Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:17, 6 May 2018

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

Please use on these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

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

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. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isima Odeh

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

Subject not notable, doesn't fly WP:GNG or any other. Mahveotm (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I !voted delete in this afd several months ago but the nominator was a sockpuppet so I withdrew the !vote. The subject still does not seem to meet the GNG. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor quality sources given (puff pieces, interviews and tweets?), and a search does not reveal significant coverage in RS. Article created by a sock, which appears to be a problem with many biographical articles on Nigeria. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5—which can't apply as a speedy due to the number of discrete editors that article has had—but the principle most certainly does. In any case, the total dearth of persistent and sustained coverage in reliable sources wholly fails WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 14:26, 31 December 2018 (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/T Low Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandra Lalić

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 Speedy keep withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Shaker Almraqbi

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Internet search reveals no independent sources. Septrillion (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy keep Septrillion (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per WP:POLITICIAN as I said when contesting WP:PROD deletion. We have a source confirming that he is a government minister. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, easily meets WP:NPOL as a government minister. I can also see sufficient coverage in WP:RS using the romanized spelling "Mohamed Shaker El-Markabi", which this should be moved to after the AFD. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This definitely needs cleanup to properly comply with Wikipedia's tone and structure and sourcing requirements, but he does have a strong notability claim under WP:NPOL as a government minister, and he does have the reliable source coverage to carry it. It is entirely possible to write a bad, seemingly deletable article about a topic that should rightly be in Wikipedia if the article is cleaned up — so if an article falls in that bucket, then we keep it and just flag it for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, and hope someone takes the time to build a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2018 (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. And salted Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David G. McAfee

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

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee and recreated but there has been a lack of improvement. Still fails WP:GNG and lack of exclusive coverage in news, books, etc. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2018 (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/2018 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Mramoeba (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. I concur. Article still fails WP:GNG and lack of substantial coverage in news, books, etc.Knox490 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability through his work, books and political 527 organisation. This page has been nominated on the grounds of ‘lack of improvement’ which is patently incorrect as a considerable amount of work has gone into adding cites and information since 2012, most pertinently the 4 further books (published by independent publishers) he has written in those years and the political organisation he runs, all properly cited (and incidentally might I remind that there is no requirement that any coverage has to be ‘exclusive’, exclusive isn’t mentioned on WP:GNG). The Party of Reason and Progress alone has The Raw Story, Vocativ and Motherboard. His various books have been recommended on CNN, CBC and Salon as well as the prominent sites in the field like Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and if you have the time to read the cites he is clearly a notable atheist in the field, I’ve read them because I improved the page, took care to make the page NPOV and remove anything i suspected of being puffery.

As Raymond has also brought up the previous AfD i’d also like to point out that of the five voters in that AfD only two of them haven’t been banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry and both of them voted to keep (I don’t count the IP with a single contribution, to the AfD.) Mramoeba (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still no improvement. Subject is just non-notable and article is a self-promotion. Talking about blocks of other editors who participated in previous AFD doesn't make non-notable individual a notable individual. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t bring up the previous AfD, I am responding to another editor. What makes this individual notable is the coverage I brought up in my vote, the seven citations i listed above. Simply gainsaying the vote of every editor who votes differently from you isn’t adding to what is supposed to be a reasoned debate. Mramoeba (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: The subject is not notable but seems to be using Wikipedia to establishing his notability in the real world, as evidenced by the promotional way the article is written. Many of the sources in the article are either self-published, or uploaded on non-notable blogs, such as this one. Other sources only have a passing mention and lack in-depth coverage about McAfee. Both the previous AfD on this subject, as well as the talk page, mention that "not unlikely that he wrote a lot of this article himself". --1990'sguy (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but you can’t persist in accusing people of being McAfee, particularly since both Epicurus and Skepticalraptor have already pointed out they are not. For the record neither am I. Stop being disruptive. I get you don’t like McAfee because he doesn’t believe in god but he’s not ‘using Wikipedia’. Mramoeba (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing people of having ulterior motives. Sources are unreliable, self-published and if you continue to promote them in breach of Wikipedia policy then obviously people would doubt your motives. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and start over with a lot of loving WP:TNT. I think McAfee probably is notable, but this article is overly sourced with references that aren't independent of the subject, and feels very promotional. There are, however, enough mainstream secondary sources which discuss his books which, in my opinion, make him pass WP:NAUTHOR #1 as being cited by his peers. Some are already in the article itself. I haven't seen the older article, but this article has too many primary/non-independent-of-the-author/irrelevant sources. SportingFlyer talk 07:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer and Mramoeba comments. RobP (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "per SportingFlyer and Mramoeba comments"? They haven't addressed how the subject pass notability. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and works on promoting himself even on Wikipedia. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google the title of his books instead of his name - they've been very widely discussed within the atheist community and have been cited in Salon and CNN and other articles. The article as it stands does a terrible job of demonstrating this and needs a little more self-confidence, which is why I recommended WP:TNT. I'd also like to note several of the delete votes in this topic are from users who based on their user page may not have a neutral point of view on the topic of atheism. SportingFlyer talk 18:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR. David G. McAfee meets none of the criteria that are required for notability. The sources in the article are non-notable websites from advocacy groups [1]. The one Washington Post article has only a passing mention [2]. As this article has been recreated and there are WP:COI concerns, it also might be wise to salt this article to prevent further promotional abuse. desmay (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear failure of WP:AUTHOR and the article is apparently a promotion. Lack of coverage in independent references. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not meet WP:GNG and seems to be written to advertise the subject. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do think the Salon, CBC, and CNN mentions of his books, founding the 527 org Party of Reason and Progress, along with publishing 7 books (only 1 of which was self-published), support him being notable. And, to Mramoeba's point above, exclusive coverage isn’t mentioned on WP:GNG. I don't see why people are calling the article "promotional." I'm not seeing puffery or advertising that would suggest that. Dustinlull (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How come this is your first AfD in last 5 months? Passing mentions don't really establish notability. Issues are same as they were during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw notice of this AfD on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism page. I did some work on this article back in 2013, so I wanted to weigh in.

Keep I was brought here by a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard‎. Sufficient number of sources that are independent of the subject. Granted, some of the references are poor quality, but the subject easily meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original AfD is by now too dated to have any relevance. When the discussion occurred he had only one self-published book. He has subsequently had 5 books published by publishing houses as well as articles printed. He has surely moved from not notable to at least a minor notability in the last 6 years Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few articles on patheos.com (unreliable source) doesn't count as notability. So far that's all he has got. There is a lack of exclusive coverage which makes him non-notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the references section. He's being cited by the likes of the Washington Post and CNN. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CNN and WashingtonPost makes slightly more than a passing mention,[3]https://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/22/living/matrimony-atheist-wedding] now whether it is enough for making a stand alone biographical article is yet to be clarified. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several of the Delete voters are parroting one another and are highlighting what is a spurious rationale for their vote. The subject of this article does not need to meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (which is in the ADDITIONAL criteria section) to be be notable, if he meets the criteria in the Basic Criteria section of Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- which I and the other Keep votes maintain that he does. Also, the repeated use of "salt" by some people is quite obnoxious and hints at ulterior motives - not wanting an atheist activist to be the subject of an article no matter what he accomplishes. As I understand it, salting implies making it damn near impossible for a resurrection (pun intended) of the article no matter what future news-worthy accomplishments may occur for the subject. That seems just wrong on the face of it, and openly calling for that seems to me to display an ugly bias in some of the people voting to delete. RobP (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated creation of articles about non-notable subject does result in salting. All I see is spam of patheos.com and "keep" votes from accounts that haven't participated in an AfD for a very long time (WP:CANVASSING) and they talking about everything except the notability issues of this subject including you. You don't have to show your own "ugly bias" by badgering delete votes based on your beliefs. Focus on subject only. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. So it is an ugly bias to point out possible bias? Nice attempt to deflect. What's my ugly bias in thinking this article deserves to be on Wikipedia? Not going to even get into the "badgering" dig, as one vote and a comment can only be construed as badgering by someone not understanding the word. 2. Again, perhaps a problem with understanding a word: there is no way that a second version over 6 years later with significant additions could reasonably be construed as "repeated". That "policy" is clearly designed for someone quickly bouncing an article back that went through AfD. 3. How often one participates in AfD discussions is a ridiculous criteria for considering their opinions. As was mentioned, if that were the case, a small group of dedicated people could control the process entirely. Seems to me by what I generally see in AfD records is that is exactly what often seems to happen. Perhaps in fact, editors should be prohibited from voting in AfDs too often! 4. And most importantly, you claimed I was "talking about everything except the notability issues of this subject" when in fact, my main point was that holding the subject to WP:AUTHOR is an improper use of notability rules, and several did that... and you conveniently did not address that at all. RobP (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how regularly participating in AfDs (presumably just adding "me too" !votes to keep the numbers up) is a prerequisite for ever participating? You cannot know how often people read the discussion and find that others have already raised the points they want to make, so keep quiet. Your argument leads to a closed coterie of permitted AfD regulars dictating to those interested in the subject under discussion.Martin of Sheffield (talk)

Particularly when a voter is specifically using a rationale (notability of Patheos) to vote delete that they’ve been quite happy to use to support a keep vote previously Mramoeba (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done extensive research on the topic of atheism. I follow Google news on the topic of atheism. I have a couple of friends who write about atheism and current events. I also have a friend who posts on a popular social media page on atheism. I have never heard of this guy up until now. I don't think Wikipedia should be the platform to help make this guy notable, when he is not notable. Knox490 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I don't think Wikipedia should be the platform to help anyone become notable, when they are not. However, a personal anecdote concerning your (or your friends) level of knowledge of someone is not a fit argument for notability on Wikipedia. If that were a valid argument, I could urge delete for a huge percent of the millions of article in this encyclopedia. Including bios. Many with many less sources than this one. Please stick to arguing the number and strength of the sources used in the article - as is specified by WP policy. RobP (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no in-depth coverage of this guy from reliable news sources, etc. New Atheism was a fad that has petered out and news coverage of it has very greatly diminished. And now Wikipedia has articles on Postsecularism and Growth of religion. In the current environment, it will be more difficult for David G. McAfee to become notable. And he is certainly not notable now.Knox490 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS WP:Civil POV pushing and has no place here. Mramoeba (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it POV pushing? You may disagree with his conclusion, but I don't see him violating NPOV. BTW, this is the second time you appear to have violated WP:AGF on this AfD, the first time apparently being against me. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"@Mramoeba: I don't think Wikipedia should be the platform to help make this guy notable", where's WP:Civil POV pushing there? @1990'sguy: I don't have any doubts that WP:AGF has been violated enough times here. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Majority of sourcing is comprised of press releases, self-published sources, and looking at the few reliable sources we find only the briefest of passing mentions. – Lionel^(talk) 04:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Article it obvious PROMO. Whether article creator is McAffee subject or a fan, he doesn't help his case by overstuffing it with passing mentions. I tried a g News separate search on McAfee + athiest, and got not much [4]. WP:HEY 2 things could ould persuade me to switch, 1.) multiple book reviews in significant publications, and/or, INDEPTH, SIGCOV in the from of reported profiles of McAfee or substantive interviews in significant publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG issues and WP:TOOSOON. If this is all you have after over 7 years of promotion then we need to wait for something that would really convincing. Has authored a few books and they have been mentioned along with his name, doesn't means we should create article about anyone who is mentioned by another person. Lorstaking (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Authors get coverage in reliable source for writing a book, but it has to be significant and more than a passing mention. WP:TOOSOON. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 17:48, 11 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Tweedie

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~This account is a sockpuppet. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that he fails WP:GNG, and is not close to passing WP:NFOOTY (he's back in Australia to play in the MWFA Premier league). As for notability by number of YouTube followers, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels suggests the requirement is more in the order of millions of followers than 10,000, and past (archived) discussion at Talk:List of YouTubers suggests WP:GNG is also required. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chuck (☎) 23:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply fails WP:GNG. I could see nothing that even hinted at remotely sufficient IRS for WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to notability whatsoever. Playing for Crawley Town would be sufficient to pass NFOOTY but the claim is demonstrably false -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Jingzhe.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 14:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrina Raiford

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

Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of fluff sourcing, but the very tone with statements like "a regular at the gym" is just plain not encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's quite a lot of news articles from reputable sources about her online, so I think she's just about notable. The article is in a pretty poor shape, admittedly, but that's not a good reason for complete removal, and this could be fairly easily made an acceptable stub. BubbleEngineer (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Some parts of the article need to be rewritten to fit the encyclopedic style, but this is not a reason it itself to delete the article. Emass100 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as above. Wpgbrown (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: But the article needs substantial improvement. Agree 'regular at the gym' is not encyclopedic.Terristevens (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep terrible article at the moment, but as others have stated, "needs improvement" is not a reason to delete. I see a lot of coverage, and it's spread over a couple of years. Amsgearing (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some tabloids may be unreliable, but just because a newspaper is a tabloid doesn't automatically make it unreliable. Amsgearing (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2018 (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. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luyando y Colarte

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial and doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Kierzek (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2018 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Gilman

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

There is no RS available for her, most of the sources are primary. Also her work in 2005 as just as a coach intern and she is definitely not professional athlete. Fails GNG too. Niligirinorbert (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Niligirinorbert (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I did a fair amount of looking and saw nothing that wasn't a press release or an "article" on a promotional website. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom being new notwithstanding, coverage is weak and specifically blogs, Thrive Global puffery and Q&A interviews with yet other blogs. Mazurkevin (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OnlyThenDidI (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reliable Sources are week and fails to meet criteria for GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDreamBoat (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 February 2021 (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. A Train^talk 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham al-Hashimi

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

No indication of notability. The sourcing looks impressive but usually is just passing mentions where al-Hashimi comments on some topic, without significant coverage of al-Hashimi himself. Significant parts of the "bio" section aren't confirmed by the cited sources. Huon (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what is around online in English, he clearly has some significance, although I don't think he would quite edge over GNG based on what I've seen alone, for reasons mentioned above. However, most of the references are in Arabic, and indeed I would expect there to be more sources about him in that language. He also has a page on the Arabic Wikipedia, which is possibly an indication of notability based on such sources. Unless we can find an Arabic speaker who can confirm all the Arabic sources are not significant enough to establish notability, I would err towards a keep to be honest. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added many sources 185.88.24.150 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2018 (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. Can be equivalently construed as a weak keep.Gnome has put it nicely. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milovan Stanković

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

I didn't find any links, beside his personal site that he is laureate of Isidora Sekulić Award. Also, beside this award nothing adds to notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources....Sorry, but you can overdo it. There are so many articles where you can name the problem of really missing references. Everything is correct in the article. If You are interested in references: example 1...a meaningless action, sorry!!--AustrianFreedom (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles in Wikipedia may be lacking in sources is entirely irrelevant. You cannot use it as an argument. For more, see here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanković is laureate of the Isidora Sekulić Award: article of Večernje novosti. The process is absurd and not objective. What should be discussed? That someone quickly initiates a discussion on deletion? Sorry, that process is not okay.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Neutrality and objectivity apply. It is therefore completely unobjective and not neutral to put a correct article for discussion on deletion.An encyclopedia contains as much knowledge as possible. It should not include judgments that are only subjective and unobjective. I think, everybody could find another list to add for discussion on deletion. Sorry, that is absurd. No offense! I do not want to offend anyone. That was not my intention with my last statement.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unfortunately the article on Isidora Sekulić Award in the Serbian WP also references Stankovic's biography. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hi Arthistorian1977, i know the Isidora Sekulić Award may not be on par with the NIN Award but could you please elaborate on why it cannot be used for notability, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me is that I didn't find any secondary sources confirming he received the award. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, look at the sources: article of the newspaper Danas (introduction: 2001 Nagrada Isidora Sekulić). Thanks.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hi AustrianFreedom, if you could provide more reviews (from reliable sources of course :)) of Stankovic's works that would be really helpful, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hallo, I'll try to find something. But it is a fact that already enough references are available. Many articles with much more text are not nearly written with such a number of references. Sorry, I can't understand this process. I wanted more factual behavior, rather than such action.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searching made difficult by the other Milovan Stanković, described in a 1996 NYTimes article as a former soldier who founded a newspaper Alternativa in post-conflict Kosovo. Serb Fighter Now Fights Ruling Party In Bosnia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please, come on, what is so difficult? New Article? Milovan Stanković (politician) or (as you like it)--AustrianFreedom (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I guess. He did receive the 2001 Isidora Sekulić award according to:

"Harmonija i odgonetanje smrti". Danas. 20 January 2007.

I also found a 2013 interview concerning his Leptir novel:

"Potraga za srećnim ostrvima". Večernje novosti. 22 December 2013.

There's a review of Fuler in Serbian Studies:

Serbian Studies. North American Society for Serbian Studies. 2003. p. 154.

Combined with sources already in the article, I think the GNG and NAUTHOR are (barely) satisfied. No such user (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to state Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge, Userfy or Transwiki to help the person who closes this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a right mess. This discussion is an even worse mess. Almost all sources are non-English. And the subject's main advocate is behaving boorishly. Yet, we seem to (just barely) cover the WP:NAUTHOR criteria. So a (very) Weak Keep it is. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (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 speedy keep. Nominator has been blocked for sock-puppetry, and no votes for delete. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Frances Sey

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

This one is a bit odd, not sure on what makes her pass notability, but seeing as she fails WP:GNG, thus fail notability. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go with a Keep on this one. I believe that having a residence hall named after her in a major university qualifies as a significant honour under WP:ANYBIO. Here's more details:

At the inauguration of the Elizabeth Frances Baaba Sey Hall at Legon yesterday, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Ghana, Prof. Ernest Aryeetey, said the management of the university decided to name the halls after individuals who had contributed in diverse ways to the development of the university. The hall, he said, was named after Elizabeth to serve as a motivation to female students and females in general, and in recognition of their contribution to education. Source: [5].

