussed on the article talk page, multiple reliable sources referred to the incidents in relationship with one another and noted that some politicians reacted with the proposed legislation to enact harsher sentences for swatting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the above argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a notable pattern of harnessing elected officials. It doesn't seem to be going away, and has the possibility of getting worse, or spreading to other countries. — Maile (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 108.18.142.185 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Maile, I don't see the issue resolving itself soon anytime either and it is not an isolated case Wiiformii (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (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!} 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basanth Sadasivan

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

Minor coverage in mediocre sources, but doesn’t appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, and Singapore. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Pseudo-biographies hits the nail with this quote:
If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.

The scattering of third party articles concerning (or sometimes merely including) the subject are not varied or in depth. Indeed the article must rely on the subject himself for such basic biographical facts as his birthdate (sourced to his Facebook page); his attendance and accomplishments at Durham University (his own Twitter feed); and his attendance at and degree from University College, London (his own LinkedIn account). In like fashion his high school attendance is not evidenced by any third party source but by a listing of graduates published by the school; and his travel industry employment, by employer releases. Further, lots of people have visited every UN country. It may be a great personal accomplishment but is not significant enough for either a standalone article or a personal one leveraging on it. JohnInDC (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only a little in the way of significant coverage, and it fails WP:NSUSTAINED. There was a small flurry of news within the first couple of months following his arrival in Tuvalu. Since then, he's had some exposure as a source of travel advice, including one article in which he's the sole focus, but these aren't coverage of him. Largoplazo (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per reasons above. Not every world traveler, can get a page. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Notwithstanding the fact that the article needs improving, the individual has had sufficient coverage in the media. It is also flawed that there is just one article where he is the sole focus as per ^[1]^[2] However, it also appears that the article's subject appeared on a podcast by what appears to be the official Singporese News Channel (Channel News Asia)^[3]. Why this was not referenced at any stage of the article is hard to understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.136.179 (talk) 7:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Subject has been in multiple news sources, including reputable heavyweights like Forbes, the Straits Times and CNN. The line determining what constitutes 'coverage' is a blurred one but at the end of the day his name, achievements and experiences are constantly the subject matter of multiple articles. Other world travelers with far less 'coverage' (e.g. Sal Lavallo, Jorn Bjorn Augestad) already have pages so let's try not to shift the goalposts based on our impressions of the individual page writers. — Teampkf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The above charade is part of a protracted witch hunt by a group of disgruntled editors (namely @JohnInDC and @Largoplazo) who are unhappy at the fact that I did not accept some of their edits on the above page. First they opted to make unexplained deletions of sections of the article without discussing them first. Next they opted to post several threatening messages on my talk page (which have since been deleted) aimed at intimidating me into submission. When they found they were getting nowhere, they are now trying to get the article deleted which is interesting considering that they were so interested in the article previously and had so many edits to make (to the point that they engaged in edit warring behavior). A history of all these interactions can be seen on the original page’s history. It is important that Wikipedia does not condone such bullying behavior that also borders on harassment. Perceived “senior editors” do not have the right to push their way around an inclusive community like Wikipedia and attempt to use their “seniority” to intimidate others into accepting their way. Teddybrutus (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already warned you informally about not assuming good faith and accusing people, based on nothing, of ill motives instead of understanding and accepting the perfectly valid motives that they gave. I also pointed out that your accusations were nonsensical. But here you are again, apparently needing to stick to your unfounded and absurd witch hunt theory rather than accept there are normal procedural reasons for this. Therefore, I've posted a formal, and final, warning to your talk page. You may be close to being blocked. Largoplazo (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teddybrutus: I came across this article while using a semi-automated tool to review recent edits, and have no familiarity with whatever conflict you may be describing between yourself, JohnInDC, and Largoplazo. There is no "witch hunt", and you can see from my contribution history that I've not had any interaction with the page or with those editors pertaining to this page prior to nominating it for deletion. I'd recommend you focus on the page's serious issues rather than resorting to unfounded accusations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "'Most beautiful mountain in the world' should be on your bucket list". 25 January 2024.
^ https://www.webintravel.com/turning-to-human-advice-on-travel-planning-in-the-age-of-ai-and-chatgpt/ one article
^ "Daily Cuts - Destination Everywhere".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While those advocating Keep are all low edit accounts (and the article creator), several do argue that the quality of the sources is adequate so I think it's worth a relisting although it might be closed early.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This clearly fails WP:NSUSTAINED as stated above, and it's questionable whether there is even WP:SIGCOV (interviews with the subject do not count). In addition, I strongly suspect the page creator has an undisclosed WP:COI. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree with page creator having undisclosed COI

previously posted evidence linking page creator to basanth sadasivan (might be same person) and was deleted 217.165.56.63 (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the profile strikes me as particularly notable. Agree with above comments re: WP:NSUSTAINED.-KH-1 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is little coverage of great significance, honestly. Article topic fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 06:54, 20 June 2024 (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) 21:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Siddiqui (politician)

