Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Moreira (producer)

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

Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG. Can be merged to Miss Teen Earth International Akronowner (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Akronowner (talk · contribs) has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Pahunkat (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable event producer and only beauty pageant owner of Ecuador which works as producer of international beauty contests linked to important causes. Continuing with my contribution of beauty pageants I have added new sources. Yuliana Alfonso (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 19:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-remarkable bio and did not meet WP:GNG--Richie Campbell (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources were found, he is cited in many news articles. It could be merged to Miss Teen Earth, but that wouldn't be ideal. It's more than just a passing mention, seems to satisfy WP:GNG as this person and his beauty pageants has seen much media coverage. Jenifer Liberman (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 19:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - garden variety beauty pageant sockpuppet spam. MER-C 19:25, 8 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandreshekar Sonwane

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG; no other mentions in reputable sources, the subject generally appears to be a somewhat high achieving engineer, but there's no proof of established notability. There are no third party independent sources about them. The article was created by a new single-purpose account that have made no other edits in past two years. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that at least some of his many fellowships, as well as his membership in European Academy of Sciences and Arts, are enough for WP:PROF#C3. Searches may be helped by spelling his name correctly: Chandrashekhar, not Chandreshekar. I don't think his citation record is enough for WP:PROF#C1 but a single criterion is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. AFD discussions are far too prone to apply standards of celebrity journalism to people of genuine achievement and unremarkable personal lives. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per explained by David Eppstein, passes WP:PROF. Akronowner (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPROF is what needs to be looked at, not WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC as outlined in previous !votes, but a 2.5 year old misnamed BLP is beyond embarrassing and it needs to be moved as soon as the AfD is closed. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:02, 11 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Unay

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR. None of the references provide in-depth, reliable, independent coverage of Unay. Routine coverage only that is likely self-promotion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure promo piece on an utterly non-notable character, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Could have been speedied IMHO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After some off-wiki discussion a day or two ago I also believe WP:NACADEMIC#C7 is a stretch, and likely isn't met, so that's not an option either. Perryprog (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My WP:BEFORE search may be limited by my location and language (I don't live in Turkey after all), but so far as I can see, there's nothing in the way of SIGCOV anywhere. Most sources just quote him rather than discussing him in depth, and then in any case those sources quoting him do look like run-of-the-mill coverage that normally finds little use for establishing notability. Additionally, the vast majority of the coverage on Unay is from one agency, and I have doubts as to if it is reliable. Java Hurricane 01:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've seen this article twice as a draft, and both times (1) the sources were horriffically poor - most of them were basically just quoting/closely paraphrasing Unay - and (2) Google returned absolutely nothing useful (string: "deniz unay"). It's painfullly obvious the sourcing has not improved a whit. Whoever approved this needs to be pulled aside for a lecture. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the obstinancy we see and the quite apparent high conflict of interest, salt the earth after deletion and watchlist any variant names (Denis/Deniz Unai/Unei/Unay) as well. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I really don't understand how this could have been accepted at AfC. The sourcing is quite poor and the subject clearly does not meet WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Waggie (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:hello i read your comments on this article