I believe that this is sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep for much the same reason. She achieved a significant first in her country, and is rightly remembered for so-doing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep between the two articles in Modern Ghana and the Vibe Ghana already cited in the article, plus various snippets over time [6], [7] [8]. [9] there appears to be sufficient notability verified for this secondary teacher to meet GNG. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "University of Ghana inaugurates hall in honour of first female graduate", this alone is sufficient reason. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all that is named above, per WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor ... " such as having a building (a "hall") named after her. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above-listed reasons. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source of notability is now clear, it started poorly though–Ammarpad (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nom is a puppety wuppety, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lam Khlong Ngu. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 17:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme Mathias

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

Non-notable local politician and ex-Roman Catholic priest who left the church headed by the Pope of Rome to be an independent Catholic. The coverage is excedingly local, and nowhere near what we expect for a living cleric. Being the pastor of the largest parish in a diocese will get headlines, but it does not make one notable, and we typically even exclude vicar generals of large archdioceses unless they are also ordained as auxilary bishops. In short, this is a run of the mill priest who got into an argument with his local bishop and left the organization that he was originally ordained in. He got headlines because the parish was high profile, but this is passing and local. He is certainly not notable in any way.

On top of that, throw in that this is a pretty obvious autobiography, and you have a good WP:NOTSPAM case for deletion as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated above. Shritwod (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with Tony. Some local renown is evidenced by the local coverage, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not a notable person by our standards--and the article wholly inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; rife with argumentative pov. Kablammo (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main claim in the article involves misusing the term Catholic to try to make Mathias actually seem prominent. Other claims, like being the first Eagle Scout in a village of almost 300 people, actually I still find hard to believe applied to someone in the 1970s. Extraordinary claims call for extraoredinary sources, and we should not be parroting self-promotional rubbish. I am still trying to figure out how the head of a Church with 200-300 people is at all prominent, and the claim that someone who heads a Church with that number was a key figure in bringing a deliberately non-self-defining religious tradition to an area with 3 million or more people ascentral Texas is I just find beyond a believable claim. Wikipedia is not news, and nothing about Mathias raises to the level of news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2018 (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. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rónán mac Colmáin (Irish poet)

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

Fails WP:GNG - only source provided is a passing mention. Not a notable poet, with only a singe poem. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:39, 5 May 2018 (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. Consensus is that while notability is not temporary, this topic is not encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E, in that coverage was covered only for a very brief time and as a novelty, not for any impact on culture or any given field of study. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Perebal

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

Lack of real notability. Ten lauguages in eight more than I speak with any degreeof fluency, but for a linguis it is not a remarkable number; the principal ref Prens Libre is a run of the mill human interest story and I imagine the BBC Spanish service is a retread based on the Prens Libre story. TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I find the whole gee-whiz-somebody-who-speaks-multiple-languages thing uninteresting personally, BBC and Prensa Libre are reliable sources, and the coverage seems significant. Merge to List of polyglots weak keep, I guess. Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List of polyglots require that the entries have a Wikipedia article. Thinker78 (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What has generated interest in his story is that he is not a linguist, but a private security guard (a minimum wage job around these parts) with little formal education. I'm still considering what to do with the article, though... –FlyingAce^✈hello 03:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1. The topic meets the general notability guideline. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] so it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.

2. The topic meets the people notability guideline. The person is worthy of notice or note, remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. It is my opinion that it is highly unusual, remarkable, interesting and maybe even unprecedented that a security guard in Guatemala learns ten languages. Thinker78 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a polyglot is not a particularly remarkable thing (and it does not make a person a linguist - sorry, but that terminological point is not unimportant, and most linguists are not polyglots). Yes, speaking ten languages is impressive, but that is again not a criterion for notability. I do not see that GNG is met based on the sources presented above. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The remarkable thing is that he was a security guard, who usually gets paid minimum wage, working in a repair shop in a seedy part of town and managed to learn basically by himself many foreign languages. And as proof of how remarkable that is he was a featured story in many media outlets, even internationally. Please tell me how you do not see the sources I posted as meeting the GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is the remarkable thing about him, please say so in the article. As the wording stands, it doesn't make a claim of significance. If you'd actually written what you wrote here, this might not have come to a deletion debate. Deb (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right and I actually thought about it when I created the article. I have updated the article based on your suggestion.Thinker78 (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - But "remarkable" isn't a reason for keeping the article, especially since it is always a matter of personal opinion. Of the sources provided (above and in the article), the prensalibre.com one is the only independent source with more than brief coverage of the person. Make no mistake, I think it is a wonderful thing that people learn more languages, but if we actually read the sources, it becomes obvious that the claim made in the Wikipedia article is false - he speaks English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Quiché, which is six languages of which four are rather closely related, and has a smattering of four other languages. The main story in the source is about him getting a scholarship to study German - again, that is great, his achievements and enthusiasm make me truly happy, but that does not make him notable. --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said "remarkable" because you were talking about not being remarkable, but the topic is notable as well as I have submitted evidence about in the form of reliable sources. According to the GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" ."Brief" is wording that is not included in the GNG.

You said that the "if we actually read the sources, it becomes obvious that the claim made in the Wikipedia article is false - he speaks English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Quiché, which is six languages of which four are rather closely related, and has a smattering of four other languages". I clearly stated that he speaks " ten languages with different degrees of fluency" and that is according to the sources (contained in the article) which I will quote "Perebal, quien habla 10 idiomas" (Spanish: "Perebal, who talks 10 languages"), "Indicó que habla inglés, italiano, francés, portugués, castellano y quiché; además, en fase intermedio domina el alemán, ruso, japonés y mandarín" (Spanish: "He indicated that he talks English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and K'iche'; in addition, in intermediate phase he dominates the German, Russian, Japanese and Mandarin").^[5] Prensa Libre has multiple articles about the subject, not just the one where he is going to study German. I will go through the other sources I provided:

The BBC. It is an independent source from the subject and a reliable source. It may not be a long article but is not just a passing mention either, so I believe it is significant coverage that the BBC had a full article just for him, addressing the topic directly and in detail, where information is given to us about his sex, his age, a job offer made to him, the languages he talks and that it even features a dedicated video showcasing languages that he speaks.

The YouTube video published by Univision's "Despierta America" (which is a variety morning show) is I believe a primary source because it is an interview of the subject, but which use as a source, if I'm not mistaken, is not against Wikipedia's policies. It is nevertheless independent from the subject, a reliable source, and covers the subject directly and in detail.

Canal6 is a reliable source and independent from the subject. It features a dedicated article to the subject, where it is addressed directly and in detail.

ChapinTV is a reliable source and independent from the subject. The article I provided is one of a series dedicated solely to him,^[6] and so the subject is addressed directly and in detail.

Gente d'Italia is independent from the subject and seems to be a reliable source. RAI (the Italian state-owned broadcaster) has an article about Gente d'Italia.^[7] Gente d'Italia's article about the subject is dedicated to it and addresses it directly and in detail. Thinker78 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the people notability guideline and actually remarkable is one of its thresholds to determine notability, so being remarkable is indeed a reason to keep the article. Thinker78 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as noted above and coted in article. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really that substantial. It's an interesting but fundamentally run of the mill human interest story which, once published once, has generated o flurry of copycat coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total case of trivial coverage with no substance to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How come you say "trivial coverage"? It actually has substantial coverage. You only need to see that the subject has multiple coverage by the same sources like Prensa Libre and ChapinTV. That is not trivial. Thinker78 (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial. Look at any news source, you'll se trivial feel-good human interest stories. these do not make the subject notable, and to repeat myself, jounos being lazy will pick up stories from other sources, hence a cascade of repeats of the same story. It's like crimes, which generate news coverage but are generally not notable unless there is significanyt ongoing coveage.TheLongTone (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. We want biographies of people with enduring notability, not perma-stubs on the ten-minutes-of-fame of someone who will likely never be written about again. – Joe (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS states that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". But at this point you don't know and can't know whether the subject will have an enduring notability. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future." WP:BIO1E refers specifically to events not achievements. The subject in this case is notable because of his remarkable achievement of being a security guard working in a seedy part of town in Guatemala and learning by himself many foreign languages. He was not involved in any event. According to WP:BIO, "...the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice'... or 'note'... – that is, 'remarkable'... or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded' within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." The sources I provided prove very much that the person is worthy of notice, remarkable, significant, interesting and unusual enough. Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Admin note) As Thinker78 believes that my closing of this AfD as delete was in error, I am reopening and relisting this AfD as a courtesy. You will find the relevant discussion here. A Train^talk 07:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I basically agree with User:Joe Roe. This is a bio of someone who got a minor flurry of attention for fifteen minutes but no enduring notability. Likely to remain a permastub indefinitely. Reyk _YO! 07:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete or userspace for more drafting (Thinker78 has IDed at least one source, an Mexican interview, not used in the article yet). Striking option not viable: ~~Replace with a concise entry in List of polyglots~~ (since it's verifiable information, so we need not expunge even the mention of him). I agree with the N, NOTNEWS, NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and BIO1E arguments: while there's a small amount of coverage, most of it's trivial, and the one piece that is not is focused on him getting a scholarship and on the "gee whiz" aspect (i.e. people being prejudicially surprised that a security guard isn't a dullard). This isn't the enduring notability we're looking for. Four of the six languages he's actually competent in are closely related in vocabulary and grammar, and a fifth (English) derives much of its vocabulary from one of those four (French). So there's just really not much there, from an encyclopedic perspective, even if it's a fun human-interest story. Honestly, it probably takes more time and devotion to become a top-100, national-class pool (billiards) player or skateboarder, yet such people are not notable (and often have more coverage, at least in the specialist press like pool and skating magazines). This is a borderline case, and while I tend to lean inclusionist, I do so primarily on the basis of likelihood that the subject will have more coverage later and increased relevance to the public. I'm skeptical in this case, because I think even if he learns Romanian, Galician, and Catalan over the next few years, more detailed coverage isn't likely because the story hasn't really changed at all from a journalistic or public perspective, and if it doesn't and there's not more coverage then there's no encyclopedic story to tell, either. That is, Perebal doesn't really matter to the general public on any segment of the world stage, more than the next random person matters (and by a certain age, most of us are quite competent at one or more things). He's simply had his 15 minutes (in primarily local- or regional-interest publication). And good for him; too bad we don't have more news coverage of interesting people who aren't criminals or involved in a scandal. But, really, by 2020, no one will remember or care other than Perebal's friends and family, and collectors of language- or guard-related trivia. It's not really fair, perhaps, but the "one hit wonder" band that charted with a top-10 hit in 1987 and then broke up remains notable because their song still gets played and people still care enough to want to know about the band. That won't be true of the obscure guy who "knows" 10 languages. Nothing is going to make him stick in the public mind (unless he becomes more notable for some other reason, like saving the life of the Guatemalan president, or winning that international pool and skateboarding biathlon :-). In short, if we don't delete this now, we'll delete it in a few years, after his obscurity becomes more obviously opaque with time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC); revised: 07:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC); revised again: 00:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- SMcCandlish I'm not understanding BIO1E very well. I thought it applied only to people notable for only one event. The subject is not related to any event that I know of. How does it apply here? Thinker78 (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, the subject has many more articles about himself in Prensa Libre and ChapinTV, not just the ones I mention, and to be included in the List of polyglots, the subject needs to have an article in Wikipedia. Thinker78 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Answering on the talk page; I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON the AfD. Also covered in more detail here. Short version: "event" doesn't have a narrow definition in BIO1E, though it's not the strongest argument presented here anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete . Nonnotable feat. 15 minutes of fame in the news, but there are no really reliable sources which discuss his level of mastery of the languages. I myself can say hello and thank you in 37 languages (thanks, Wikipedia :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject got significant news coverage, got coverage even in international media, in Mexico,^[8] Honduras,^[9] the BBC^[10] and an Italian international publication;^[11] got coverage multiple times continuously for about a month in at least two national sources, Prensa Libre and ChapinTV, from April 2018^[12]^[13] to May 2018.^[14]^[15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have already said that, Thinker78. And replied to almost every comment in this discussion. I think we know what your position is at this point. It's time to let the process happen (again). – Joe (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason that link of Bludgeon is only an essay. Some editors can come up with the most unreasonable things. That essay is just a wish to bludgeon minority views out of a full debate. Besides, I didn't point out previously the international nature of the sources or the continuous coverage of the subject. In fact, I added this comment because of my discussion with SMcCandlish, who was not aware of the international origin of the sources and thought all the sources were local. Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sigh I entirely fail to see why this afd has been reopened, simply because one editor feels passionately about it. Well of course they do, they wrote the page. Despite this, they seem to be unwilling to update the article to reflect changes inn Senor Perebal's circunstances, altho they can come up with a ref to back up the info.TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if I hadn't reopened this AfD, I'd bet $20 that Thinker78 would have just taken it to WP:DRV. Someone's time was going to get wasted, regardless. A Train^talk 16:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, I didn't correct the information in the article because I already reverted your addition so I didn't want to be seen as if I was edit warring. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually changing the content rather than reverting would not be edit warring, it would be constructive. The article ref dsays he is a security guard; you have a ref saying he now does something else. Why not use your time constructively by improving this (imo doomed))article.TheLongTone (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Train, you are right, I would have, but the house didn't take your bet, so you are left without the $20 win. I have to say that the reopening made the consensus more clear, because the media interviews event reasoning did not provide much clarity and I'm still puzzled about it. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, the earlier sources stated that he was at the time a security guard but the story evolved and the source I showed you that indicates he is no longer a security guard is a more recent one. At this point I don't know what you want in the article so if I make further edits that you don't like you probably will do a manual revert, changing the content back as it was. So to avoid the impression that I am edit warring I will let other editors (including you) change it if they so want or let it stay as it is, even though it currently contains untrue information. Thinker78 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, this is a classical case of 15 min of local fame. The subject do not pass per WP:GNG by being a polyglot alone and thus has no encyclopedic value. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

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. J04n(talk page) 18:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Clatworthy

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Did get MNZM but that is well down on the list of New Zealand Royal Honours System. See User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours. MNZM falls short of qualifying a recipient for "inherent" notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Another non-notable St Peter's College old boy created by banned user Rick570. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' not enough to reach WP:ANYBIO NealeFamily (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emendment might be able to follow on with more info from Rick570. Eddaido (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2018 (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 speedy delete per WP:A7. So Why 12:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)nadie[reply]

Köksal Bektaşoğlu

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

Fails WP:GNG, no notability outside of YouTube videos PapaMichael (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged for speedy deletion. No notability whatsoever, all links are YouTube and facebook profiles. Has been deleted previously. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by IVORK (talk • contribs)

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. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erkebek Abdulaev

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

Subject doesn't fit WP:BIO Rampion (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:54, 16 May 2018 (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. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Dong-keun

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

Fails WP:BIO. The organization he runs (ran?) may be notable, but none of the sources support the idea that he is notable as an individual. Lenoresm (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2018 (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. Notability, coupled with the copyright issues makes this a delete. However, any admin is free to draftify this subject to the "new references" mentioned being unearthed, and removal of copyright violations without having to go to DRV. —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Mashhoor Kunhikoya Thangal

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

Sorry, but having searched the net for references, I am convinced that Abdullah Mashhoor Kunhikoya Thangal fails to meet notability requirements. There are death notices, true, but so little coverage of his life in reliable third-party sources that we cannot create a bio. page establishing notability. The Scribd work, Mashhoor Mullakoya Thangal and Vadakara, is certainly NOT a RS, as it becomes clear if it is opened. It is merely a eulogy from within the sect. We cannot base the notability of a life on the zeal of a few editors who insist on that notability but don't add RS George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the Scribd sources[10][11] appear to have been uploaded to Scribd by the same person who wrote the Wikipedia article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, Toddy1. I wish there was an alternative to recommending deletion, but I did look for RS and just could not come up with anything I could use. It currently reads like a page written by a devotee. I tried to bring a neutral tone and to get rid of anecdote and hagiography, but it crept back in. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a page written by a devotee because most of it was copied almost word-for-word from this document.[12]-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. The creator of this article has emailed me saying that he will add proper citations, though indicating that this may take him/her a few weeks. See User talk:Moosathasleem. If no improvement has been made by the end of May, then delete.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--We delete the article for now and refund to draftspace, once the article gets enough time and resources to source decently.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and refund, per Godric. Why wait for an improvement that might not happen? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until such time that sufficient sources are added to establish notability and that any potential copyright issues are addressed.--J04n(talk page) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (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. clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Chandra Natali