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated after soft delete. Still no evidence of meeting WP:NPOL * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still nothing to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably have enough for a basic article [35] and [36] are RS. What's used in the article now are primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one doesn’t really counter towards GNG for me. The second one I can’t assess right now and I don’t know why. The first one just isn’t enough for me to reconsider my !vote. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those appear to be about a completely different person with the same name. SportingFlyer T·C 19:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NPOL - the two articles mentioned above are about Shahid Siddiqui and not this person, the entire article is two sentences long, the three sources in the article are not great for notability, and there are two external links making this potentially promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 19:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and the two articles above about a person quitting the Rashtriya Lok Dal a small party with 2MPs out of 543 are about Shahid Siddiqui and not the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2024 (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!} 22:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hynds

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Does not pass WP:BASIC either. Subject never held any NPOL-passable office. Generally fails notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Northern Ireland. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His sole claim to notability appears to be as a local councillor, which fails WP:NPOL. The article has zero secondary sources - all sources are his own website and his social media which is completely unacceptable for a biography. It appears this article was created as promo. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2024 (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 10:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Cameron

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. None of the political positions occupied by this subject is NPOL-passable. Also fails GNG or BASIC generally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Australia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to add some more info in a couple hours but won't be able to so I won't contest the deletion. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely should be able to make improvements. This nomination doesn’t stop you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for her and found many people with this name... I put Tasmania in the search box and found very little about her: fails WP:GNG. Also, Deputy-mayors and councillors of themselves are not considered notable according to WP:politician. They need significant press coverage for that— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (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 Krishna Kumar (actor). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaani Krishna

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNGACTOR. She has an appearance in a single movie which alone doesn't show notability. I can't find any sources online as well upon WP:BEFORE 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not great sources. But not "not any", you probably mean. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Redirect to Krishnan Kumar would be the best option. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Krishan_Kumar_(actor)#Personal_life~~Krishna Kumar (actor)#Personal life: father (mentioned there) (WP:ATD) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Kumar (actor) - would be the right redirect. He is the father of Ishaani Krishna. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; my bad! Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 8 June 2024 (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. I see a consensus to Keep this article and the existenc of List of heaviest people article is evidence that there is notability to those people demonstrating this condition which is documented by reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari

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

Not notable, see WP:BLP1E 48JCL TALK 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Saudi Arabia. 48JCL TALK 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe this should be deleted under BLP1E. While BLP1E conditions 1 and 2 apply, condition 3 does not seem to be met. The event was significant, and the individual's role was both substantial and well-documented. See WP:What BLP1E is not. Manyyassin (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A totally unusual record. Scheridon (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be kept as articles for other record setting individuals still exist and arent being deleted

I refer you to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heaviest_people Most of those people still have articles that arent being deleted 192.0.146.27 (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the fact khalid weighed as much as he did and lost all of that weight makes him notible since he did the impossible 192.0.146.27 (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2024 (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrat Saeed Qureshi

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. There's nothing from WP:BEFORE to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidacy misses WP:NPOL BrigadierG (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL as well WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2024 (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.

Romy Tiongco

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.

So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jono Jumamoy

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

The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NPOL. GNews Archives just show one article discussing his win of the mayoral post. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 9 June 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Cajes

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

The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources I can find are related to her slapping someone and COVID lockdowns, which aren't good enough for WP:GNG. Mayor doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. Generally a very minor politician with no major record to speak of. Possible redirect to Roberto Cajes, her husband — Iadmc ♫^talk 13:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the redirect is possible, the redirect does not contain even a sentence of Judith Cajes. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point further showing how minor she is— Iadmc ♫^talk 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trinidad is not a large enough city for its mayors to be notable just for being mayor, and she doesn't look like she passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:56, 9 June 2024 (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.