1) If you search "Deniz Unay Social Media Expert" on Google News, you can find many explanations and articles in English. 2) "Sea Ünay" living in Turkey can examine a major name kaynaklard career completely addictive for Technology in Turkey "Social Responsibility Project" offers training and seminars for 5 years. not only in Turkey Erasmus Project has trained in eğitimcilere from abroad covered Finally, the Russian government Advocates of unity "for Social Media Regulation in Russia" online with expert names in the field in the world to have been invited to the conference Feedback has been published by inviting institutions and the Russian national press. 3) In addition, his articles have been translated into more than 15 languages. As you can see on the Talk page, Al Jazeraa has been featured in important news websites and International agencies such as Pakistan NY TIMES. 4) Deniz UNAY's views on the Covid 19 infodemia were included in the "Europan Science" Science journal and in the Spanish science article. 5) This article was previously rejected as duplicate content. Then it turned out that after my article was published, this error was copied and published by other sites. 6) Yesterday this article was approved by an admin, and then a warning was issued for this article in the form of a paid and for money article. I did not pay any name to any of them. This is definitely a mistake just like a copy content error, and I have no problem to give anyone a dignity that they do not have. Imagine if a person has been doing important studies in his country and around the world for 5 years, if his articles are translated from language to language and published, do you think there may be a doubt, I just added what I think is the most important by reviewing more than 2000 articles on googe news. It would be approved in a shorter time, not a long and controversial process like 4 months. 7) As for the conversations in the Wikipedia support chat room. I have applied all positive and constructive evaluations I deleted what I should have deleted I corrected the statements deemed inappropriate in the article. But I did not hurt me in the face of hurtful behavior towards me. I tried to understand and apply it correctly within 4 months. If the subject of this article did not deserve to be on Wikipedia, maybe it would be deleted in the first days. Frankly, it was a reason that made me hope and gave up. Finally, I do not want to lose my belief that you will be more positive and constructive in this article. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs)

You were repeatedly told in -en-help and by reviewers who you couldn't bully that the article and its sourcing were unacceptable. Your responce was to refuse to take any criticism on board.
1. This is demonstrably false. You should not need the "social media expert" part of the string since the only sources I could find were name-drops of Uzay with the string I indicated. You were told this in no uncertain terms and ignored it.
2. These do not help for notability in the slightest due to Uzay's connexion to them. You were told this in no uncertain terms and ignored it.
3. This is irrelevant. The Al Jazeera source is literally just parroting what Uzay said, and the user who said that source was good walked it back in further discussion in -en-help - which you blatantly ignored.
4. Both of these are, as with the Al Jazeera source, literally just parroting what Uzay says. You were told this in no uncertain terms and ignored it.
5. That was already dispensed with, and is irrelevant to the present situation, as the issue here is WP:Notability, not copyvio. You were told this in no uncertain terms and ignored it in favour of continuing to scream about it.
6. This article should not have been accepted in the first place, which is more an indictment of your continued haranguing of them and their willingness to violate policy to placate you than the acceptableness of the content. Chicdat is also NOT an administrator.
7. You applied pretty much none of what myself and other helpers told you, instead repeating the same debunked arguments and flat-out just ignoring any sort of criticism levied towards your draft. The sources are scarcely different here than from the last time we spoke on IRC, and even then every single source was faulty.
Your entire argument here is a self-serving lie. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is *ahem* the third time that a user has pressured me into accepting an article. My weakness is with new users. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some interesting things. Whatever he says is taken and being reported on: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (second half). One more source about his general life, though I doubt that this is enough. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is reason to suspect that the site is being paid to do this reporting. That site is more or less the only source on his statements, and all other sources clearly state that the quotes are from that website. Java Hurricane 08:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't so much "being reported on" as they are just quoting him. It's not significant coverage. I've seen most of those sources and dismissed them, and the new sources here are more of the same - quotes, no significant coverage of the guy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 08:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article writing course people in the opinions of a writer in Turkey will take place in dozens of different places.