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Did get MNZM but that is well down on the list of New Zealand Royal Honours System. Last afd closed keep purely on the strength of that award but since then others have taken a closer look at honours and notability. See User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours. MNZM falls short of qualifying a recipient for "inherent" notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / query The person is listed in New Zealand who's who Aotearoa (2001) but I do not know that reference book. If it's something well-regarded, like Who's Who in New Zealand was, that could bestow notability. Who can say something about that 2001 reference book? Whilst Necrothesp's work is not official, I certainly concur with what is said on that page regarding inherent notability. With MNZM being a second-level service award, that by itself isn't enough. Schwede 66 09:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who in New Zealand is a good source up until the 1991 edition, Wikipedia:Notability (New Zealand people) (proposed). (even the 1991 edition seems a bit removed from the rest) The one Natali is in is from 2001. After 1991 it was taken over/turned into Aotearoa by Alister Taylor who is NOT a reputable publisher, known for soliciting fees for a non existent publication. So not bestowing notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for clarifying the status of the 2001 reference book. I think I had heard that before. For me, that makes this a clear case – notability is not established. Schwede 66 21:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per nomination NealeFamily (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Norcaes (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2018 (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. Consensus is that there are not enough secondary sources on Lewis himself to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria (that is, the criteria of Wikipedia in 2018, as opposed to that of 2007). The show, on the other hand, might be notable enough for an article if appropriate sources can be found. clpo13_(talk) 23:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Lewis

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

This was nominated before and closed as "keep" (by someone who is sorely missed), but the discussion wasn't very deep, and a close look at the sources reveals there really isn't much to it--just the one article from the alternative weekly Portland Mercury in the "man bites dog" category. Google doesn't offer anything reliable either. Not notable per GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Delete. No recent news hits and the main general results are his media site, Twitter (including this), Facebook, and Youtube videos. The one article referenced above would be covered by WP:NEWSBRIEF. No sign of ongoing notability. Home Lander (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surprised it lasted this long, I do not see any notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable non-entity; this is the extent of the covergae of him in third-party, independent reliable sources: Almost nothing; certainly not of the depth or persistence needed to meet the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that it is a long running nationwide radio show makes it notable. There is too much ongoing censorship, closed mindedness and anti-freedom of speech. Wikiperson777 (talk) 4:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep. What Wikiperson777 said above.Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the subject's lack of notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. The show might be notable, but this article is not about the show. Further explanation available on my user page if desired. Mordant Kitten (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having or not having a Wikipedia article is not a question of free speech vs. censorship, it's a question of notability vs. non-notability — but notability is not established by what an article says, it's established by how well the article reliably sources what it says. However, the referencing here is far too dependent on his own primary source content about himself, which does not help to establish notability: people get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by being the author of their own self-published sources about themselves. The only reference that actually counts as a reliable or notability-assisting source is a piece in his own hometown alt-weekly — so that reference would be fine if the rest of the sourcing around it were better, but it does not singlehandedly confer a WP:GNG pass all by itself as an article's only valid source. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists — but the sourcing is simply not cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat and Mordant Kitty make good points. It's a difficult choice. There are only two news articles on Lewis to use as reliable secondary sources; the other sources are primary. This would argue for non-notability. On the other hand, the radio program is syndicated with a national audience, which would argue for notability and for using a sprinkling of primary sources in addition to the secondary sources, which in the past Wiki editors have judged as reasonable and in good faith.Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too much of the article is based on Lewis's own statements, not on reliable 3rd party secondary sources. The fact that this article was kept in 2007 was a true travesty that set Wikpedia on a couse of avoiding any reasonable criteria for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the decision set Wikipedia on that course. That's a lot of responsibility and culpability for one little article to shoulder.. :D Mordant Kitten (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no mainstream media coverage for him or his show. You want an example of a Wikipedia keep travesty? Check this recent one out, incredibly poor sourcing and all. [[13]] This one looks great compared to that. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:00, 10 May 2018 (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. This is one of those easier closed by reading the comments rather than the bolded its. The argument that this is promotional and coi has not been refuted. AFD isn't clean up but nor is is leave to keep promotional material. The detailed discussion of sourcing is that what is there is not about the subject but their discoveries. That hasn't been refuted effectively. A look of the keep votes are assertions and get less weight due to that. I note that scope_creep starts off by voting keep on GNG but at the end after a closer review of the sources accepts they are not good enough. That sums it up. The sources appear to be ok on cursory examination but are too weak when looked at closely. For that reason I'm closing by the opinions nthat reflect detailed examination of the sources and the fact that PROF is clearly missed by miles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Lomax

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

Promotional article. Possibly notable but there is no evidence of this. most of the sources are written by himself. No independent coverage to show notability. Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPROMOTION WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- There is no reference of any of this.... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not 'self promotion' but is instead heavily referenced by various different, credible sources. To further elaborate this, I have included other sources for Lomax's work. I suggest he is deserved of a wikipedia page considering other palaeontologists of note are on wikipedia, such as Darren Naish, Matt J. Wedel and Mike P. Taylor. Lomax's contributions to palaeontology and society are of great significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino710 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC) — Dino710 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Article actually DOES make a good shot at showing notablity (There are BBC references, daily mail and everythingdinosaur.co.uk which should be plenty), and even if it didn't, we judge the article by doing a WP:BEFORE search. If the article is possibly notable, or is notable, which I believe it is; then I don't believe this search was done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there may be a Conflict of interest that requires a declaration, but I think the subject is Notable. These would also go towards it [14], [15], [16], [17] and it's pretty easy to find others. KJP1 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all of the sources in the article appear to be about the discoveries, not about the scientist himself. Of the sources that are about him directly, the everythingdinosaur.co.uk article appears to be a blog (though happy to be convinced otherwise, I'm no dino expert), the Rosie Winterton ref appears to be a press release from the local MP's office, and doesn't address the topic in any substantial way, and the Doncaster free press article also appears to be a short local news article about an upcoming talk by the subject. Clearly the subject is the topic of some buzz, especially in the local press. However, I don't think the bar of "significant coverage" (i.e. addressing the topic "directly and in detail") has been met. This is often a hurdle for academics, who are rarely the topic of secondary sources. For this reason, we have WP:PROF which provides other ways to tell if an academic is notable. This bar also doesn't appear to be met (according to SCOPUS, top work is cited 11 times). Perhaps someday this scientist will meet the notability criteria here, but I think now it's just too soon. Ajpolino (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - I've been following this discussion and I see several sources have been added to the article. I still can't find any independent refs that address the topic directly and in detail, so I still see no evidence the topic meets GNG. I certainly don't think he meets WP:PROF, per above. If someone could detail why they think he meets WP:NAUTHOR or what sources convinced them that he meets WP:GNG, I'd be most happy to reconsider (Many of the keep votes here are not specific enough for me to follow). Ajpolino (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject's work has been amply recognized as evidenced by the cited reliable sources. The article could be improved on but the subject backed up by citations easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:INHERIT. Species are indeed notable, but naming a species doesn't make the person notable. The news articles are all primarily about the discoveries, not the discoverer. Giving lectures doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. Also in terms of prof, their publication history doesn't pass the average professor test. That the subject has had local museum exhibit based on him[18] shows he might cross the threshold someday, but nothing quite satisfying PROF yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced, and notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not "well sourced" towards notability. It is sourced but a problem per above comments is that the sources that are not WP:primary are more about the discoveries than the subject. Reference to other articles, as a show of reasoning to keep, is often misguided. Darren Naish has a PhD, Matt J. Wedel is an associate professor, and Mike P. Taylor a PhD, so there are some apple and oranges comparisons going on. This is currently a terrible pseudo WP:BLP needing biographical content like a birthday, family, education, etc... but this has become acceptable even on a BLP. He is an honory scientist and has co-authored books, including The Bone Wars and Dinosaurs of the British Isles. He also appears to be well published in peer-reviewed papers and in scientific journals so appears to pass WP:NAUTHOR and the professor test. He has self-professed to having a "MPhil in palaeontology" working towards a PhD. A sad state of an article does not diminish notability. Otr500 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that is doesn't appear they are that well published. The google scholar link you gave gives a lot of publications that Lomax is not an author on at all. I gave a Scopus link in my above delete comment showing they have only at least 18 publications and a pretty weak citation record in terms of h-index or otherwise. I haven't really seen an argument here yet that shows this person passes and average professor test. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. Searching the Scopus link doesn't bring up even half of Lomax's studies. Google Sholar does, even some of his recent papers that have received wide interest. Regardless, how can you judge somebody from a simple Scopus link? It is clear from his personal website that he has published extensively in academia Lomax publications. Dino710 (talk) 10:15, 15 May, 2018 (BST) — Dino710 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then those publications (many appear to be more magazines than scientific publications), are not deemed noteworthy by the database. Websites like GS, Scopus, and Web of Science compile all this information as an overview about an individual's publication impact, so that single link is going to tell a lot. Google Scholar is generally not regarded as a reliable source for publication counts because it has a tendency to include a lot of gray literature in addition to including many articles not even written by Lomax. Scopus is also on that end of the spectrum for gray literature to a lesser degree, so that it doesn't include very much is a big red flag. Again, it's pretty clear this person isn't passing the average professor test. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see the usefulness of scopus, etc., I don't see how you can simply judge an individual on the basis of his/her prof' score? It wouldn't matter if Lomax had published x5 for x500 papers, what matters is his contribution in his relevant field. This page not only mentions his academic contribution but other areas of his paleontology contributions, such as science communication and awards. So again you shouldn't judge this page on simply the prof' test, which, as above, is not reliable. I have been through the list of publications on Lomax's site and count 31 scientific papers and two books, among the popular articles. Dino710 (talk) 20:54, 15 May, 2018 (BST)

The average professor test comes from WP:NPROF, which is primarily what we use to decide whether a researcher gets an article or not. There isn't a single score being focused on with Scopus, GS, etc. metrics. It's the combination of relatively few publications (~18 in notable peer-reveiwed journals) and low citation counts of those articles. We also use independent secondary sources to show notability. Lomax's website would not be appropriate for that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one cannot simply rely upon Scopus, GS, etc., to make a decision on the importance of the said scientists research. To reiterate what others have said and what is reflected on the page, Lomax's work has been highly profiled in various media outlets, as cited throughout this page. Dino710 (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2018 (BST)

That's irrelevant for the purpose of this AfD. If someone's research is important (popular press generally doesn't count, especially local), that gets mention in the respective articles and doesn't inherit notability to a BLP page. If the researcher themself is notable, their work needs to be significantly recognized in the scientific field (e.g. multiple publications and citations) as one metric in the "average professor test" we use for these types of pages. Having a handful of publications and awards doesn't really pass that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, given the details of other paleontologists listed on Wikipedia. Lomax's research is significant if you are in the field of palaeontology, which is the point of this page, for others in the field to recognise his works. I also see that somebody removed the research section from the page, which has now been re-added. I don't know why that was removed. Dino710 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2018 (BST)

Please remember that we do not use Wikipedia to promote people through BLP's. Doing so is another reason for deletion actually. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that deleting the research section without any justification is inappropriate. This is unjust and appears that you have a personal issue with this page. It was created simply to illustrate Lomax's contributions to paleontology, which is demonstrated and referenced on the page, so any paleontologists can quickly read this. Dino710 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2018 (BST)

Unfortunately, Kingofaces43 has unjustifiably removed the research section on this page. He has added reasons why on the research discussion page. Initially, actual links to the studies themselves were listed but then replaced with media coverage, as advised by others on this page. Could somebody please work out what is going on here? Why is Kingofaces43 unjustifiably removing the research page which is obviously relevant to Lomax? Dino710 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2018 (BST)

In addition, Kingofaces43 has also removed several important links, e.g. to public lectures at the Royal Institution and Cheltenham Science Festival, along with removing several of the awards. I have re-added them. I am not sure why, like those above, have been unjustifiably removed. This is beyond ridiculous but it appears the user is removing the content so that the page appears of little significance and thus can be deleted. Very poor. Dino710 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2018 (BST)

Dino710, this is not the place to discuss content, you need to go to the article talk page for that. If the page actually does survive AfD, there was significant cleanup in terms of sourcing and removing promotional language needed. For this page, you and others need to demonstrate that the handful of awards and publications meet WP:PROF. Right now that's pretty shaky at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sourcing is problematic. So far I havent seen one high quality source. They tend to be about his discoveries, instead of him. There is not single decent WP:SECONDARY source, that I put a finger on, and say yip, it is absolutely encyclopaedic, he is notable and is worth an article. scope_creep (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 8 is far too small to satisfy [[WP:Prof#C1]: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2018 (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 revert to disambiguation page. clpo13_(talk) 23:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Haider

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

No sources, no obvious notability.

Most of the article is about tribal affiliation and extremely remote relatives Heliotom (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Just an NCO (or actually almost certainly a junior officer if he really had the MBE, which was never awarded to NCOs). No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert to dab page as below. Should never have been changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This used to be a disambiguation page before it was repurposed: [19]. Should it be restored as one? 24.151.116.12 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab, Current page fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:12, 4 May 2018 (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. clpo13_(talk) 23:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Vega

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Boleyn (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Doesn't meet any of the guidelines. A profile in the local newspaper is not enough. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Vega (jockey)--Rusf10 (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. May be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2018 (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. WP:REFUND applies (see WP:SOFTDELETE). clpo13_(talk) 00:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kayal Raja Muricken

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

This page has already been deleted once. Nothing new in terms of facts establishing notability or, more importantly, RS, has been added. Having searched the net for references, I am convinced that Kayal Raja Muricken entirely fails to meet notability requirements. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2018 (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/2018 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and it is poorly-sourced. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2018 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Kołtun

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

nn Polish killer Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass GNG/NCRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sheer lack of reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Re-create it later if sources are found.BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCRIME. Septrillion (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2018 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hammond (circumcision activist)

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

Orphan article with a few weak references added in 2012 after a BLP-PROD. No visible demonstration of notability. Scott Davis ^Talk 23:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article wholy inadequate to either source a BLP with or prove notability. ^{Cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Circumcision is an important issue and Tim Hammond has been a major activist to shed light on its disadvantages for decades now and has written books on the subjects and is a constant presence in conferences dealing with the matter. There are media references even in 2017 where he is widely quoted as a reliable well-informed source, so he is very relevant and notable on the subject. I feel the reference links in the article we have are quite acceptable as well. werldwayd (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, yeah, circumcision is an important issue. What does that have to do with anything? It's longstanding practice that quotes from a subject are not independent and can't be used to bolster the notability of a subject, so we're left with a handful of soggy, unreliable refs. The GNG requires that the subject receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and we need quality ones for ANY BLP. None have been produced over the course of many years now for this guy. There are a lot of worthy activists in the world, but they're not entitled to Wikipedia articles. Neither is this fellow, so the article should be ... cut. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2018 (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hildenbrand

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

There's nothing to indicate he's more than a run of the mill journalist. The references are mostly links to his own content, and I can find no coverage of him online. Earning a patent doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria that I can determine. Was PRODed in 2009, otherwise I might have done that here. StarM 01:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided third-party neutral sources can be found, and the article made more encyclopedic.TH1980 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TH1980: - Is that a conditional delete/keep, or do you think it is currently clinging on as its sourcing currently is? Nosebagbear (talk)

Yes, that is a conditional delete/keep.TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when you remove all of the sources that pass WP:GNG (not primary or links to articles he's written), there's nothing left. There's a couple other articles that don't establish notability from Climbing magazine in my Before search and not much else. SportingFlyer talk 02:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently it doesn't have any sources that aren't either primary, articles written by him, or not neutral bios. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and above comments. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and snow?) Theredproject (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (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. Salted as well. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg J. Marchand

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

I had nominated this for speedy deletion with the following rationale: Horrific distortion of medicine through the hyping lens of Guinness-World-Record-land. This page as it is written and constructed has no place in an encyclopedia and needs to be rewritten from scratch, as it is completely driven by hype. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I am the author.) Not sure what the problem is here. I am admittedly a Guinness World Records fan, and I write articles on Guinness World Record holders. I have no relation to the subject. This is a neutral article talking about the subject from a neutral point of view. Whether you feel that Guinness world records are the best thing in the world to happen to medicine or the worst abomination to ever befall medicine, this article does not disagree with you, it just states noteable facts. This was nominated for speedly deletion 10 days ago and stopped by an admin immediately. Again - always open to criticism, I don't see why an article this small can't be fixed if you really feel it's "driven by hype." I say use the edit button, change out the driver and lets make this into a great article. GuinnessFreak (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC) GuinnessFreak has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

The editor who stripped the speedy tag is not an admin.

This page is tabloid, fundamentally unserious, and promotional.

I am finding the claim that this is not paid editing to be less and less persuasive.

User:GuinnessFreak you said that you write articles (plural). What other articles have you created? Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on several articles for noteable guinness holders, but obviously not going to publish any more until I figure out if you're upset with me or my subject. No rationale person would say this article is irredeemably tabloid or promotional. Like anything it can always be improved, but the fact that you keep posting that it can't be fixed and just needs to be deleted shows you must have an interest here. Otherwise you would help make the article better like 5 other users and some admins have. Did my subject harm you or a family member? GuinnessFreak (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is remarkable that the photo was uploaded in conjunction with you creating this page File:Greg_J._Marchand.jpg was uploaded at 03:40, 30 April 2018 and added by you, just today. It is the same picture as the one on his website, and big shocker, Marchand features his guinness world record on his home page too. just like you did here. The no-relation-not-paid-editing case is getting weaker the more i look.