Zack Cooper

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

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [37] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.

...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as "No consensus". As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Sunter

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

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Christianity, England, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canon Sunter was arguably the most important incumbent of St Paul's church (now repurposed), the third, and most central, Anglican church in Adelaide. His activities were regularly reported in Adelaide newspapers, rating over 1,000 mentions on Trove, and there may be more to find, as the illustration appears to be taken from an encyclopedia or church history. Doug butler (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With all due respect to the hard-workings of Wikipedians who insist on adherence to all the Wikipedia dictates ... there's more to it when it comes to spiritual leaders. I've done a great many Hawaii articles on spiritual leaders. The ones that impress me with their Christian walk in life, are not the ones who necessarily made the headlines when alive. It's people like Alice Kahokuoluna and Father Damien who put their own safety aside to care for the helpless leprosy patients. The ones who don't impress me are the spiritual leaders who make the news, and hobnob with legislative leaders. Not to knock Wikipedia guidelines, but people putting their own lives and welfare on the line to serve others, just doesn't seem to arise in Wikipedia guidelines. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tend to agree with the nomination. This is a rather well-sourced biography of a religious person, but I'm not sure what the notability is... He built a school, ministered to the faithful, other routine things. I suppose it would all get reported on at the time, but it's all strictly local news reporting on what the pastor was up to that week. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of Wikipedia is like that. That's what makes it useful. Doug butler (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with this source, which appears to be an extensive full-column long story on his life in a major newspaper? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linked five times in the article. Doug butler (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question: when the deletionists have whittled the English WP down to 1 million articles class C and above, or 2 million mid-importance or higher, how much storage space will be saved ? Doug butler (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This isn't a debate about inclusionists vs. deletionists but just whether or not the sources that can be located can establish notability. Let's focus on that here before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Of the included sources, I find a bare minimum of two instances of WP:SIGCOV: the Advertiser obit and a Quiz and Lantern column. I didn't find any other SIGCOV in a cursory BEFORE search but the baseline for WP:GNG is "multiple" so I suppose this qualifies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is multiple reliable newspaper sources coverage such as the two mentioned above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: above discussion shows subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2024 (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 06:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Malek

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable scholar.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2024 (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!} 23:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Newton

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

The article seems to attempt to inherit notability from Wayne Newton, Jerry's younger brother. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Checking the references is challenging. Jerry does appear, generally with reference to the sibling, and as a passing reference to Jerry. The article seems to be more a tribute (WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies) than anything else. Jerry was obviously notable to those who loved and respected him, but the references do not show a pass of any of WP:BIO, WP:NMUSICIAN, nor WP:NACTOR. Releasing records does not mean notability, nor does a bit part in an episode of Bonanza where he is listed as a cast member, but his part was not a named character. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator, as Jerry had a minor career as an entertainer but with no achievements on his own that satisfy our notability requirements. He is only mentioned briefly in sources about his much more famous brother. This article is probably an attempted memorial. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTMEMORIAL certainly and his career is alongside his brother, then minor bit parts and a lawsuit...— Iadmc ♫^talk 20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jerry is mentioned in Wayne Newton § Early years, but that doesn't really look promising as a redirect target. Maybe a suitable Fandom/Miraheze site can accept what currently passes for this brother's article? (Disclaimer: A recent Teahouse thread brought me here.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wayne Newton. There's potential for five extra articles that can have him as a redirect. Simple solution and we can also preserve the history as well. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, Television, Nevada, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 18 June 2024 (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!} 21:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Narayan Reddy

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

No sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search, so it fails WP:GNG. I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF. However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to contributors and prior WP:PROD participants: @Kazamzam, Necrothesp, Rajasekhar1961, and Varunmodgil: Daask (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below) -- multiple sources attest to being the winner of India's highest award for medical science, the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, awards from the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, and other positions that clearly pass multiple WP:PROF categories. Documenting and verifying Indian professorial records can be difficult, but this one seems quite clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources to attest to being the winner of the Dr. B.C. Roy Award in 1986 as claimed in the article and per the Dr. B. C. Roy Award page itself, the 1986 award went to Jagjit Singh Chopra with a citation. The other claims and sources mentioned above are not included in the article as of this writing, a basic Google search of the name does not return any mention of said awards besides the textbooks, and the sources that are there are primary and the tone overall does not seem neutral. I think it's possible that this could be noteworthy and meet NPROF but at the moment it does not. Kazamzam (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Changed !vote from above. Kazamzam convinced me to look harder at the B.C. Roy Award claim again (the website was down the first time I looked) and indeed I cannot source it outside of claims from the author. (Thanks Kazamzam!) With that gone, I don't see sufficient notability. Since I was the only "Keep" vote, I think Wcquidditch can end the relist and close as delete. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2024 (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 01:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Stein