Look, there are dozens of articles in Google News results. There is a Protocol document with the Ministry of Education. We are not talking about an ordinary person An important name who produces projects, whose opinions are asked, his articles have been translated into 15 languages, and his views used in science articles It's true I have trouble understanding Wikipedia, but I'm sure this person really deserves to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Hello As far as I understand from the press in Turkey and I need to make a statement about the sources 1) "Anadolu Agency", one of my sources, is the state's news agency and is a 100-year-old news agency. "Anadolu Agency" broadcasts in about 10 languages. Here you need to be an important person to make a statement or express an opinion. 2) The Independent in Turkey Sea Ünay page belonging text itself has not caused any significant article you published. https://www.indyturk.com/node/136106/t%C3%BCrkiyeden-sesler/%C3%A7e%C5%9Fitli-ya%C5%9F-gruplar%C4%B1nda-teknoloji-ba%C4%9F % C4% B1ml% C4% B1l% C4% B1% C4% 9F% C4% B1-you-how-up-e-social 3) Many national publications such as Hurriyet, Milliyet in Turkey, Haberturk has included the explanation repeatedly. 4) Approximately 5 years in Turkey CNN consulted several times in the national news as Turkish TRT channel. 5) Recently, for the adverse share on social media for Vaccine Denial of Turkey Ministry of Health Sciences Board members who place their opinions after Anadolu Agency joined the program to the TV program has a news service https://www.aa.com.tr/en/latest-on-coronavirus-outbreak/combat-infodemic-over-covid-19-vaccines-says-expert/2108013 In the title of this article, he is mentioned as a Turkish Social Media Expert and writer. It is also a name that has entered many national and international sources. why would you prefer paid publications? If you have contact with Wikipedia Turkish editors, these resources will definitely verify you. Frankly, I hope you will understand better and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Anadolu is a crap source that I've already discussed and dismissed in -en-help. You were told this in no uncertain terms and ignored it.
2. This is broken English and therefore impossible to try to respond to because it is nonsense as written. But I am fairly certain the Independent was discussed and dismissed on -en-help. You were told this in no uncertain terms and ignored it.
3. All of which were discussed and dismissed as little more than just repeating what Unay said, rather than discussing him. You were explicitly told this and you blew it off.
4. This is sophistry at best.
5. This is likewise sophistry. The source proffered was definitely discussed and dismissed as more parroting. You were told this in no uncertain terms and ignored it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my mind – I regret accepting it. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure hype. Deb (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the results on this link

Has been featured in Kazakhstan News agency and websites https://www.google.com/search?q=site:kz+%22deniz+unay%22&filter=0&biw=1280&bih=612 Also in Vietnam https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Avn+%22deniz+unay%22&oq=site%3Avn+%22deniz+unay%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.7452j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Spanish https://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/tecnologia/1/coronavirus-infodemia-pandemia There are many places even outside Turkey Please don't be so biased and negative For Wikipedia, it is not enough for you that someone has done major projects with the "Educator" Volunteer Author and the Ministry of Education in his own country. For example, look at this He prepared great galleries with his signature on special occasions such as Mother's Day, April 23 Children's Day, and these galleries became news in all national media. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/pg/foto-galeri/basin-ilan-kurumundan-anneler-gunu-albumu- https://www.trthaber.com/haber/turkiye/dunya-gundemine-yon-veren-isimlerin-cocukluk-halleri-412886.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google is useless as a cite. Those first two sources are photo galleries that are ultimately name-drops at best, and the third is more of the same useless parroting of the subject instead of actually talking about them. All are useless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 14:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 16:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources and not enough coverage. The article claims that he's a writer but he hasn't published any major works, books or articles either. Keivan.f^Talk 20:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Okay, I stopped at the social media expert part, that’s all I needed to 'hear' to know this was utter BS. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Misplaced unsigned comment, moved from top of page:

Hello, I'm having trouble understanding the discussion here 1) From the very beginning; I work with all my good intentions and efforts and offer many resources and references. But each editor looks at the behavior of the other and writes Delete, Delete Quickly Delete. 2) Well, if everyone is going to behave so cruelly and unfairly, new editors won't have much chance to survive ... 3) Yes, if you really want to lynch and delete them collectively, I don't have the power to prevent it. You can delete it is possible. 4) Everyone deserves to be conscientious, to see the effort, to be just and kind. Finally, if a referee or review team will listen to me and understand me, I am sure, outside of this environment. a more just conclusion will come ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to pressure us - again - into keeping this article. Still Delete and not changing my mind. You're still not hearing what experienced editors explained to you, and you still do not believe that you did anything wrong. "I work[ed] with all my good intentions and efforts..." no, you did not. You stubbornly refused to listen. "[I] offer[ed] many resources and references." You didn't mention that they all failed WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. "But each editor looks at the behavior of the other..." We didn't, we looked at policies, we did WP:BEFORE searches, we reviewed WP:URS, then we !voted. "...and writes Delete, Quickly [Speedy] Delete." Well, you would have gotten a lot more keep votes if you simply listened to us. We have a case of this here. There are six million other Wikipedia articles to edit. Just drop the stick and get the point! 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally suspect that this is an instance of WP:UPE or some other form of irreconciliable conflict of interest here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you help me with this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources Say here Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Mainstream newspapers