I do understand that you cannot tell the difference between promotional hucksterism and NPOV. That is clear. I will not reply here further; the community will weigh in here. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested the picture from all sources legitimately until I was able to locate one that had the appropriate licensing. Are you saying the picture is promotional? I still don't understand why you just can't improve the article. An admin just made a bunch of changes, why can't you? GuinnessFreak (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tried to clean up the article. Most of the sources I can find are press releases and the like, so from what I can tell the notability is borderline. Natureium (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the source for the birth date & birth place is. Another sign on UPE - unsourced personal information. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How was I going to put a source citation in an infobox?^[1] Seriously though, I'll keep defending my work, but this is really in violation of policies now because we don't even have a reason for deletion stated anywhere. Jytdog is not even suggesting that the article fails WP:PROMOTION or WP:NOTABILITY, he's just accusing me of undisclosed COI. It's not appropriate to do that here. You have to make an argument that the article is promotional or not notable, or end the AFD. GuinnessFreak (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Mylife.com is of dubious reliability; I also don't see his birthplace there. The rationale is that notability is marginal and this is clearly under very strong PROMO pressure. Even if we ~could~ make an article, it would need to be redone from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: We add source citations in infoboxes exactly like we do in the rest of the article. You type your fact, you type the <ref>...</ref> tags, and you put your citation information in between the tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : No issues with WP: PROMOTIONAL or WP:NOTABILITY here. The user starting this AFD has a history of doing this, literally websites and youtube videos dedicated to his COI investigations. He's usually right but that is irrelevent to the article, which is encyclopedia acceptable. 2603:300A:1600:DD00:F971:43AF:D4EF:15DA (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — 2603:300A:1600:DD00:F971:43AF:D4EF:15DA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Greetings. If you ever decide to make any further contributions to Wikipedia perhaps you could justify your opinion with something more tangible than arbitrary assertions. Just a friendly suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Escape Orbit said it best in his April 22, 2018‎ edit "(contains section with criticism, so not completely advertising. Maybe just needs a bit of neutralising)." To be fair a lot of "big name" wikibrarians have edited, and none of those edits have been reverted. I understand Jytdog's MO is to not let go once he/she bites, but this time it's warranted. As usual, I do agree that GuinnessFreak is probably an earthling, and there probably is a COI in him writing about other earthlings. :) Dmonda (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Dmonda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "To be fair a lot of "big name" wikibrarians have edited,", but i haven't edited it yet ..... oh, wait. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or heavily rewrite, based on later responses. ~~Keep: Looks like all of nom's issues have been dealt with(I didn't read the version pre-nom, but looks fine now, at most only slightly promotional, a la "dramatically changed").~~ ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC) (Note, Tom.Reding changed their !vote in this diff Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

User:Tom.Reding, No they have not. This still wildly over emphasizes his guiness world record stuff. That is Marchand's self-marketing schtick and nothing to do with what we do here in WP. The article is promotional for Marchand, following his own PR, from the ground up. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example - the following is unsupported by its source:

The "Marchand Salpingectomy" surgical technique was developed by Marchand shortly after the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology released Committee Opinion #620.^[2]

References

^ "My life - Statistical Data". My Life. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
^ "Committee Opinion #620: Salpingectomy for Ovarian Cancer Prevention". American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Committee on Gynecologic Practice. January 2015. Retrieved 12 April 2018.

The page is full of pure bullshit like this. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the first citation. It is a god damn conference presentation with a hyped up title (ref ":0") (fails MEDRS by miles) and Marchand claims in the section following the sentence quoted above, through what is increasingly obviously his paid editor, that this technique radically changed medical practice. Disgusting unsourced industrial waste dumped into WP. Please read carefully before !voting. This is not a WP page, it is a marketing brochure that is utterly unencyclopedic.Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a paid Editor, although with how angry you are getting I am worried that you have an interest in this some way. I admit that was crapy citing but when the 2: events happen after each other and have the same words in their title it seem reasonable to say shortly after that . Why don't we work on these issues together on the pages talk page and make it into a really great Page?GuinnessFreak (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not belong in main space. If you would agree to draftify it and put it through AfC so the horrifically promotional content can be hosed out of it, the copyright issues with the image clarified, and the content checked to make sure it actually is supported by reliable sources, that would be fine. This needs to get the hell out of mainspace. Would you consent to this being moved to draft space? Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ [Edit: Changed suggestion to] Delete & Salt this strongly promotional text about a subject lacking independent notability. This is about an associate professor (not even a full professor) who's been criticized for reckless surgical techniques - yet cannot even achieve notoriety/notability on these dubious grounds. The posed image and the oversourcing (hurrah for the "longest ever uterus"!) simply adds to the hideous ambiance. This is not an encyclopaedic article; it's a brochure. Too soon for a claim to fame. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome Thank you for your honest Criticism. I do want to point out that someone who is not a full time professor at a school cannot be a Full tenured professor. Even the most famous surgeon in the country would still be an associate professor if they just taught part time. My subject is a full time surgeon. He's also not a very good guy by most of what I've read. A lot of people think his surgeries can spread cancer and kill people. I thought I was reaching notability based on how widely cited he is in national news media as well as his notoriety for spreading cancer through morcellation. I figured it met notability based on the outrage over his morcellation. I've even seen him on TV myself. I was not trying to meet notability as an academic. But again thank you for your input and I'm always trying to make my articles better. GuinnessFreak (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point about not being a full professor if they are a full time clinician is untrue. The faculty of medical schools follow the typical advancement while doing research/teaching/clinical duties. Natureium (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this?? you cant be a full professor unless you work for the university. if Ben Carson takes a Harvard student for a semester he can only be an associate professor unless Harvard hires him. you cant claim people that don't work for you are full professors. no university does this. GuinnessFreak (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care at all (we should not care at all) about the subject's "intentions" or "behavior," GuinnessFreak. He's a doctor of medicine; it's an honorable profession. But it does not matter. Even serial killers merit an article provided they are notable enough. My input was based strictly on independent-notability evidence. It seems to be lacking. The strong aroma of promotional verbiage only adds to the ambiance; it does not create it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject clearly does not pass general notability guidelines, quite apart from the discussion in WP:COIN and the apparent copyvio over the photograph. At first glance it looks like a promotional article, but then seems to turn into an attack article. Well-sourced citations about a specific medical procedure may be appropriate on the entry about that procedure. Shritwod (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking for independent sources; see here for what i found. I then trimmed all the horrible refs and puffery and was left with this. I then self-reverted to restore it. There is a boatload of hype driven Marchand's press releases; almost no truly independent sources discussing him. he has two papers published, both in the same very specifialist journal that has an impact factor of 1.3 over the past five years. Above I said "marginally notable". I strengthen that now to "not notable". He fails WP:PROF by miles and even WP:BIO. You have to cut through a lot of PR to see what is really there. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked the article you found and quoted from the local AZ paper. i was sticking to national news so I missed it. I think that should be a big part of the article. This guy was on every channel with his "oh feel bad for me I had cancer story about the world record." it worked, it was everywhere and still is. there's no way to make that ever not noteable. I think between my version and yours there's a good article. but you cant delete a nationally syndicated news story that played on almost every channel and a us medical school curriculum that mentions him. that's what made this villain noteable. GuinnessFreak (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps that you misunderstand the purpose of the encyclopaedia. If you want to run an exposé on someone, this is not the place to do it. You are not demonstrating the neutral point of view required, and it looks like you have an axe to grind. That apart, I still do not believe that the references constitute a significant enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. Shritwod (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shritwod in my view the "villain" stuff is just speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. GF is very committed to Marchand having a page in WP and is saying what ever he/she thinks we want to hear. IF we strip out all the promotional crap that GF dumped into WP there is nothing left, really. The foundation of this page is promotion; that is its very clear purpose. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we disagree on what we think the intention is, but the conclusion is the same either way. Shritwod (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GF you are again misrepresenting. The references you piled up in the LEAD were either his own very self-promotional video presentations or multiple versions of the same churnalism story in very local media affiliates driven by his press release. I have found no national coverage of this person. it is all local -- mostly AZ (where he is) or Chicago (where one of his co-surgeons is. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable medical sources in a medical article, promotional (so fails WP:NOT). At some point WP:PAYTALK should kick in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is promotional and shouldn't be for a medical professional. scope_creep (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, I'm counting two kamikaze accounts shouting "Keep." It never pays off, this underhanded approach, folks. Don't we all know this by now? -The Gnome (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Went up to three just now. What mane. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...And it turns out they were socks. Who would've thought? :-) Scalpel, please! -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a reciter of anybody's world record surgical oddities. Other than those there doesn't seem to be much BLP material to go with here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strong and by definition. Is it possible your search engines can't find this stuff because you're doing it from England? In the US this reckless morcellating idiot has articles all over the national news about him. Maybe you can try switching to the US version of google news? a few examples:

1.) ABC in San Antonio, Texas - Running this BS story nationally that runs all over the US.

2.) NBC in South Bend, Indiana - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

3.) ABC in Fresno, California - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

4.) CBS in Marquette, Wisconsin - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

There's about 9 more if you dig deeper.

When you've got a nationally televised story, not mentioning this idiot, but actually ABOUT this dangerous idiot, you've met WP:SIGCOV everytime. I would like permission to revert to Jytdog's masterful edit removing the promotionalism. There is no reason for 10 million sources. The article with 4 citations looks deliciously sharp. Surgical lion (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Surgical lion has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)

Those are just additional instances of churnalism driven by Marchand's press releases. WP:GNG is not met when looking for actually independent sources; the page is fundamentally promotional. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the canine verdict, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jytdog's rationale which put my thoughts into words more eloquently than I ever could. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no way this can fail WP:GNG. If you read WP:GNG it plainly says:""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Individual ABC, NBC and CBS stations all over the nation ran the story. Are we suggesting they were paid? This is how syndicated stories work in the US. If you want to delete the article, go ahead, but these sources meet the very definition of WP:GNG:

1.) ABC in San Antonio, Texas - Running this BS story nationally that runs all over the US.

2.) | NBC in South Bend, Indiana - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

3.) ABC in Fresno, California - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

4.) CBS in Marquette, Wisconsin - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

5.) Tribune TV 8 in Moline Illinois

Unless the subject owns or paid these stations, (which is impossible,) you've got a story airing all over TV in the USA. WP:GNG by definition. Anyone looking back at this deletion log is instantly going to realize he meets WP:GNG, (despite churnalism being a fancy word.) the only issue is promotionalism. 4.15.15.126 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC) — 4.15.15.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please login when you comment. It is clear you are the same as one or more of the similarly commenting notes above. I don't think you understand what we mean by "independent" in the GNG. The same story run by many affilates are not independent of one another, and when they are all just "reporting" a press release they are not independent of the subject, either. Churnalism refers to the latter. Wikipedia cannot be manipulated in this way. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what WP:GNG says. It says they have to be independent from the Subject, not independent from each other. Most stories you see on the news will come from the same Associated Press press releases no matter where you are in the United States.GuinnessFreak (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Any reasonable group of people (if it comes to admins) who read that paragraph in WP:GNG, and then read the above 4 sources are going to agree 99.999% of the time that the subject meets criteria. Per the wording of WP:GNG, it does. Churnalism is an interesting concept, which I think should be added to future versions of WP:GNG, but as of now it's not referenced there at all. If we call a false consensus on deletion, admins will eventually read this script and over-rule it. JYTdog wrote an excellent, non-promotional version of this page [here]. I recommend we revert to that and conclude this discussion. So I am changing my vote to "keep" the [new version ] written by JYTdog. Dmonda (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

If you click on the link "independent" to see what the community means by that word, and go to the section on press releases, you will see that it says there Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release. Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article.

That is exactly what is going on with these affiliates recycling the press release. This is what churnalism is.

Wikipedia cannot be manipulated by this kind of crap. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY NOT! That section of WP-INDY has NOTHING to do with news stories given by reporters, unless they are actively reading a press release. That section is talking about how to identify press release in media disguised as a story. Even if you were trying to make the argument that these news stories were based on a press release, (which is impossible because they are real reporter interviews, not articles) thats even more irrelevant, because YOU KNOW FOR A FACT these 14 news stories did not come from a press release, they came from national reporter. The original story was produced by Wendy Chioji of Ivanhoe Media (they do a lot of the medical interest national stories for CBS, NBC, ABC. Her original story is easy to find] so I suspect you already knew this. It's a real national story shared with many legitimate CBS, NBC, and ABC affiliate stations.

Also, can I point out -

1.) Even if there was some truth to your argument (which as I pointed out above there isn't,) the idea that admitting that a logical person reading WP:GNG who (knows what the word independent means) might find this subject to be notable, "but then" someone who did "further research" and read other WP guidelines might decide otherwise is not a very sound argument. Wikipedia guideline articles are not so sloppily written as to give that wide of contradicting information to readers.

2.) Even if the above were not obvious grounds for notability (which they are,) coming in the context of a genuinely awarded Guinness world record (very often notable alone,) national coverage from the Guinness record, the fact that the subject has verifiable publications featured in the published curriculum of US medical schools, and that his publications are known enough to be infrequently cited, I think you would have to agree that most admins here would just say "hey close enough." But hey - you're a fighter, I'll give that to you.

3.) I honestly think if you lived in America you would just recognize the guy from TV or newspaper and not go down this road at all.

So are you still going to keep this up Jytdog? Or can we finally just publish that beautiful page you put together here? Come on! Dmonda (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That side swiping digression into an ad hominem only weakens your arguments, Dmonda. -The Gnome (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize if that came off as too pointy. Not my intention. Obviously I feel very strongly about my argument based on the definitions defined in WP-GNG and the criteria of WP-INDY section 5.1. Dmonda (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have struck the votes of three confirmed socks. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Perhaps you should strike off the rest of the socks' commentary as well. -The Gnome (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per WP:G5; I knew I was being bullshitted. Sock of User:Dmonda. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy for being created by socks, then removed as there were substantial subsequent edits by others. I am fine with the AfD going though and being closed; this is actually a stronger outcome that we can use to overcome future efforts to create. I want to add that due to the obvious and intense promotional pressure, the page should be salted after it is deleted. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stripped-down version still contains two sources that are entirely about other people. Ignoring those, we only have one good source, the Alltucker Arizona Republic newspaper story alleging professional misconduct. That's not enough. And even if we kept an article, the sock party here makes clear that it will be very difficult to maintain it in a properly neutral state. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note about Ivanhoe, the source of the syndicated stories mentioned above. See This 2009 piece at HealthNewsReview.org which is their most substantial discussion of that company. Withering. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt One good source is not enough to go on. ("Record-breaking uterus" is a pretty good headline, though, so I'm glad it was brought to my attention.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are watching this and it is setting a little bit of a dangerous precedent. Jytdog is admitting that it meets WP:GNG, but we are still going to delete for failing WP:PROMOTIONAL, rather than fixing the page. Ivanhoe may have gotten bad press in the past but it's a long way from his press release failing WP:INDY. I'm not saying anyone is owed a "Sock-pology" but the bullying that occurred would certainly dissuade good writers from contributing to wikipedia. Phoenix Mike22 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)— Phoenix Mike22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And whose sock drawer do you belong in? Natureium (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, see here where after hosing out all the crappy sources I wrote that it is very clear this fails GNG, as others have articulated as well. Marginal N + strong PROMO is also a valid deletion rationale. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the link provided by Jytdog above, we read: "Ivanhoe...allows local reporters to put their names on stories they didn’t report, film or write — without mentioning Ivanhoe. Stations also are permitted to omit geographical information, giving viewers the false impression that the stories were locally produced and the patients and doctors quoted in the stories could be their neighbors. ... More power to entrepreneurs like Ivanhoe who make money (actually a lot of money) doing this. That’s a business decision. Shame on the stations that take this “quick and dirty” route to health news coverage. That’s a journalism ethics decision." 'Nuff said. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh air at last! The stink of his socks caused Phoenix Mike22 to be thrown out from Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I assume some paid editor will have an unhappy client. But our encyclopedia will than contain less non notable advertising. Also one could delete this based on G5 as it is nearly certainly the work of socks of a prior blocked account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. Someone declined the speedy. Natureium (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This will be more permanent and will get it salted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning precisely :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Hopefully stop it being recreated 4 or 14 months up the road. scope_creep (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2018 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roby Das

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

Notability concerns. The coverage is "human interest" style coverage, and being in the Limca Book of Records doesn't give any inherent notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator's comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lanzer

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

Not a notable doctor. No independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is only sourced to his own work. This is a highly advertisement driven field, and there is no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fisher (rail architect)

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

No evidence of notability. Both references are minor and only mention him once. ELEKHH^T 11:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much of anything about him. Probably too soon. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2018 (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) 04:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhmat Azimov

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

nn serial killer sourced from sensationalist sources Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in the book Queer in Russia: A Story of Sex, Self, and the Other there is a couple of sentences, but a lot more would be needed for a standalone, did find an article in the Russian WP, but they also have it up for deletion, the discussion is here, and doesn't look too good for the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am exceedingly skeptical about this allegedly notable serial killer because, under the spelling/name given, the sole hit in a ProQuest news search is a story in BBC Monitoring (the BBC service that translates articles from around the world,) and the relevant sentence reads: "Akhmat Azimov, chairman of the Russian Congress of the Caucasian Peoples, is interviewed on the goals of the congress. "We want to help the government and the public yada, yada..." Point is, with details this lurid there ought to have been some contemporary coverage in the Latin alphabet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not surprizing, actually. Who the heck cares what's up in some Uzbekistan-Smuzbekistan. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 references on the same day with the same title and nothing else cited. There is no significant coverage so it does not meet WP:GNG. I should add that I cannot verify the references cited because google translate cannot read them. They are just a bunch of random symbols. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2018 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

AfDs for this article:

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

We don't create disambiguation pages for Second child of the Prince and Princess of Wales, or Fourth child of the King and Queen of England, or Third child of the Emperor and Empress of Russia, etc. Why it should take 4 attempts to get this page deleted is beyond me. The concept is absurd. No respectable encyclopedia draws up such lists. This is a very unlikely search term and even if readers were searching using this term, they can still do so and still be directed to the correct article through the search results. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would not want to insult the closing administrator's intelligence by further explaining why. Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has there been any proposal to create a new project called "Dis-ambiguation pages for deletion"?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit off topic, but see WP:DABFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to current kid, who's birth I did not receive notification of, nor am I invited to the Christening. Page should never have been deleted in the first place, back during the pregnancy. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The "current kid" is not the only person this could refer to. Should The first daughter of the President of the United States redirect to Ivanka Trump? And of course pages about celebrity pregnancies should not exist. Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (2nd nomination). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a place-holder until Prince Louis was named, not needed now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no longer needed,and I doubt we'd need this as a redirect. Also SALT to prevent this from happening again.Kirbanzo (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think someone would recreate it after it's deleted? If it has already been recreated a couple times, sure, but that seems super unlikely to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It being recreated and deleted 4 times is absurd. A SALT is definitely in order - besides, better safe than sorry. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before the child was born, the article was recreated a few times, but that's now at Prince Louis of Cambridge and stable. I don't see people using this specific title any longer. For example, Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wasn't recreated after the disambiguation was deleted back in 2015. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think DrKay was referring to the fact that this has been nominated for speedy deletion, prodded and now AFD'd since the content was moved to Prince Louis of Cambridge.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But this leads to a partial answer to the nominator's question: because the speedy deletion nomination wasn't valid. At the time of this nomination, the page was a redirect to Prince Louis of Cambridge, and the criterion it was nominated under was G4. Was the previously deleted version a redirect to Prince Louis of Cambridge? I somehow doubt it. — Smjg (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Google results for "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" are about Prince Louis of Cambridge. A disambiguation page is not necessary. The term has never been used in reference to Princess Amelia of Great Britain or Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. Firebrace (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. e.g. "Princess Mary Adelaide ... is the third child of the late Duke of Cambridge ..." (Illustrated London News 14 Jun 1868 [20]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not titled "third child of the late Duke of Cambridge". Try harder. Firebrace (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Try harder"? Without too much effort I've given a counter-example to your speculative and unprovable opinion that "The term has never been used...". Google's a bit short of material from 1711, so I suppose I could try harder, given a good archive library, to see if the term was actually used for Princess Amelia, but instead I'll just smile at your cheek. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a "term" - it's just a descriptive phrase. But regardless of what it is, I concur: how on earth can you prove that nobody has ever, in speech or writing, referred to Amelia or Mary Adelaide as the "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge"? — Smjg (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unnecessary. Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~for just about all the reasons already mentioned~~ to avoid creating a useless "directory" listing, and as per the precedent of having deleted equivalent pages for George and Charlotte. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (facing into the snow) because I see a disambiguation page with 3 valid entries and no policy/guidance reason to delete (except perhaps WP:NOTDIR). This discussion reads like Arguments to avoid bingo. So far I can spot "No respectable encyclopedia..." (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC), "absurd" and "insult ... intelligence" (WP:IDL), "not needed" and "completely unnecessary" (WP:WEDONTNEEDIT), "All Google results..." (WP:GOOGLEHITS) and "all the reasons already mentioned" (WP:EVERYONEELSE). House! :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WEDONTNEEDIT applies to articles, not disambiguation pages, which is what we are discussing here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter even the WP:NOTDIR comment is a mere WP:VAGUEWAVE! Notwithstanding, it gives weight to most of the other arguments, and while we now have proof that "third child..." has been used to refer to at least one of the other dab targets, it is hardly a plausible 21st Century search term for anyone other than Prince Louis. So I'll change my WP:EVERYONEELSE to WP:NOTDIR, coupled with the precedent of his siblings' pages. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if this was unambiguous it would be deleted at WP:RfD as a redirect from a (now?) implausible search term; there's no justification for creating a dab page just because a couple more potential targets can be dreamed up. PamD 11:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 2#Second son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This now has no obvious purpose and I cannot image it is a term people are going to search for. Dunarc (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the title thing is sufficiently explained on the baby's page.17:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete -- I was going to suggest a simple redirect, but find that we have two other possible targets. However this is not a very useful search term . Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore the redirect, as above, to maintain inbound link support. James F. (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 19:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian M. Hughes

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

Low-profile individual who does not meet the guidelines for WP:GNG. He is the son of former NJ Governor Richard J. Hughes, but per WP:BIORELATED, this does not make him notable. According to WP:POLITICIAN, only "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Press coverage appears to be entirely absent. Ambrosiaster (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - County executive is an odd position, so before I started debating the differences of that vs mayor, I thought it easier to consider "would I vote delete if he was a mayor?". Mercer County has a population of c. 365,000 - hardly small. I'd be inclined to say WP:POLOUTCOMES would support keeping a mayor in those conditions.

Thus, next stop - considering the role. His role is the elected variant of the position. This means he is both functioning as the chief executive/administrative officer of the county for the freeholder (legislative) board, but also has the right to veto their ordinances - so he is more than just a senior administrative position. I would say this position is similar enough to consider like a mayor in lieu of niche guidelines.

Finally, the actual grounds of the proposer - that position or not, as "Press coverage appears to be entirely absent." he warranted deletion. This isn't the case, though it doesn't seem miles off. There are plenty of mentions, discounted for now, a couple of larger articles about subpoenaing him (and his position), and some longer discussions with him, including some interviews. The interviews would be useless for actually supporting non-basic facts within the article, but can still demonstrate fundamental notability being given to the individual/article as in WP:INTERVIEW#Notability.

Still a blurred state, but hopefully this provides some food for thought - if I can find some clearer secondary sourcing I'll post them for ease. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete the coverage is not enough to show notability for a local figure. County populations should not be directly compared to city populations in considering weather their leaders are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that depends entirely on which city and which county is involved. In some jurisdicitons, the power lies largely with the county, in others, cities have relatively more power. Some cities have charters that make the mayor very powerful, others don't. Looks to me like this county exec holds real power.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- County executive by itself is not a notable position. His other claims to notability all rely on WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Faughn

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scott Faughn

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

Lack of notability. He was a low profile politician - mayor of a small town of less than 17,000 people - and now a blogger with 6,400 followers on Twitter^[1]. Profile has been raised during Governor Greitens' trial but that was for cash payments he delivered to an attorney in a rather salacious case. Self-publishing a book this fall^[2] Chad.huber (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smalltown mayors are not handed an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist, but this is not sourced well enough to make him a special case over and above other smalltown mayors. And the stuff about his post-mayoral career in media is not reliably sourced at all, so it doesn't hand him a "notable for other reasons besides his mayoralty" pass either. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill small town politician who doesn't pass WP:NPOL. His run of the mill criminal conviction doesn't get him to WP:GNG, either. SportingFlyer talk 02:56, 2 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 18:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Alliman

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

There are a lot of references in this article, but few of them discuss the individual in any depth. The one that does is a blog for a clothing company. Google search does not result in anything that would meet the notability criteria at the moment. ... discospinster _talk 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these sources is particularly good. A Google Search for "Justin Alliman" produces 575 results, and it seems virtually impossible to meet WP:GNG with only that many options.Gargleafg (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I can't find anything significant in anything I find reliable. It may just be WP:TOOSOON for Alliman to have an article.Jacona (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are promotional in nature. I can be persuaded he's notable but I need to see the sources first. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is far too dependent on primary and unreliable sources. Notability is not determined by what a person did, but by how much reliable source coverage in media they received for doing it — but the references here aren't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2018 (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. MER-C 10:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Gupta

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

Non-notable blogger, purely promotional. Natureium (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. MT Train^Talk 05:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not per nom. She's not really a blogger, more founder of a general blogging site. But the highest views claimed for an item there are about 20k views, and its figures are too low for an Alexa ranking. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 02:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barry (American bartender)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Contains unsubstantiated claims about having won best barman in Boston, I searched and found nothing. These are passing mentions interviews and a student news site that doesn't seem to have gone in for fact checking about certain claims. One says he started work at 9 years old another at 12 years old, there are unsubstantiated claims about his famous customers and as notability is not inherited this doesn't really help show notability. Tagged as needing more sources to prove notability but tag removed. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More about chest-thumping than notability. In addition to nom, no third-party coverage outside of niche or local sources, and Ghits turned up quite a few Paul Barrys in the state. Maybe in 1988 when Cocktail came out this guy would've been a big deal, but today, no. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Domdeparis- I want to work with you on a solution to keep this article up. If I can get copies from the Boston Globe and the Improper Bostonian referencing when they featured him as "Boston's Best Bartender" would that help. I'm sure I can find them by looking through the archives at Boston Public Library. Also you continue to reference to the Harvard Crimson as a college newspaper with pejorative terms like "rag." The Harvard Crimson is probably the most respected college newspaper in the world. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Harvard_Crimson_people to see their alumni.Effecthypothesis (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is that he has not received any notable third-party coverage outside of the Boston area. As a result this is little more than a promotional piece you would find in your average local publication, rather than an encyclopedia article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or in searches of WP:GNG compliance. The significant coverage is either not independent or not in a reliable source and there is no evidence of fitting any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:03, 8 May 2018 (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 17:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Greenwood

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

Does the appearance, for one season, as a judge on Nashville Star make this subject notable on his own? Subject has been a part of numerous radio stations across the United States, but he was not a featured personality (a la Ryan Seacrest, Bobby Bones, etc). His single season as a judge on Nashville Star doesn't seem to meet the standard for notability, in my opinion. It should also be noted that the bulk of the article appears to have been written by Billy Greenwood himself. If nothing else, we have a major COI issue here. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 19:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the AfD. ansh 666 05:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It's been quite some time since I've edited WP and I'm only barely getting used to the formatting, etc again. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable radio personality with no third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I nominated the article for the purposes of establishing consensus, but I do not necessarily believe it should be deleted. As someone that spent 15+ years in the radio industry, I know who the subject is, by name, and know that he has been on many iHeartMedia radio stations over the last decade or more, but I still struggle with the question of, "Does that make him notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia?" Moreover, I know the subject personally, so I do not feel that I should cast a !vote in either direction. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 02:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Vanjie Mateo

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

This person was in the public eye for just being a contestant on a reality tv show. They were the first contestant to be eliminated from the show. That is the only thing that they are known for. Therefore the article should be deleted as per WP:BLP1E. Lupine453 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Absolutely not. This person's social media following extends further than the Drag Race fanbase, just the regular mainstream fanbase. Being the first eliminated is not the "only" thing they're known for. The article should not and will not be deleted.

Vanessa isn't known for doing anything other than being a contestant on Drag Race. That's her sole claim to "fame". And you have no way of determining what her social media following is comprised of. Besides, social media followings have no bearing on who qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Lupine453 (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, Instagram has over 200,000 followers plus verification, Twitter has 41,800 followers plus verification, and again, there are thousands of people who have barely to never seen the show know about the meme. And before you say "well some queens have higher followings but they don't have pages" the fact is they deserve pages too, and in fact there are some queens with smaller followings who have pages, so that's not an excuse, and it's hypocritical. Do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not based on social media followings. This is an encyclopedia, not a random listing of people. If you take away the fact that Vanessa was a contestant on that show, there is literally no other reason she would even be mentioned in the media. Lupine453 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've not completed a notability assessment, but if this individual is not notable enough for a standalone article, the page should be redirected to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10), not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She became the most famous queen of the season in just one episode, she made a huge viral impact, people still talk about it, there are petitions to bring her to the next season ... She may not be the most notable contestant, but she is a notable one. People want to know who this "Miss Vanjee" is and Wikipedia has the power to give them this information. Alecsdaniel (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to editors that fame and number of Instagram followers are not bases for keeping an article - notability is. Fortunately for those, there is evidence that the subject qualifies under the WP:GNG for generating significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, including: Bustle, Billboard, Decider, Billboard (again), etc. This is certainly enough notability to Keep the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:21, 8 May 2018 (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 17:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BAILLOR JALLOH

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

A Google search for "Baillor Jalloh" turns up no coverage of this person, only his social media accounts and stories he wrote, as well as similarly named people such as a Mohamed Baillor Jalloh. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. MT Train^Talk 04:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A journalist/presenter on local community media. Examples of his work can be found but no evidence that the subject meets any of the WP:JOURNALIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find anything online to support a notability claim. Husounde (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2018 (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. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Lüthy

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

Unsourced. Questionable notability. Seems to appear as an incidental character in the Anneliese Michel case and not otherwise noteworthy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargav Gajjar

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

Delete Fails the criteria for notability, fails WP:BASIC. Some articles mention him but nothing in-depth. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. also, I just did this search, and he does not appear in that search as MIT faculty, staff, or student. A little more poking, and i found this lab website, that lists him in the "alumni" section, where it says "Bhargav Gajjar, Research Affiliate, 2014". He does have this page in the "MIT drupal cloud" ... The content in our article seems to oversell his affiliation with MIT. Marginally notable and way way too much promotional pressure. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dubious at best connection to MIT. Strike that connection from the debate, and the article subject is just a non-notable business man who owns a fairly small company. The company has some coverage surrounding it, but that which directly concerns Gajjar is trivial.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not notable Wolfson5 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Preaky (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT esp given the probable inflation of MIT creds ☆ Bri (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2018 (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. Although some of the "keep" !votes are rather weak, there definitely is no consensus to delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr DisRespect

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

A Twitch.tv streamer and internet personality. But is he notable in the real world? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, he's not notable in "the real world", but he's notable in his field. I consider articles specifically about the subject from ESPN, Rolling Stone, Forbes, Polygon, and PC Gamer to constitute notability. Vermont (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It ain't a big article, but there are definitely sources available that make him pas notability.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft So it can be worked on in greater detail. -- Alex^TW 14:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a notable, award-winning gaming personality. AndreyKva (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. I agree with you that this isn't anyone that is obviously notable, but taking a look at the references I come to the conclusion that there are enough sources in the article to meet our standards. wikitigresito (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dr DisRespect is definitely notable. He (probably) had the highest Twitch stream viewing ever (although this is disputed by Tyler1 & co.). Many suitable references are already included in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets general notability standards with substantial secondary reliable sources, as noted above in comment by Vermont. While the discussion about actual internet fame and notability is one to be had, they meet Wikipedia standards even if they aren't notable in other realms. But why would we apply said standard only to people known to the masses via the Internet? Why would physical people get a pass? In my view, digitally popular people can be viewed in the minds of far more people than any other physical realm. (IE: a baseball stadium seats 85 thousand people, and more than 4x that DrDisrespect had on a live stream.) It seems utterly dismissive. Combine that with charity drives that these people often do, and sometimes they can have more impact physically than one would expect. Tutelary (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see enough coverage and sources to justify his inclusion. Husounde (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Allofs

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a photographer, whose notability claim is the winning of unspecified awards and the submission of his work to many unspecified publications. Neither of these is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG, but the only references here are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If his claim to fame is photographing "A lot of" endangered species and the article doesn't provide how many is "a lot" and what specific animals he photographed, then why is it an article in the first place?💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:19, 30 April 2018 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara

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

This article about a religious figure does not meet our notability or verifiability requirements. Aside from presenting religious dogma as fact, neither of this article's two sources actually mention this person. I can't find anything more substantial either. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Baba

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and basic English. Also deleted once before, unanimously. Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, e.g. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/hc-send-notice-to-pilot-babas-ashram-for-illegal-construction-near-ganga/articleshow/60770443.cms https://www.firstpost.com/living/the-colours-of-kumbh-at-30000-feet-up-in-the-sky-this-pilot-met-god-2819900.html http://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/breaking-news-articles/sc-wants-know-pilot-baba-criminal-antecedent-42056 https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/indiascope/story/19840215-pilot-baba-from-air-force-wing-commander-to-sanyasi-802756-1984-02-15 http://mnsvmag.com/news/2017-10-09/pilot-baba-ashram-travel-nepal-hiking etc. etc. etc. Ross-c (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even a superficial web search reveals a lot of information and news commentary, he is clearly a guru of some small notability and there is much that can be added about that. I have improved the quality of English in the article a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. FITINDIA 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--As much as my heart wants to keep the subject out of WP, there have been too much coverage in indian media (coverage in hindi sources are more abundant...... ) to deny an article about the subject.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject (perhaps, inexplicably) passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2018 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Michas

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

After a thorough WP:BEFORE search, all I've been able to find are entries in various Wiki-type sites, an IMDB entry and other sites based purely on user-generated content. I was expecting to see at least one news mention - after all, this article is many years old - but no, there's nothing. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed in the article — having acting roles is the job description, not "inherent" notability in and of itself. It's not the list of roles that makes an actor includable in and of itself, but the depth of reliable source coverage about him in media that can be shown to get him over WP:GNG for having had roles. But there are no proper references being cited here at all, and I'm having about as much luck as the nominator at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2018 (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. So Why 11:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hetsroni

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

~~Not really notable and seems to be created and edited by one user, likely the figure itself WP:COIN. --Bohbye (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

After further reading on the subject of the article i agree with Icewhiz and Bellezzasolo that he meets GNG, BIO, and BLP1E. Therefore I withdraw my nomination for deletion. I do think however it needs some rewriting and more than a single author. --Bohbye (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Obviously not a COIN - which wouldn't describe him as "misanthropic" (which I shall remove). This is a very well known individual (for his divisive and unorthodox views expressed in a very public fashion) - with quite wide coverage - particularly in Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 07:02, 29 Apr 2018 (UTC)

Strong Keep. I wrote most of the entry. I am an Israeli, but I have no COIN here. It is enough to read the tone of my words to notice that. The name of Hetsroni appeared in the list of entries that were deemed needed. He is very famous in Israel - more as a public figure than as a pure scientist. I tried to point that in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orenberg 1 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Facebook troublemaker who has apparently hired someone to write about him. The author has never edited Wikipedia before. As far as I can see, all he is notable for is being fired from Ariel University --Geewhiz (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Well, Troublemakers can be important.... Read here what a fuss his departure from Israel caused: https://www.timesofisrael.com/provocateur-amir-hetsroni-quits-israel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orenberg 1 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-well-known - preceeding comment added by 77.241.229.232.