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

Lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and American football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stein meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources such as [[38]], [[39]] and [[40]]. This is also WP:SIGCOV but is not independent: [[41]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more people to participate in AfD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "oursportscentral" article is a rather typical "new job announcement" and doesn't do much to support GNG. The Vancouver Sun 2004 article is a single sentence. The Rotman article is not independent, it's one of those alumnus blurbs. While it might provide some facts it is a good bet that they come directly from the subject. The only possible significant article I see is the Vancouver Sun 2005 one. It talks about the subject as beginning a career, and given that was in 2005 I would expect to have seen later articles about a career, but I don't. Lamona (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even in .ca sources, there is hardly anything. I agree with the nom's review of the sources, most aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2024 (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!} 22:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no WP:SIGCOV of Sullo, only passing mentions of his role in creating Nikto. There's significant coverage here, but it's a blog and appears to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I also reviewed the discussion in the no-consensus 2006 and 2007 AfDs, and the "keep" votes were highly unpersuasive, rehearsing the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS already in the article and making non-policy-based arguments for notability (such as a one-word "notable" and citing a "desperate wish" to keep the article). I would encourage other editors to review the sources and prior discussions carefully. If after 18 years(!) sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources cannot be found, this article should not be kept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly Nikto (vulnerability scanner) probably should visit AFD as well. Neither of the previous AFDs have compelling arguments to keep; this article is just an abandoned resume. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yinglan

AfDs for this article:

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

Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Singapore. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/singapore-s-insignia-ventures-intensifies-push-into-healthtech, https://www.ft.com/content/8c484648-f4b7-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654, https://www.reuters.com/technology/insignia-ventures-raises-516-mln-bets-southeast-asian-tech-firms-2022-08-01/, https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/insignia-venture-partners-fund-25-million-yinglan-tan/. There is also coverage in New Straits Times [42][43]. 182.190.216.63 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to assess the sources offered by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's a start on assessing the newly identified sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/singapore-s-insignia-ventures-intensifies-push-into-healthtech – free version here[44] just regurgitating information from the company
https://www.ft.com/content/8c484648-f4b7-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654 - paywalled, can’t access
https://www.reuters.com/technology/insignia-ventures-raises-516-mln-bets-southeast-asian-tech-firms-2022-08-01/ this is regurgitating information from the company with a tiny bit of commentary on the market as a while; no bio on Tan
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/insignia-venture-partners-fund-25-million-yinglan-tan/ - could be significant coverage with some biographical details; even though this is a capital-raise article it seems to be drawing on other editorial resources for the info on Tan
New Straits Times - paywalled, can’t access

Oblivy (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (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. Note: There is no argument for deletion being made and this could have been procedurally closed. At this stage, that would be a super vote, so NC it is. Links being dead, an unproven allegation of it being "stolen from a draft" are arguments for history merge and clean up. Year-old AfC comments are not binding, and no argument has been made for why this can't be cleaned up in mainspace Star Mississippi 15:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Schleicher

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

There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was wrong. Turns out that the author of the draft is different than the user that created the page. The person who created the page has been not warned however has created NUMEROUS speedily deleted articles through copyright. Assuming that the user that created the page just wanted to seem like the one who created it, even though they very obviously copied from the draft- which still exists, by the way. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I copied from the draft. This guy already has articles in Russian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Galician (?!), so I don't understand why there are issues with the English version. This is an obviously notable Jewish painter; Wikipedia has used many of his paintings across a few articles, such as on the Talmud. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Then just resubmit it, if you think it is "obviously notable" 48JCL^TALK 11:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Your argument is a different version of WP:WAX. Look at Draft:Nahal Rafiah. Just because it has a Hebrew version does not immediately make it notable. 48JCL^TALK 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally ignore Wikipedia essays and only follow the policies and guidelines, so I do not accept the premises behind WP:WAX. I agree with you that an article existing in just one other language does not make it notable; however, I get a feeling that this article about Carl Schleicher would exist without any issues in *every other language* except in English. Maybe the original creator of the draft had a poor first draft which attracted (now undue) attention? Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Austria, Italy, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, why do you think he is non-notable? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am putting this for AfD is because it is completely stolen from a draft. Also, wouldn’t it still be in draftspace, as that draft was rejected twice and never touched again? 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, I'm not sure on the specific policy implications. However, I don't think we should delete an article about a notable person if it is avoidable. Do you happen to know what the policy on this sort of thing is? FortunateSons (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the comments left by the reviewer:

Comment: This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion. You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse. In particular, see and refer to WP:NARTIST for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against. Where are his works on display? What has been written about him by art critics? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where are his works on display? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been moved back from article space to draft space. Please read the comments by the draftifying reviewer and address them. Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, please ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting. You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.) If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement, it will probably be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL^TALK 11:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That provides context, but unfortunately does not answer any of my questions? FortunateSons (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons It could be notable who knows? But all the real sources providing notability like BBC are dead links. The references are formatted very sloppily. Using ref tags to make Efns is definitely not something a normal person would do. 48JCL^TALK 03:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is less than great, agreed so far. However, being in significant need of improvement is not a deletion criteria.

The dead BBC links are a problem, and I couldn’t find an archived one, so this probably does not meet notability criteria now. FortunateSons (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Argument has been very messy thus far, would appreciate some clear comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless we have better sourcing, I don't think the article is ready for mainspace... I mean, he exists, but finding any sort of critical mention of the fellow is difficult. [45] is but a brief mention in a caption, this won't open from my location [46], this talks about his daughter [47]. Sourcing now in the article is basic auction listings and links to images of his paintings, nothing about the individual himself. Having articles in other wiki versions does nothing for notability (and frankly they would likely be deleted as well for lack of sourcing). Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He does have a Getty ULAN listing, which is helpful. [48], he appears in one German-language volume and what appears to be a database. I'm still not sure these are enough for our notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The artist might not be ready for an article here, but the one painting showing the rabbis sitting and discussing at the table might have enough for an article; this from the Wikipedia Library [49], Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (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!} 23:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hunt (journalist)

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

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Jamiebuba, who recently accepted the draft at AfC. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Environment, Internet, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is notable as a journalist. Several coverage from BBC and also a host of a show on BBC as well. Subject is a main personality on a notable international station. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 02:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC) – Note: User has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.[reply]
- Please provide a valid, policy-based reason when commenting at AfDs. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, his cause/work may be notable but notability isn't inherited. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The controversy section isn't terribly notable, rest of the sourcing is simple confirmation of employment. I don't find sources we'd use to build an article. Sadly as a free-lancer, there likely will not be much critical notice of their work; this assumes no awards such as a Pulitzer or an Emmy. I don't find any sort of confirmation of awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Jean-Albert

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

Declined prod. With only 2 google news hits, the first one not being in-depth, not enough coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: [50], [51] and [52] give at least basic coverage of this person, he was an early adopter of the wing suit it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 11 June 2024 (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.

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [53] and [54] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [55], [56], [57], and [58]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.

See his marriage news from Prothom alo, Dhaka Tribune, The Business Standard.

Older articles about him also show his prominence.

See these article from Prothom Alo 1 2, Bangla Tribune, The Business Standard, Jagonews24

Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is notable on YouTube as an influencer & content creator. but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia.--DelwarHossain (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable person. I agree with Ontor22. Yubrajhn (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD. There's close to a consensus to delete here, but not something I'm comfortable closing as myself given the promises I made to stay out of using my admin tools for tricky content issues.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela

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

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to pass notability, sources 6 and 11 are the best. I also found this [59] and [60]. The last one I posted seems to suggest political notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing lots of keep opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. "Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input" is close to nonsense. "Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Geschichte, it seems I used mobile that caused much of the typographical error. Also the time shows I was in a sleep carried mode (ready to sleep for the night), that I may have edited wrongly (but with love not with prejudice). I didn't see this as early as because I wasn't pinged. Please this type of comment should be partly, when necessary addressed to the editors talk page and if likely, only on that particular case. If I had made mistake, advise me on my TP and not leave a message without diff as you did. Now j understand your message on my TP. The diff I requested wasn't sent by you and it was difficult to check if there was any error with my vote in AFDs. Thanks though and will value the spirit of rechecking. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't think a diff is required when an editor is quoting from a message right above theirs. Sorry if it was embarrassing but some comments in AFDs just don't make any sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 11 June 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amber K

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

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

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

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

Article is a BLP of a non-notable author, references are self-published sources inc Facebook. No particular claim of notability, says she's exec director of some company but that's not immediately verifiable from their home page. She taught some courses at some organisations, that seems to be about it. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Paganism, Illinois, and Wisconsin. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep, see amazon link

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Amber-K/author/B0958H3NY3?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

I have her Covencraft on my shelf.