Ok let's take a look at my resources accordingly 1) file: /// Users / denizunay / Downloads / 6101-14047-1-PB% 20 (8) .pdf Europine Science Peer-reviewed scientific journal published in Europe The article is published by citing his article published by Anadolu Agency. 2) http://revistaestilosdeaprendizaje.com/article/download/2171/3207/ Scientific Paper Study for the European Observatory Committee of Experts Peer-reviewed scientific journal published in Europe The article is published by citing his article published by Anadolu Agency. 3) https://www.trt.net.tr/vizyondergisi/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/mart-2019.pdf State television TRT in Turkey belongs to "TRT Vision" magazine cover his "Game Not Cyberbullying" Cover the warning did. This news operation in the Republic of Turkey News on page 30 was given to the views of the Minister of Education and Minister of Transport. 4) Among my sources were links of organizations that broadcast Mainstream Regularly. Anadolu Agency Takes Jazerá Hurriyet, Milliyet bianet.org independent Turkish Haberturk tribune.co inside and outside of Turkey, such as many reliable sources https://mubasher.aljazeera.net/news/politics/2020/4/12/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%88%D9%85%D8 % A7% D8% AA-% D8% A7% D9 84% D9 85% D8% B6% D9 84% D9 84% D8% A9-% D9 81% D9% 8A% D8% B1% D9 88% D8% B3-% D8% A3% D9 83% D8% AB% D8% B1-% D8% A7% D9% 86% D8% AA% D8% B4% D8% A7% D8% B1% D8 A7 http://tribune.com.pk/story/2208176/8-connection-5g-COVID-19 5) He also has Turkish and English CV's of his own and enough information about himself and his work. Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education, and I offer resources from other official institutions 6) Erasmus Program Training I presented as a source, https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/tech-addiction-poses-mental-physical-threats-expert-150261/ In addition, the Russian National Press has given his views on the Social Media Law Regulation in Russia after the International Conference he attended. https://www.oprf.ru/press/news/2617/newsitem/56156 https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/2020/12/10_a_13394533.shtml 7) One of his articles translated into Vietnamese and published in the entire Vietnamese national press https://ictnews.vietnamnet.vn/cuoc-song-so/tong-thong-trump-mang-xa-hoi-dang-thao-tung-tu -do-ngon-luan-cua-cong-chung-253844.html 8) Self-written and published Children's storybook translated into Turkish and English He wrote a book called Muzip Yaman telling about technology addiction for primary and secondary school children, and it was translated into English with the name Willy Yaman. More resources from all the details are available on Google All of the resources I have provided to date meet all the criteria. He is an author, an educator, his book has been published. Please help me before deleting this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. That source is broken, but if it's one of the two pdfs I initially looked at (the two were identical, save for colourisation) then it's a name-drop and useless. You were explicitly told this and blew it off.
2. This is a non-starter. One paper cited to his work does not come within a light-year of meeting WP:NSCHOLAR.
3. I cannot assess this source, but given your overall behaviour and the quality of sources you've proffered thus far this is unlikely to be acceptable as a source.
4. Both the Al Jazeera and Tribune sources were discussed and dismissed. You were present when I assessed these sources and flat-out ignored what I said.
5. Cirricula vitae are not acceptable sources.
6. Hurriyet was discussed and dismissed, oprf.ru and Gazeta are yet more parroting of what Uzay says. None are usable.
7. The Vietnamese source proffered 404s out.
8. Anything that's "self-written and published" in a biography is only usable for confirming that he said/believes something, and is not usable for notability purposes.
Frankly, your behaviour verges on flooding the zone with shit. It's the worst aspects of a Gish gallop and sophistry I've ever seen, and it reinforces that you just plain have no interest in listening to any form of criticism. What is your connexion to Unay? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7 Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is G11-worthy. Major promo/not notable Mario Jump 83! 23:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Emremer, what you're doing is a sign of bludgeoning. Don't force them to agree with you. If they have their reason on why the page should be deleted, then be it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Definitely a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that most of us thought otherwise but Point #1 in this edit from Emremer says to me that this article is autobiographical. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it since that's how you say it in Turkish when literally translated. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're referring to the filepath. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:34, 8 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 delete. Sandstein 20:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Thu La Pyae