Keep My grasp of hebrew isn't good, but has generated significant coverage in multiple reliable hebrew sources, as well as English. Seems to meet GNG and BIO, and I think given published works goes beyond BLP1E. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need to be careful to avoid making this into an attack page, but in-depth coverage specifically about him in IHE 2014 (footnote 4), JPost 2015 (footnote 14), INN 2018 (footnote 18), and ToI 2015 (Orenberg's link above), not to mention potentially others that I can't read because they're not in English, makes clear that he is notable on an ongoing basis. We probably shouldn't close this early despite the withdraw because of the delete comments, but the case looks clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2018 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hikaru Hoshino

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being listed as "one of" other similar actors by a nn "adult video (AV) columnist Kemuta Ōtsubo" is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable or significant awards, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 13:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC) –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2018 (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. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morayo Awosola

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced with unverifiable sources or sources. Likely promotional article. hiàn 18:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:25, 28 April 2018 (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. So Why 11:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Frank

AfDs for this article:

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

No individual notability, except for her company, and already covered more than adequately there. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note there are profiles of here in Fast Company [21] and Jezebel [22] Theredproject. (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevant that the FC article calls her "notoriously elusive and private" which is likely why we don't have any major biographical profiles. I checked NYT, and there are a dozen+ references. The first is 2000, and then in 2011 it starts again, and there is one or two a year, or so. They name check her without explanation, as if you should know who she is, e.g. "Just a decade or two later, I’m ready to reminisce about Lisa Frank folders and Puff Daddy videos." [23] And, for a certain generation of people (slightly younger than myself) they mostly all do know who she is, and what her work looks like.

I appreciate your logic re: the person being described in the article about the company, but I'm wondering if there are any standards or comparables for something like that. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with any other examples of designers who were 1) reclusive 2) named their companies with their own name. I'm still thinking, but haven't come up with any. Theredproject (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but Martin Margiela for example? Vexations (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to company. Best covered there. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the two AfDs already completed, it's a bit daft to nominate the article for a third time. The existing reliable sources in the article strongly suggest she had a very high profile in the latter part of the 20th century. We shouldn't be deleting articles about people who have a lower profile in the internet age. All that being said, there are further news articles particularly about Frank on the Lisa Frank Incorporated article. Just because her name happens to be included in the name of her company, doesn't mean they aren't both notable. Sionk (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, as an alternative, keep as its own section at Lisa Frank Incorporated, as is done with the company founder at Transogram.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If ,the kept, the necessary next step will be to remove the material about her from the company article--it's presently about40% of the content. Duplication like this is indicative of promotionalism; even if not intended as such, it is certainly undue coverage. It can be appropriate for very famous companies & their founders, but not those which are only notable, let alone borderline notable /. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2018 (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. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Zohadi

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

Editor of magazines are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they pass GNG. I did some Google searches and found some press coverage but in no source can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires.

The subject is editor of 2A magazine (not really Notable) and its WP entry is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2A Magazine. Saqib (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have already PRODED 2A Magazine, notability is not really established on both pages. Mredidiongekong (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:38, 28 April 2018 (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. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Converse Backus

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

Fails WP:GNG most of the sources are obituaries 3 of other people and 1 of him. There is no indepth coverage whatsoever. Nothing in the article suggests that he achieved anything that is notable enough to warrant an article. The main claim to significance is having had a letter published in the NY times. This I think is not enough. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails GNG. Husounde (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2018 (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. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkhail Vaswani

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

Non-notable television anchor/cricketer, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NCRICKET. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Husounde (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2018 (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 Australian Christian Lobby. (Next time try boldly redirecting before coming to AfD) czar 18:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Iles

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

Mr Iles does not appear to be independently notable of the organisation he heads, the Australian Christian Lobby. All of the sources available through a Google News search [24] are quoting him in previous roles with this organisation (which appears to have been where he has spent virtually his entire career) or brief mentions of him recently taking up the role of the Lobby's managing director. The only articles focused on him are this recent interview in The Australian (which is almost entirely about the Australian Christian Lobby's priorities, and includes only a few paragraphs about him) and a couple of recent biographies published on low profile religious news websites. As such, I don't think that WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO are met. Mr Iles can be covered as part of the article on the Lobby, which is notable, and if he becomes the subject of significant coverage an article can be created. Note that while we have articles on the Lobby's previous managing directors, John Gagliardi (Australian) appears borderline at best, Jim Wallace (Australian activist) was notable before taking up the position due to his Army career, and Lyle Shelton (lobbyist) received significant coverage due to his prominent role in the campaign to try to stop gay marriage. Mr Illes has not yet been the subject of such coverage. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian Christian Lobby. Nothing in this article that is not already covered on the ACL page. Iles' referenced comments and positions in this article are solely as the spokesperson for ACL, whose notability is not inheritable by its staff. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. Subject is a likely search term. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Agree with analysis by NOM. Single non-inheritable cause for notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Calcote

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

Does not meet notability criteria for biographies of living persons. Kantrheas (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG; I don't see a single independent reference about him in the article, or anywhere else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:55, 30 April 2018 (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. AfD is not for cleanup... Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Smith (Motorola engineer)

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

Very poorly written with rampant grammatical errors. Very little of this article pertains to its subject at all; style is promotional and littered with weasel words. Much of the very basic information (When did he start working for Motorola? When did he develop Six Sigma?) blatantly contradicts the Six Sigma article. Chimneyrock (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six Sigma is a really important philosophy. They use to teach it to us in Business School. So I am pretty sure this guy is highly cited. I think that gets him by based on WP:ACADEMIC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, developed 6 sigma, highly notable. Szzuk (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable as inventor of Six Sigma, and has the sources to back that up. The article's badly written and needs some serious editorial love, but that's not a reason to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Mitchell

AfDs for this article:

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

Disambiguation page for which only one of the entries has an actual article (Roger Michell), the rest linking to various other articles where "Roger Mitchell"s or "Roger Michell"s are mentioned. The page used to be an actual article (for the first entry) but it was merged away and the dab moved over it. ansh 666 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid dab page for several people each worth an entry. PamD 08:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And have added E. Roger Mitchell. PamD 08:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several valid entries, with articles or meeting MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION. If someone types 'Roger Mitchell' into Wikipedia, they can see a list of people they might mean and articles with information on Roger Mitchells in them. Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, none of the articles have any information on any Roger Mitchell. They're all just redlinked entries in a table or a list with no further explanation. ansh 666 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They all have bluelinks on the line which go to articles which mention Roger Mitchells and, e.g. show you when the MP Roger Mitchell represented that constituency, who he served alongside and who his immediate predecessors and successors were. MOS:DABMENTION doesn't insist that the information is very detailed, just that we have information on them in that article. Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This dab page provides useful navigation assistance for searchers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2018 (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 and move to Murder of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley; consensus seems pretty clear that notability is found here, but not in the context of this individual perpetrator, rather the conspiracy and event as a whole. I'll perform the move and briefly reframe the article at this point, but it could benefit from further attention. ~ mazca ^talk 18:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC) ~ mazca ^talk 18:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wamsley

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

This was deleted in 2011 and I think consensus was just flat-out ignored. Two months after being deleted, the article was re-created with info on the co-conspirators. This article, however, is not about them. Wamsley is only known for one event and that event may not even be notable in itself. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crime news reporting source, it is not a newspaper. Not everyone who gets a death sentence is notable, let alone everone who is charged with a crime that in their jurisdiction could lead to the death sentence. That is the only standard that could make Wamsley notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Murder of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley (which is what this article covers in any event) - there were 3 PERPs here, and this particular one is possibly not the most noteworthy one. This was widely covered when it broke. It is still being reported as a notable example of parent murder - CNBC 2018, death sentencing was a topic covered in 2005 as well as in 2011 and 2012 following an appeal process that lasted a few years - which is also covered in this book. The crime and Andrew Wamsley were the subject of a full-length 272 page book (by St. Martin's Press - not self published) - The Good Son: A True Story of Greed, Manipulation, and Cold-Blooded Murder.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Murder of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley as per arguments, sources brought by User:Icewhiz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Murder of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, or keep and rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as per Icewhiz Nosebagbear (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehnad Mahmoud Shablak

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PERP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The perpetrator was considered notable by the creator because the case had received a long duration of coverage (the Globe and Mail reported his arrest in Feb 2006, CBC reported the trial in Jan 2007, and resurfaced again in follow-up story by CBC in Mar 2018). In addition to this long duration of coverage, the crime highlighted potential flaws in the Canadian Criminal Code relating to the rights of victims to discuss events in public where a publication ban has been ordered. The case is no less notable than that of Rehtaeh Parsons which has a article not marked for deletion. Madeupname3 (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with deletion; does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PERP. Mr Xaero (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move/rename to something like 2006 Newfoundland child pornography ring, the name used in nationwide headlines about the Newman and Shabak cases broken up by Newfoundland's "Operation Rescue," (nice work on the part of Newfoundland police and child protective authorities!) But the WP:SIGCOV comes in 2018, most notably with this INDEPTH, CBC report If only you knew her name; Survivors of child exploitation break their silence ... at least as far as the law will allow, which carries this past WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, I just added that INDEPTH CBC story to the article, 4 2018 SIGCOV CBC stories, plus one video neither Nom nor iVoter above appears to have seen this recent INDEPTH coverage. Also did a little rewrite, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you've re-written it, I agree it should be kept, but it should probably be re-named to about the sex abuse case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, we do need a new title. And I am open to suggestions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)uss[reply]

Delete. The crime is not notable - some national coverage in 2006-8, then nothing. The coverage circa 2018 is about the law preventing the publication of identities of sexual abuse victims who want to go public - which is a separate issue from the crime. Some of the victims campaigning/coming forward are indeed from the "big bite pizza" case and have been telling their story - however this is getting attention not because of the crime itself.Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per EM gregory. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be bold and rename it, and change the AFD links to suit? The article currently doesn't belong under his name, and I don't see why it should remain under the current name for the time being. thx. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: " there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion".WP:AFD. I think that in this case this is an excellent idea.@Power~enwiki, Mr Xaero, Madeupname3, Icewhiz, and BabbaQ:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done E.M.Gregory Sorry I didn't get your ping until recently. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note renaming to 2006 Newfoundland Child Pornography Ring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Gregorys improvements. Good work. Also in favour of renaming. Is beyond WP:WP:NCRIMEBabbaQ (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2018 (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. The notability of the subject is severely brought into question by a combination of (a) sources of questionable reliability, (b) a lack of substantial coverage therein outside of routine local news and (c) the questionable nature of "first female (rank) from (locality)" as any kind of encyclopedic claim to notability in the first place. Consensus, based on guidelines/policies on substantial news coverage other than routine in confirmed reliable sources does not seem to support keeping this questionably notable BLP. ~ mazca ^talk 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) ~ mazca ^talk 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suhai Aziz Talpur

AfDs for this article:

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

NAC of last AfD by user who has now been topic-banned. Claim to notability is that she "is considered to be the first female from Lower Sindh to reach the rank of ASP in the Pakistan Police Services." Not the first female police officer, but the first female from a certain location to reach a certain rank. Most of the coverage is about routine police activities she is involved in, which is inherent in being a police officer, see also WP:ROUTINE. I don't see any in-depth coverage, aside from some public interest articles about a female from the certain place serving in a certain police role. Including facts like "When Talpur's parents first decided to enroll her at a school, most of their relatives started "taunting" the familty. They eventually decided to leave the village and move to a nearby town". I just don't see it passing WP:N, and I want to get clear consensus since past AfD was involved in the recent AfD topic bans. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was 4-0 consensus to Keep this article at its previous AfD. The subject has received significant coverage in reputable press. Her achievement in being the first female police officer from Sindh seems significant, and follow-up articles show she has had continuing success in the role. We have articles about people who are notable for much less impressive achievements. Our test of notability is not whether you personally are interested by what made someone notable but whether journalists and other reliable sources are interested. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is not really a response to this nomination, and I don't see any useful factual or policy assertions. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the users who voted keep in previous AfD are now XFD topic banned. --Saqib (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, which I did not know. I see a topic ban from AfDs for Arif80s. Which of the other 3 keep votes is topic banned? HouseOfChange (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The one who made strong keep vote. --Saqib (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification From WP:N: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This nomination admits, as 4 other people also stated in the previous AfD discussion, that Talpur has indeed received "in-depth coverage" including details that describe her childhood and education. Please cite policy justification that this in-depth coverage should not establish notability because 1) you personally do not consider her achievement significant and 2) in-depth coverage of her occurred in "public interest articles." Is there a policy exception somewhere denouncing "public interest articles"? I rarely see any other kind of article used as a source of significant biographical detail for our biographies. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "First female ASP from lower Sindh" is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any significant coverage in the independent RS about the person except only one human interest story so Can't see any significance, --Saqib (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked through the references and there is significant discussion about this person to satisfy WP:GNG.[25][26][27] Per WP:NEXIST, there are likely more sources in her native language. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lonehexagon: You may don't know, but two of the sources (awamiweb.com and jworldtimes.com) you provided are not reliable by any means. --Saqib (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Do you have more information about that? Lonehexagon (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lonehexagon: More information about these two sources being unreliable? Being a Pakistani, I never saw their usage as a RS anywhere, on or off Wikipedia. If it make sense to you I would say try external links search. Awamiweb.com cited nowhere whereas the latter one is cited in a couple of articles and should be removed outright. --Saqib (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NBIO. No notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability beyond being first woman. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2018 (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 17:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Gilani

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

Fails WP:BIO - sources given do not provide substantial coverage of the subject. SmartSE (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the document you linked but TBH I'm still a bit fuzzy on what counts as "substantial." But I did find a lot of national newspaper coverage for Gilani, which is why I picked him to write about. For example, three articles in the New York Times (one gives him four paragraphs [28]; the other two quote him [29] and [30]). Three articles in the Wall Street Journal talk about his study on incubators ([31] [32] [33]). And there are much smaller mentions in the Washington Post [34], International Business Times [35], Chicago Tribune [36], etc.

In the Houston area which is where his company is, he gets more detailed coverage, like this story about his public feud with an imam that got articles in the Houston Chronicle [37] and on the UPI wire service [38]. And here's a weird full-length article about how he found a cockroach in his food at restaurant and tweeted about it: [39]

His focus on "flyover states" got a whole article in Entrepreneur: [40]

He's also discussed or quoted regularly about tech stuff in what seem to be tech publications: [41] (9 paragraphs), [42], [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]

Does any of this count? I spent a few hours writing this and I would love to see it stay if that's possible. Thank you and have a good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Racca45 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Racca45: 'Substantial' means that the article is about the him rather than mentioning him in passing. #1 is about work-life balance. #2 and #3 are brief mentions in passing. I can't access #4&5 but from the titles they do not look as if they will discuss him in depth. #6 makes no mention of him. Mentions of him in local newspapers complaining about things does not make him notable. Entrepreneur.com is not a reliable source and again doesn't barely mention him. Quote in tech publications fall well short of what is required. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable investor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Caldwell Harris

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

Poorly referenced biography of a municipal bureaucrat. While he might qualify to have a Wikipedia article if he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG for this, the only properly footnoted references here are to a Blogspot blog, not a reliable source. And while there's one additional reference contextlessly listed under a separate "sources" header after the references header, it names the newspaper and the date but fails to provide the title of the content being referenced, so I had to run a ProQuest search to determine that it's just his WP:ROUTINE obituary, which means that it doesn't singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-blogspot source on offer. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this, but the fact of having a piece of municipal infrastructure named after him is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel like this subject might have warranted a page in the 1930s or 40s if Wikipedia was around. As it stands, there just aren't enough reliable sources out there. There are a few, but they seem less concerned with the man and more focused on the water treatment plant that bears his name. I couldn't find a source that referenced anything other than his time as Commissioner of Public Works in Toronto, and even that information was limited. Gargleafg (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is this: http://www.beachesliving.ca/pages/index.php?act=landmark&id=36 and https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/meet-the-man-who-shaped-20th-century-toronto/article4186743/ and http://spacing.ca/toronto/tag/roland-caldwell-harris/ All articles about RC Harris mention the water plant, but that does mean that his notability is solely due to the water plant. Ross-c (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beaches Living is not a reliable source at all — it's a neighbourhood web business directory, not a real media outlet, so that link counts for all of exactly nothing. The Spacing link does not list any articles that are substantively about R. C. Harris at all — it just lists a few short blurbs about the plant, not anything about Harris as a person that would help him get over WP:GNG. So the only one of those links that counts for anything at all is The Globe and Mail — but that's one piece of coverage toward an inclusion criterion that requires a hell of a lot more than just one piece of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. References do not support stand-alone article. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' Harris was a person of no little significance in Toronto's past --- whatever the shortcomings of the article, it is better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.239.172 (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, a badly sourced article is not better than nothing — our basic credibility as a source of information depends on sourcing our articles properly so that people can't just make up random unsourced bullshit about him. Deletion of this would not prevent somebody from trying again in the future if they can actually locate better sourcing than we've been able to find so far, so we don't keep badly sourced articles just because they're "better than nothing". If somebody can do better than this in the future, they're absolutely more than welcome to do that — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to require us to keep it in this state of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Hijazi