I have no idea who you think you are when a simple google search can confirm

A)who she is

B)what books she wrote.

I say we nominate your account for deletion Timknit (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can write a book, we need confirmation of critical reviews of her books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Timknit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, I can't find book reviews. I don't see anything other than books for sale on the usual platforms. Nothing for biographical notability as I can't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: The page is in need of expansion and updating, not deletion. Amber K has writing books since the 1980s, the selection listed on the page is incomplete, as a cursory search for "Almber K bibliography" will indicate. Reviews of her books are likewise easily found on reviews sites, such as Goodreads, and her publisher's official sites as well. Ardantane, her "some company", is an independent, registered 501c3 non-profit corporation established in 1996 in the state of New Mexico and is one of the few Nationally recognized Pagan Schools in the United States. She is also a former First Officer (President) of Covenant of the Goddess (COG), an international organization of Wicca and Witchraft covens and practitioners, whih was founded in 1975. Amber K is also the originator of COG's Youth Service Award "The Hart and Crescent", which was originally designed for those in Scouting, may be earned by youth who are not Scouts as well.

When I have time, I will work on improving the article, provided that it is kept.

(POV: As an aside, I find it questionable that a new Wikipedian's earliest activities on the platform are to suggest articles for deletion.) Ashareem (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the Goodreads reviews but I don't belive user generated content counts towards notability any more than the period of time over which books were written or the particular tax registration of a given organisation. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content can't be used for notability; that's part of the issue, can't seem to find any critical reviews in sites that aren't blogs or user-generated sites Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, also failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe she is more notable as a religious leader rather than an author? There's a 1993 Santa Fe New Mexican article (page 1, page 2) on the reaction of her local community to her work; a 2003 article (page 1, page 2) in the Albuquerque Journal on how she helped found a pagan learning center, Ardantane; a 2008 interview in the Santa Fe Reporter; and coverage of a ceremony in 2022 from The Santa Fe New Mexican (alternate link). There's also some info on her on in the Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft (Llewellyn Worldwide, 2000) by Raven Grimassi – see pages 9, 10, 19, and 246. Maybe someone else can find more coverage, given this history? Best, Bridget (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe. I think some of that is a little letter-to-the-editor type of routine coverage, so I'd like to see something a bit more distant from the subject, but I could be convinced in that direction. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DandelionAndBurdock: There were some correspondences, like letter to the editors, in newspapers in New Mexico and Wisconsin, but these aren't. After searching a bit more I found this article that briefly mentions she was elected leader (National First Officer) of Covenant of the Goddess in 1985. She contributed to Spiritual Parenting in the New Age (The Crossing Press, 1989), which was reviewed in the New York Daily News among other outlets. Bridget (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly brought up sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what happened. IMO writing those notable books may meet NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources Bridget provides above are intriguing examples of third party coverage. There definitely does not appear to be a lot of third party coverage (hence "weak keep"), but some does exist. Malinaccier (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep somewhat reluctantly, I think there's a case similar to the reasoning behind WP:NARTIST and WP:NMUSICIAN. There's precedent for keeping articles on figures who have been influential within a notable subculture, even if they are not known beyond that subculture. It seems to me that on grounds of WP:SUSTAINED, the volume of work published, and reliable sources describing her as something resembling an authority figure on new age Modern paganism in the United States, she probably edges over into notability. The existing article that's written should probably be tagged for FANPOV. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

People proposed deletions

[1] "'Most beautiful mountain in the world' should be on your bucket list". 25 January 2024.

[2] ttps://www.webintravel.com/turning-to-human-advice-on-travel-planning-in-the-age-of-ai-and-chatgpt/ one article

[3] "Daily Cuts - Destination Everywhere".

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 <!-- Only if additions to this section do not clearly fit with one of the aforementioned categories, then please feel free to list or transclude. -->
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sepiol}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnon Zamora}}