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

Editor of About Her - yet to see if this online magazine even meets WP's notability criteria on magazine or web. This is another debate but BLP surely fails basic GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance. Some of the cited sources are not even reliable enough, some are non-independent of the subject - abouther.com. On a related note, @WikiDan61: PROD this BLP however the creator of the page removed the tag so let's discuss it here. Saqib (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this person has been the subject of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am new to Wikipedia, and I am not certain if I am eligible to vote on this -- especially since I am the author of the proposed page -- so please bear with me. To answer your query about the website, it is legitimate, and recently won the WAN-IFRA award for best new startup ^[1]. I apologize to have removed the 'proposed delete' tag earlier, I was encouraged to do so by Wikipedia, so I though it would be okay to remove and explain. I did not mean to offend. More importantly, the person shares the same name with a model who is also known, so there is some confusion on Google. I thought this would be a way to clarify between the two. I also intend to create a page for the model with references. The journalist is a contributor to Askmen.com, one of the biggest entertainment websites in the world, and his interviews and features have been published on Conde Nast Traveler, GQ, Harper's Bazaar and other top magazines. I am new and willing to learn and become a better Wiki contributor, so please help me understand how to make this, and other future articles better. Thank you. JenniferCraigCarter (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://events.wan-ifra.org/events/middle-eastern-digital-media-awards/content/1583

- @JenniferCraigCarter: Yes, you are allowed to comment here as the author of the page; in fact, you are encouraged to do so to bring facts to bear that might not be obvious to other editors here. And yes, you were well within Wikipedia policy to remove the Proposed Deletion tag; that's all part of the deletion process. All that being said, I don't think you've done enough to convince us that this person merits inclusion at Wikipedia. The confusion of names with another celebrity is unfortunate, but it is up to you as the page's author to provide the sources needed to verify this person's notability. The AFD process runs for seven days at a minimum, so you'll have some time to gather sources if you can. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiDan61: Thank you, I will do my best to get more information available. Should I share them here once I do, or should I just make the updates to the Journalist's page directly? Please let me know. Thank you! JenniferCraigCarter (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JenniferCraigCarter: If you find more sources, add them to the article, and then mention the updates here so that the people watching this discussion can re-evaluate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I couldn't find evidence of notability separate from the magazine, which I believe is notable. Ross-c (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: You mean merge and delete or merge and redirect. I'm happy with merge and delete but not with merge and redirection because having redirection on non-notable figures does not make sense to me. Please clarify your position. --Saqib (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I would prefer merge and redirect. My reason is that it's better if people searching for Tarek Hijazi are redirected to the magazine page, rather than nowhere at all. Ross-c (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: But it always hold the risk of page getting re-created. And Guess what the magazine's notablity can be easily questioned. I don't see it passing Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers,_magazines_and_journals. --Saqib (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: The notability of the magazine is a separate issue. I would think that a redirect would not significantly increase the probability of the article being recreated. Even if it did, I still think that a redirect is the better option.Ross-c (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: I hope you don't mind this AfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About Her, but it's very important to get rid of non-notable stuff. Feel free to comment as you like. --Saqib (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I have just responded to the 'About Her' AfD on the given page. Please refer to it for reevaluation. On another note, further to Tarek's biography, I'll have to argue about the notability of Askmen.com. It is among the the top 10,000 websites globally. That's a major feat. Tarek contributes to the site as a celebrity interviewer and his works were then syndicated to multiple print publishers around the world, and in multiple languages, via The Interview People. You can tell by the looks of his personal social media accounts here, and here, that he tends to keep a low-profile. But as someone who works with celebrities, and is constantly being quoted, I think it is justified to consider him of interest to the public. I have added more references to his Wikipedia page for reevaluation. Please have a look.

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Butch.labajo. --Saqib (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage of this subject. And COI promotion should not be encouraged. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain if it is acceptable to cast a second vote after an article has been relisted for discussion, so please ignore if that is the case. Otherwise, as author, I think that, aside from the sufficient sources already referenced on the actual article (most of which are from giant publishers), Wikipedia also encourages authors to argue based on common sense. The notion that Tarek engages celebrities and other people of public interest, makes him a subject of interest to the public, and therefore, this page serves to address that interest. JenniferCraigCarter (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote twice. --Saqib (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Sorry. Vote removed.

Note More updates made to the page (with references) about his work on Instagram. JenniferCraigCarter (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2018 (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. So Why 11:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Asad Chaudhry (Journalist)

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

Journalists are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:JOURNALIST. The article claim he authored a book but I found it non-notable (at least by WP standard). Search produce stories the subject has done for Pakistani newspaper Daily Times but doesn't produce any coverage in independent RS about himself so fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find article by him, none about him. Nor can i find any coverage of his book. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn’t even present a prima facie case for notability. Husounde (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2018 (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. So Why 09:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y. N. Murali

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

Has not received coverage in independent reliabl esources to satisfy WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has worked as cinematographer for multiple significant films. I note that there are entries for a lot of other cinematographers on wiki, and hence this role appears to be sufficient for notability. Ross-c (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Why not i am going to take legal action against for my contribution on wikipedia ? If my contribution on Y. N. Murali is deleted, I want to delete all of contribution on the wikipedia now. I am not desktop editor like you. Gnuismail (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I note that other crap exists.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom.I failed to retrieve any significant local coverage barring a single interview in a vernacular film-magazine of questionable editorial integrity.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- // significant local coverage // , So i need to arrange some local paid media news about him ? Gnuismail (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2018 (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 06:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Gir

AfDs for this article:

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

Seriously.. this is a promotional BLP.. I found coverage on the subject in the Indian newspapers and news website but most of them are gossip articles and the coverage is mention in passing and namecheck type of stuff. Found nothing in-detail or significant coverage which can help us write a proper encyclopedia bio on the subject. Press coverage is largely due to his work with the prominent Indian film personalities so Notability is not inherited applies here. The bio was previously created by the subject and was deleted via AfD so I assume the subject is back again and is very much behind this promotional BLP. (note: A SPA created this article) Saqib (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article about a fitness coach, promotional in tone (going extra miles, etc.). Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from working for clients. I don't know how close this is to the earlier AfDed article (which had been heading for a delete decision before its speedy deletion) but the arguments there are equally applicable to this instance. A man with a job, with no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is clearly promotional in tone, but that's WP:SOFIXIT. There is coverage of Gir himself. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/140816/meet-ranbir-kapoors-new-fitness-trainer.html https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/karan-johar-is-disciplined-ranbir-kapoor-lied-about-workouts/articleshow/62141460.cms https://www.tatacliq.com/que/rana-daggubati-workout-secret/ https://www.pressreader.com/india/health-nutrition/20170601/282132111399704 http://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment/news/bollywood-news/article/he-would-down-a-few-drinks-and-lie-trainer-kunal-gir-exposes-reluctant-gym-goer-ranbir-kapoor/180434 WP:GNG. These articles discuss/interview Gir himself, so not just inherited notability. Ross-c (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly differ in our assessments of these articles, but for me they are about Ranbir Kapoor, Karan Johar and Rana Daggubati. Would any of these have been published without being hung on the peg of the celebrity, for example if the subject of the article was prepared to reveal the gym regimes of Joe Bloggs and John Doe? For me, coverage regarding professional clients sits under WP:NOTINHERITED. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Per AllylD.No evidence of independent coverage and is associated with clients.Typical semi-spam entertainment-interview stuff, which bears semblance to paid-promotion/coverage, as has been discussed multiple times at ITNB.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:26, 28 April 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 14:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saroj Karki

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

I almost feel bad because the subject seems to be doing interesting work, but still fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Even if the promotional tone were fixed, I don't think notability exists. Four of five references on the article are created by the subject himself (his site, his organization, and his Facebook page). The only somewhat independent source is a youth blog that may not be reliable. Even if the "youth legend" source is reliable and independent, the coverage is just an interview and there are not multiple independent sources. I could not find any other significant coverage in reliable independent sources in English (he's mentioned in passing in a number of articles, but none are significant); my apologies if they exist in another language. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many citation and sources have been added to the article, Many of the sources are in the Nepali Language also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepwiky (talk • contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim of significance in the article despite lots of refs. Szzuk (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG

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. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scott (military officer)

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

Martin Scott does not come close to meeting WP:SOLDIER. He was brevetted twice the second time to lieutenant colonel, which was his rank when he was killed in the Mexican War. He had no civilian "track record" to satisfy WP:GNG. Much of the page is hearsay extracted from existing documents which, in turn, often read "I was told" or similar terms. The tale of a raccoon surrendering to Scott in lieu of being shot may be the most mind-boggling. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Having a fort named after you must count for something. The source in the article for that may not be very RS, but here's a better one from a book source. I'm seeing his name come up in a few books, The Life of Major General Zachary Taylor and General Scott and His Staff. All little more than passing mentions but in particular this book refers to him as "the famous Martin Scott" indicating that, at least in his own time, he had some notability. SpinningSpark 00:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~If the keep fails, then repurpose as an article about the fort.~~ The fort is definitely notable. It has a book written about it and there are scholarly papers on archaeological investigations at the site.[50][51]. SpinningSpark 01:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have an article about the fort: Fort Martin Scott.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have known. Striking my comment. SpinningSpark 22:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough mentions to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is namechecks and in passing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be more convinced of his lack of notability if someone with access to a historical American newspaper database was to comment. Highbeam does not go back far enough. For instance, their oldest result for "Custer", who was unarguably notable in his own time, is dated 1984. SpinningSpark 08:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two contemporary papers in newspapers.com that report his death; one says he is "celebrated" but doesn't say why. Newspaperarchive.com has one article about Scott talking a raccoon out of a tree and a couple articles about Fort Scott, mentioning that the post was named after Martin Scott but, other than his being killed in battle, offering no reason. I can do clippings if required.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Merge to Fort Martin Scott also possible, but I think in this case this passes GNG. SOLDIER only creates a presumption of notability - it does not preclude notability for those who do not pass, and criteria for SOLDIER are more tuned to the modern era (and less to the US army between the war of 1812 and the Mexican war - which was a small force with low ranking individuals having a significant influence in folklore and various Indian wars). I'm satisfied that the followings hits from my cursory BEFORE - [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] - that there is probably enough coverage out there for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2018 (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. No consensus about notability, but the argument that this is very clearly a promotional article (creator: Kmahmood2009) makes the "delete" case stronger. Can possibly be recreated by somebody independent. Sandstein 06:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Mahmood (academic)

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

The professor does not appear to easily pass professor test and basic GNG.. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.. the article has existed for several years now but without ever having any better sources added. Most of the cited sources are either dubious, non-independent or simply unreliable. The article says the professor have authored some books as well but I'm unable to find any of them notable, either.

PS. please refrain from posting links to Google search results because the name "Khalid Mahmood" is common name in Pakistan so namesake is rather obvious. Please try to provide some specific references here which you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also. lets not use Google Scholar to gauge this person's impact because WP:PROF warns against this.

For what it's worth, apparently the subject himself (Kmahmood2009) has been writing this promotional autobio since the page creation. Saqib (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This guy's work is very highly cited. I did this GScholar search on his name in quotes plus the word "information" outside the quotes and it seemed to filter out false positives. On a hand count it appears that his h-index is over 20. I'm not familiar with all of the journals involved, but at least some are published by Sage, which means they're selective. Some of his articles have over 100 citations. I'm going to say he passes WP:NPROF. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a very highly cited field H-Index 20 is marginal. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe H-index needs to be taken with a grain of salt. --Saqib (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think his academic roles, publishing, editorship, and leadership roles in Pakistani library organizations make him notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially all professors publish something. It's the notable work that counts. In this case, none of the subject's work constitute as notable or remarkable. President of Pakistan Library Association is not some extraordinary office. I cannot verify the subject has been chief ed of Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries. This states him as a member of the Editorial Advisory Board. But even if he's has been chief ed of the said journal, I don't the journal is some major one. I'm afraid none of these position even remotely help establish his WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem for me is that the tone is promotional - as you'd expect if he wrote it himself. So I'd say, keep, but put a COI notice at the top. Deb (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear how PROF or ANYBIO is satisfied? On a related note, I'm curious if WP:BLOWITUP make sense if we are going to keep this page? Because from the day first, the subject himself has been writing this autobio. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a borderline case. Deb (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Autobiography written by the subject and his sockpuppets. If the article were to be kept all of those accounts need to be banned from editing it, and it needs to be gutted down to the bare minimum of noteworthy independently citable facts. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notablity is marginal at best while the article fails WP:PROMO quite obviously. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such borderline articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaus Ritt

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

As for other entries here for Stefan Dollinger, Herbert Schendl, Herbert Koziol, I'm proposing this other non-notable vanity academic page with primary sources written by a user with a clear conflict of interest. These articles should be considered collectively. Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See discussion here. Polyamorph (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. At least based on English-language sources, I'm not finding sufficient material to satisfy WP:PROF or WP:NBIO. There may be material in other languages, but his field English Historical Linguistics. Cnilep (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sufficient publication to show ihe is an authority in hisspecialty of Middle English Phonetics; thismeets the basic requirement of WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the person who this article is about, I would not mind at all if it were deleted. Most important reason: everybody will think that I either wrote it myself or asked somebody to write it. I find that rather embarrassing. At least wait till I'm dead, please. ;-) Niki Ritt (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Van den Bossche

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

apparent puff piece with hall mark external links to various sites with which the subject is associated. Sources largely primary or from commercial sites. Edaham (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Edaham (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created by a user with an apparent COI, this piece makes use of in-body external links, is sourced only from the sites with which the subject is affiliated etc. Additionally I've draftified the page World_Trade_Institute, which had been (unbelievably) passed - untagged by a NPP, despite being woefully sourced only from the WTI website and being a similarly COIed puff piece - an oversight I hope. Suggest that those involved be strongly discouraged from creating pages about or affiliated with this institution and its employees. Edaham (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a horrifically-formatted article, with no independent references or clear claim of meeting WP:NPROF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 2 May 2018 (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.Waggers has summarized the condition of the debate aptly in his !vote.(non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Beedle

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

Not seeing any notability. As well as a number of other issues. ~~This may even be a hoax.~~ Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not a complete hoax: [61]. But I've removed some unsourced claims. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Slatersteven, I urge you to return and strike the assertion about this looking like a hoax. I searched the book title and instantly saw that it was a real book, although it appeared to be a textbook designed to teach computer skills related to the fact that author had founded a small company also called "Scrum". Then I searched his name, and found this Chicago Tribume article 29 March 2018 Public's help sought as police investigate stabbing death of software CEO in River North.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was referring to some of the very odd information (they were born at the age of 55) And unsourced claims like they were murdered. There is just something very odd about this. As if someone is tying to create an article with as many iffy "facts" as they can.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (I suspect that this page was created by a mourner, and it seemed cruel to call a page a "hoax," at a moment when mourners are likely to visit the page.) That aside, there was coverage of him in reputable news media for several years, coverage unrelated to the he was murder (he walked out a bar with cash in his hand, and stepped into an alley with the alleged murderer - [http://cltv.com/2018/04/06/man-56-charged-in-river-north-fatal-stabbing-of-software-ceo/ who has been denied bail.) The killing does not appear likely to be notable, but I do hope that someone who follows the Computing-related deletion will weigh in on his notability as a tech entrepreneur. He seems to have created more than one tech venture.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and we need proactive evidence of notability which is clearly lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Like John Pack Lambert, I note NOTMEMORIAL and see no basis for notability, but feel free to ping me to revisit if someone familiar with Beedle's career, his tech innovations, or roles in corporations comes up with notability that I cannot see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL
Do not delete This page is not intended as a memorial one, I have added more details about his contribution, and I think that this page should exists from many time ago, as he was one of the Agile Manifesto signators. Of course will respect your decision. Daniel Ceillan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Mike Beedle has publications with in excess of 3602, 2802, 680, 171 cites respectively (the actual number of cites is higher because they have listed some of these as several papers rather than one). These very highly cited works satisfy WP:PROF. Multiple papers with thousands of cites is notability in any field. James500 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Significant edit made please review your positions. Thanks. Daniel Ceillan (talk) 16 April 2018, at 09:50 (UTC)

Daniel, The article looks much better with your improvements. However, the thing that is required with an author or creator of technological innovations is secondary, published work discussing his innovations, things like review of the book. Articles discussion his company and his work. Articles in which his contributions are discussed. Articles and books that his work. Since you are familiar with his work, you may be able to find such material. The point is that writing a book does not confer notability according to Wikipedia standards. There have to be book reviews, articles that discuss the book, other writers have to cite it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just pointed out, according to Google Scholar, Beedle's books have received in excess of seven thousand citations. That is a clear pass of WP:PROF. Daniel does not need to do anything because I have just proved notability beyond argument. James500 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "seven thousand citations" figure isn't exactly correct (Google scholar tends to inflate citation counts) and the second and third result is actually the agile manifesto (not one of his books). You can see my comment below for a detailed explanation.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:James500 and Daniel Ceillan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge) to Scrum (software development) - This is a sightly difficult case. WP:PROF doesn't apply here as the person wasn't an academic. The argument that "Beedle's books have received in excess of seven thousand citations. That is a clear pass of WP:PROF" is not exactly correct. If you look at Google Scholar, the first book "Agile software development with Scrum" is notable (coincidentally I am reading it right now). However, the figure of "Cited by 3615"seems to be inflated. A look at citation count on ACM digital library gives 364 citations. The second and third items on google scholar are actually the same document: "Agile Manifesto" which was signed by 17 people including Beedle. I wouldn't count this as an academic publication and the citation count is inflated as Google takes into account various unpublished technical reports. Overall, the subject's claim to notability is for being one of people involved in describing "Scrum" along with Ken Schwaber in the book "Agile software development with Scrum" (mentioned above). The subject is notable for one contribution WP:BLP1E and it seems fitting to redirect this to Scrum (software development).--DreamLinker (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm. @James500, Codigodaniel, and Daniel Ceillan: to revisit their analysis of scholarly impact. Also noting that the murder continues to draw regional attention Stabbing Suspect Previously Arrested 98 Times; This Could Have Been Prevented and more similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A theoretical physicist is not an "Academic"? To be the second Scrum adopter, and the one that introduced the name "Agile" is not enough relevance? Agile and Scrum is improving the work-life of millions of people around the world. If you prefer, we can delete the "murder" part (actually, I didn't added it), as it is very fresh news and keep the life history. From an Encyclopedy perspective he was a remarkable person in the Software Industry and the new way to organize work in the Knowledge Society age. I can add more info, and would like to know from your perspective what kind of proof is needed to keep this page. A redirection to Scrum or a merge, for me don't have too much sense. One thing is the framework, and other the person. Additionally, many of the Agile Manifesto Signors already have a page in Wikipedia. Thanks Daniel Ceillan (talk) 24 April 2018, at 07:25 (UTC)

I had a look again after your reply. However my perspective on whether this deserves an independent article remains the same. I will explain why I think so

A theoretical physicist is not an "Academic"? - I am using the term academic in the context of the notability guideline. The criterion WP:ACADEMIC generally applies to someone who is engaged in scholarly research (typically at an institution) and is known for being engaged in such research. In this case, although Mike Beedle has a degree in theoretical physics, he would be considered an academic only if he had been actively researching in this field. I will add this page to the academic list for more opinions though, in case I am wrong.
To be the second Scrum adopter, and the one that introduced the name "Agile" is not enough relevance? - I searched but I wasn't able to find a citation stating that he was the "second Scrum adopter" and that he "introduced the name Agile".
Agile and Scrum is improving the work-life of millions of people around the world. - I agree, but this adds to the notability of agile and scrum
If you prefer, we can delete the "murder" part (actually, I didn't added it), as it is very fresh news and keep the life history. - A lot of the info in the article as of the current version (if we exclude the murder part) is actually about "Scrum". Ideally, this should be there in the scrum article. There bio information is not backed up by independent citations either.
One thing is the framework, and other the person. Additionally, many of the Agile Manifesto Signors already have a page in Wikipedia. - Yes, I have noticed that some of them have Wikipedia articles about them. However, that generally happens when the subject is known for multiple contributions apart from scrum. Not every person who signed the manifesto will be independently notable enough to have their own article.

My opinion still remains the same. There is not much bio information available from independent sources. While I value Mike Beedle's contributions, the proper place to mention this is the scrum article. --DreamLinker (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly research: I'm searching sources.
He was the second scrum adopter: sources added
He was who introduced the name Agile: sources added
The article is about his personal contributions to the Scrum and Agile World. Will expand this later. Also we are considering how he contributed to the first conceptions of Scrum, and more over about Enterprise Scrum. Unfortunately, he had a very low profile, and shared all his methods all around the world and never claimed notability.
Other's Agile manifesto signors has simple pages, without more info than that.
There is another way to proof notability?

Daniel Ceillan (talk) 29 April 2018, at 22:43 (UTC).

Almost every source you have added is somehow affiliated to the subject (for example, either the books of his co-authors or the website of agile manifesto or his company enterprise scrum). What we require are reliable and independent sources which discuss the subject. In general a subject is notable enough to have a separate article when multiple independent sources have discussed the subject and the coverage is not passing mentions.--

Keep ~~Comment~~ Abstract for Teams That Finish Early Accelerate Faster: A Pattern Language for High Performing Scrum Teams (System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on Conference Date(s): 6-9 Jan. 2014 Waikoloa, pp 4722 - 4728 ( https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6759182 ) seems to have a useful reference to acclaiming Scrum: A Pattern Language for Hyperproductive Software Development as a groundbreaking work ... while he was co-author the abstract notes Mike Beedle's contribution specifically. Any significant merge into Scrum (Software Development) would would be WP:UNDUE and disrupt it so opposed to that.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC). For example. I also note isbn 978-1937538392 P.13 cites his joint work for some reason or other. Arguably may (or may not) fit WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1. I'm actually quite interested in how it end up here. A new user creates his first page and a reviewer gets at it almost immediately. Now the page probably wasn't fit for article space at this time and the newbie has mentioned this. In hindsight (hihndsights easy) a welcome and a draftification would likely be a good option. Instead we are at AfD within 9 minutes with minimal dilligence to BEFORE, though that is perhaps understandable as a number of possible vandalism indicators could have been judged to be present and also just possibly as the Beadle surname is associated with a late well known UK TV joker. Anyway the newbie has improved the article, probably beyond the point at which it would have been dragged to AfD, and I'm not sure he has been given adequate support. Instead we maybe have had WP:BITE. I'm assumming good faith here ... its possible he is a sockpuppet and the initial article showed a high standard of editing for a first edit ... but the guy claims to be a Softie (Software engineer) so thats not impossible. Its also fair to comment new page reviewers have limited time and there is a lot of vandalism they need to deal with quickly.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the subject was a low profile individual. We keep separate BLP pages only if multiple independent sources have covered the subject. The other issue that almost all references are either by co-authors or from the scrum website, neither of which is independent. I agree that Beedle's book has been cited by many (although in this case the paper is written by his co-author]. Apart from the book he co-wrote, I am not able to find reliable independent references.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou to DreamLinker (talk · contribs) for pointing out at least one of the authors making the Beedle contribution claim was a co-author on the Teams That Finish Early Accelerate Faster: A Pattern Language for High Performing Scrum Teams paper in calling it groundbreaking. Also for generally appropriate article edits. This is probably heading for a No-concensus AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the fact that he was one of the original signatories of the Agile Manifesto, a cursory glance at the Google search links show that he has received more than adequate coverage in both academic and news sources. The article could probably do with some improved referencing, but deletion is not warranted here. Molpies! (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - let's see if a consensus can be reached?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is one of those tricky borderline cases where you can start quibbling over what constitutes sufficiently significant coverage and whether too many of the sources listed could be considered primary sources. But overall I'd say there's just about enough justification to merit having an article on this person, and I'm not seeing a compelling reason to delete. If I were closing this now I'd most likely close it either as a keep or, more likely, no consensus (which of course means keep by default). Waggers TALK 15:30, 11 May 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Najm Us Saqib

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

Diplomats are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:GNG per Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability. Steps were taken to locate coverage in indepdent RS WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reason suggested above is invalid as the article is not here because this person is a diplomat. This article is about a popular Urdu poet, who has published poetry books in Urdu and Spanish (4 poetry books). He has written novels in Urdu and English language. His work is recognised with prestigious awards. He has been a very popular TV and radio host. His face book page has 30,000 followers. Being a diplomat is what he does to earn his living. Article is written with the intention of giving information about this author to the readers of Urdu poetry and Literature. Hopefully my honourable editor above will take this into consideration and help me to improve this article by suggesting edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukhsanachoudhry (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: User:Rukhsanachoudhry is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Are you trying to impersonate or what? [62]. Anyway, I'm afraid the subject fails WP:AUTHOR as well. --Saqib (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error of unfamiliarity with commands. Please forgive.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukhsanachoudhry (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has been Pakistan's ambassador to various countries. Some coverage in English of his diplomatic activities and writings. I assume there is more in Urdu. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites many unreliable and non-independent references (I've removed some but the article still cite some non-independent references) and there's a lot of original research. Google search does not produce anything significant coverage about the person, even in Urdu language. Basically fails to meet basic GNG which says we need "Significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Unfortunately based on the cited and available RS, a standalone BLP cannot be created. The BLP is essentially promotion for the subject. --Saqib (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. http://www.thediplomaticsociety.co.za/archive/archive/2079-najm-us-saqibs-novel-baoo-launched-in-south-africa https://tribune.com.pk/story/658778/bilateral-relations-ambitious-to-strengthen-ties-with-south-africa/ http://www.mofa.gov.pk/brazil/pr-details.php?prID=5337 Ross-c (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've to disagree that GNG passes. First reference (thediplomaticsociety.com) discuss the book of the subject. Second reference (tribune.com.pk) is mention in passing. Third reference a press release by the Embassy of Brazil so it is not even independent of the subject and is primary source. I would say The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish notability. --Saqib (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep. per other users. M A A Z T A L K 03:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unimpressive sourcing and the keep arguments are more hopeful than policy based. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see coverage that is sufficiently in depth and from sufficiently weighty sources for this to clear the GNG threshold. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV as a poet or as a diplomat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 06:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaram Mony

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

While he has directed one notable film, that simply doesn't pass notability guidelines. And outside articles about that film which mention him as a director (none go in-depth about him), not enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, one15969,

I had come across your submission of page SIVARAM MONY for deletion. I have added a new section to the page called the Reliable Secondary Sources. You will be able to find the scanned copies of published articles from 2006 to 2017 which are not available as online articles. These documents will give you the insight about the person and the information about him being published in the page. I humbly request you to go through this and withdraw your submission for deletion.

Thanks,

User:Southindianmoviebuff —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references since added verify that this director passes WP:NFILM. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is also now demonstrated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (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 to delete. But consensus that, if we do have an article, if should be about Mold (magazine). Sandstein 06:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LinYee Yuan

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

BLP on Non-notable person, who's claim to fame appears to be a magazine kickstarter. Sources do little to establish notability and a web search yields nothing significant. Polyamorph (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would make sense to rename the article to MOLD (magazine) because it is primarily about the magazine, not its editor. Vexations (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree except I can't find significant coverage to satisfy notability for this magazine kickstarter either.Polyamorph (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Designo, Metropolis and Saveur? Vexations (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They give the magazine some coverage yes, but is it non trivial significant coverage to satisfy WP:NPOV? I would say no. Polyamorph (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Change the article to be about MOLD magazine (which all the references are discussing) and include Yuan in that article. Ross-c (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is about the person. Not the magazine. The sources might be about the magazine but moving to MOLD (magazine), a page that does not exist, will require a complete rewrite. Who is going to do this? Besides, what in your opinion makes the magazine notable? Polyamorph (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mold (magazine) which is the main subject of the significant coverage (what there is) from the RS available. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 4 May 2018 (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. Numerous sources have been offered, but there's been very little actual discussion. Sandstein 06:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quek See Ling

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

While she is a published author, I can find nothing to support a claim that she passes either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. If someone with skill in Chinese can validate sources, be happy to withdraw the nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per analysis

Do let me say this is not China related discussion but Singapore. I am a Native Chinese Speaker with Both English and Chinese as my first language. I will try to analyse this article

Poetry Collections
Gaining While Losing (《得不到你时得到你》) (Written and Illustrated by Quek See Ling) (Singapore: Self-Publishing, 2017) ISBN 978-981-11-2387-0
(Search per NLB - National Library Board catalogue - available in all public, regional, reference libraries under NLB, one on loan currently)
When Your Muse Is Stuck in Traffic (《当你灵感塞车》) (Singapore: Self-Publishing, 2016) ISBN 978-981-09-8872-2
(Same)
Bulletproof, Yet How Could We Embrace (《穿着防弹衣的我们怎么拥抱》) (Singapore: Self-Publishing, 2015) ISBN 978-981-09-4045-4
(Same, note it is even in https://www.nlb.gov.sg/Research/PublicationSG.aspx - PublicationSG is the National Library's collection of our nation's published heritage. There are more than one million items collected. Topics span the diverse fields of literary and visual arts, business, social sciences and humanities. - intro by NLB, statutory board under Singapore Ministry of Culture, Communication and Youth)
Walking Me on Me (《我走在我之上》) (Singapore: Self-Publishing，2014) ISBN 978-981-09-1287-1
(Same note also on publicationSG)

Historical Books
《致读者：新加坡书店故事1881-2016》 (One of the five contributors and editors) (Singapore: Chou Sing Chu Foundation, 2016) ISBN 978-981-09-8944-6
(Same note also on publicationSG)
Passage of Time: Singapore Bookstore Stories 1881-2016 (One of the Five Contributors and Editors) (Singapore: Chou Sing Chu Foundation, 2016) ISBN 978-981-09-8945-3
(Same note also on publicationSG)

Sources
郭诗玲〈诗人简介〉，郭诗玲《我走在我之上》（新加坡：自行出版，2014）
Translated - autobio - not reliable
〈郭诗玲〉，王润华等编《新加坡华文文学五十年》（新加坡：八方文化创作室，2015）
Translated - autobio - not reliable
〈新诗19首简介〉，鸿鸿主编《卫生纸+》（第31期）（台北：黑眼睛文化事业有限公司，2016年4月），页6
Translated - 2nd party coverage - not really reliable IMO
鸿鸿〈你真的算过鸡兔同笼的脚吗？——诗集《得不到你时得到你》与郭诗玲现象〉，封德屏总编辑《文讯》（第381期）（台北：文讯杂志社，2017年7月），页128-129
Translated - 2nd party coverage - not really reliable IMO
〈青年诗人郭诗玲新书分享会〉，《联合早报》，副刊第5版（新加坡，2017年6月30日）
Translated - 2nd party coverage - reliable due to this being the mainstream media newspaper
陈宇昕报道〈后真相时代：诗歌能起怎样的作用？——访台湾诗人鸿鸿与许悔之〉，《联合早报》，副刊头版（新加坡，2017年4月3日）
Translated - 2nd party coverage - reliable due to this being the mainstream media newspaper
赵琬仪报道〈“早报书选2016”最后一场座谈会：希望书店与读者继续相恋〉，《联合早报》，副刊第5版（新加坡，2017年5月16日）

〈2016年《联合早报》书选〉，《联合早报》，副刊第8版（新加坡，2017年1月8日）

Translated - 2nd party coverage - reliable due to this being the mainstream media newspaper

Awards
2017：Booklist of Lianhe Zaobao 2016 (《致读者：新加坡书店故事1881-2016》[Passage of Time: Singapore Bookstore Stories 1881-2016], one of the five contributors and editors) [7][8]
personal opinion - this awards can be given to any singapore author whose books are in bookstore

As per WP:AUTHOR

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
No
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
No
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
No, the award is insignificant
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
Yes, for the publicationSG + all the works are in the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library - https://www.nlb.gov.sg/About/LeeKongChianReferenceLibrary.aspx, I will say it meet

Since WP:AUTHOR met, i don't have to go into WP:GNG where it will meet as reliable secondary sources cited it which make it notable. (I use WP:RS as a guide but focuses on Singapore consensus created list of reliable source ([63], which the few sources is clearly reliable)

Therefore, Keep --Quek157 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further recommendations - label as stub class and then some non related author can take it further. I will support a keep is based on the fact IMO meet both author / gng. but should the COI involved editor make it more advert like, we may need to block the user (no COI declaration) or rather just delete based on advert (CSD). The article needs major rewrite. And maybe chinese wiki may be more suitable but this is still notable here --Quek157 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://canal6.com.hn/otras-noticias/guatemala-pone-en-aeropuerto-a-guarda-que-habla-diez-idiomas.html

[2] ttp://www.chapintv.com/actualidad/pedro-perebal-el-joven-poliglota-llega-a-su-primer-dia-de-trabajo-en-aeronautica-civil-161287

[3] ttp://www.genteditalia.org/2018/05/04/guatemala-borsa-di-studio-per-il-poliglotta-pedro/

[4] ttp://www.prensalibre.com/PrensaLibreTV/DetalleTV/1876451

[5] ttp://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/guatemala/poliglota-recibe-becas-para-estudiar-italiano-y-aleman#cxrecs_s

[6] ttp://www.chapintv.com/buscador/perebal

[7] ttp://www.rai.it/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem-4a049830-c42b-499c-b2e0-97eedcf952bc.html

[8] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKUkaDXIFis

[9] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20180522005445/https://canal6.com.hn/otras-noticias/guatemala-pone-en-aeropuerto-a-guarda-que-habla-diez-idiomas.html

[10] ttp://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-43843383

[11] ttp://www.genteditalia.org/2018/05/04/guatemala-borsa-di-studio-per-il-poliglotta-pedro/

[12] ttp://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/guatemala/pedro-el-guardia-de-seguridad-que-habla-diez-idiomas-y-quiere-aprender-mas

[13] ttp://www.chapintv.com/actualidad/disciplina-y-esfuerzo-premiaron-a-pedro-perebal-158281

[14] ttp://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/guatemala/pedro-perebal-el-guardia-poliglota-cumple-con-su-primer-dia-de-trabajo-en-aeronautica-civil

[15] ttp://www.chapintv.com/actualidad/pedro-perebal-el-poliglota-cumple-su-sueno-161303

[16] "My life - Statistical Data". My Life. Retrieved 1 May 2018.

[:5-17] "Committee Opinion #620: Salpingectomy for Ovarian Cancer Prevention". American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Committee on Gynecologic Practice. January 2015. Retrieved 12 April 2018.

[18] "Twitter - Scott Faughn".

[19] "While Missouri Slept".

[20] ttps://events.wan-ifra.org/events/middle-eastern-digital-media-awards/content/1583

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 <!-- 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/Isima_Odeh}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T_Low}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aleksandra_Lalić}}