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

non notable student actor, no major roles and no in depth coverage in any language. CUPIDICAE💕 16:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. I did a quick search in my language and can't see any way that this can pass WP:GNG. Phoela14 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - this has to be almost a borderline WP:A7; there's no credible claim of significance here, unless I'm missing something. Does not meet WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC etc. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a speedy deletion, I just wanted a final nail in the coffin since they've repeatedly created it. It's bordering on a hoax, actually. CUPIDICAE💕 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that it's a vanity article judging by the fact that the user has no interest in editing outside of this article and is doing their absolute best to disrupt this discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all of that in mind, I have requested salting Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 18:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. I have read the only reference and it is about a completely different person, with no mention of this article's creator. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 22:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability is made here. As Pinktoebeans indicates, the only reference cited is about a completely different person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per all about. There is no such Burmese actor with that name. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 09:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because someone "wants to be a famous artist" does not mean they are notable. It is articles like this that make me 100% sure we need to make creating articles more difficult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I think we need to make all new articles go through AfC. However, I think we need to change our perameters so that users cannot create new articles in their first 50 edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure that we could call this a "hoax". It is an article written it seems by a high school senior in Myanmar who has a very weak grasp of the English language about himself. As best I can tell, he is involved in band at his school, and may or may not have been involved in school theatrical productions. It is unclear what he means by wanting to be an "artist", since in some circles this word is actually used instead of musician. Beyond that his only other claim seems to be that he went and visited multiple places in Myanmar, and he created what apparently is meant to be a list of specific places that he visited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another copy-paste article is incubating in draft namespace as Draft:Thu La Pyae. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Praxidicae's nom rationale. Furthermore, yes I agree with Johnpacklambert, I believe a mechanism should be developed to that effect & although it is quixotic of me to say this, but I also want a time to come whereby all articles are mandated to pass through the AFC process, theoretically speaking, that would be a very daunting task if it were to happen but I feel that would eliminate UPE & the creation of non notable articles. Celestina007 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. If the closing admin would be so kind as to ping me, the associated Wikidata item was nominated for deletion but can't be deleted while the article still exists here. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failure of GNG, BIO and NACTOR. Java Hurricane 14:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Clearly not notable. This page is being repeatedly recreated, if possible please salt it. Ashley yoursmile! 07:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't think this is relevant. VocalIndia (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :) — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:42, 11 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 keep. The nomination has received little support and plenty of opposition and so there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schlossberg

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

American is not a monarchy. We have no heirs presumptive, and as Massachusetts showed last year people have stopped bowing to the Kennedy family and their false presumptions they are better than the rest of us. There is nothing about this guy that is anywhere near notability, and the fact that foreign journalists disrespect our Republicanism and create articles built on false assumptions of inheritance of office and power is not in and of itself a good reason to have an article on someone who has never made any notable accomplishments John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As was well pointed out in the last deletion discussion, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and that is the level of many of the sources. Also Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause. Early Wikipedia was a madhouse of unregulated article creation with no notability guidelines at all. So the fact that this article has sat around a long time is not in and of itself a source of showing notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominations for deletion generally go smoother if there are policy based reasons for deletion rather than arguments based on emotion. In this case that would be:

"Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not INHERITed." 174.212.238.163 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - a good WP:ATD would be to merge encyclopedic content to the closest notable direct relative's article and redirect. 174.212.238.163 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This the 8th (!) AfD (missing one of the list) plus 2 DRVs - how long will this ridiculous campaign to delete the article continue?? Each time the article has added new sources and expanded. It is even more notable today then any time in the past. The deletion arguments are flawed - the topic clear passes WP:GNG. Furthermore INHERIT essay has nothing to do with it, read it now, including the disclaimer at the top - it is arguments to avoid making during an AfD, that is all, nobody here is making the argument "Keep because he has a famous relative", the argument is Keep because of GNG. The claim made above by Johnpacklambert that this article has "sat around" unexamined is obviously ludicrous in light of the many failed AfDs, extensive edit history and vast number of page views this article receives daily. -- GreenC 17:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still no substance. He is just a run of the mill graduate student which in no way makes him notable. The coverage is vaucuous, passing, incidental or tabloid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those characterizations of the sources are extremely opinionated and not supported on examination. -- GreenC 17:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look, the first discussion deleted this article, and nothing has fundamentally changed in the last decade to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just look through the article history and see how far it has developed. That first version that was deleted looks nothing like it is today. -- GreenC 17:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline on articles about people, the relevant guideline for consideration of deletion of this article, which is a biography. The guideline states that a person is notable enough for an article "if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The guideline also states, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Although it's too bad that so many sources considered as tabloids have been cited in this article, Jack Schlossberg has been the subject of many other articles, which are independent from each other and the subject himself and are in reliable and reputable publications. Here are several examples:

- Sullivan, Kate (January 19, 2020). "JFK's grandson slams Pence's interpretation of 'Profiles in Courage'". CNN. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

- Budrik, Zack (January 19, 2020). "JFK's grandson calls Pence op-ed a 'total perversion' of Kennedy's legacy". The Hill. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

- Sharir, Moran (February 23, 2020). "Meet JFK's Grandson Jack Schlossberg, the Democrats' New Hope". Haaretz. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

- Hallemann, Caroline (May 13, 2018). "JFK's Grandson, Jack Schlossberg, Makes His Television Debut". Town & Country. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

- Ruiz, Michelle (May 5, 2017). "JFK's Grandson, Jack Schlossberg, Steps Into the Spotlight". Vogue. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

- Bose, Debanjali (September 30, 2020). "Meet the modern Kennedy family: The most prominent members of America's most famous political dynasty". Business Insider. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

You will also notice that the sources of the articles listed above are each notable enough to be the subject of their own article on Wikipedia. The topic of this article has only received more media coverage since this article last appeared at AfD, meaning it should be an easy decision to retain this article in the encyclopedia. - tucoxn\^talk 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- No all those are cases of coverage not based on anything he did, but based on being related to other people. This all fails any reasonble understanding of not inherited rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely inaccurate characterization of the sources. Even if he became president of the USA they will continue to mention his famous family, nobody can avoid that shadow. Sorry you don't like how he became notable. I don't like how some people because notable either but I don't go around trying to delete those articles. . -- GreenC 22:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And stop the same guy from nominating it for deletion yet again. This is ridiculous we have to keep doing this. Reliable sources were found, he passes the general notability guidelines getting coverage for things other than who was related to. What I mentioned in one of the past AFDs, I participating in multiple ones, https://people.com/celebrity/jack-schlossberg-president-john-f-kennedys-grandson/ https://www.today.com/news/jfks-grandson-takes-center-stage-9-things-we-know-about-2D11635076 https://nypost.com/2013/02/27/jfks-heir-apparent/ plenty of information about him, regardless of who he was related to. Dream Focus 20:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if you look at the coverage it is virtually all incidental to who his relatives are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We had this discussion last time you sent this to AFD. I've been in previous AFDs for this as well. They give plenty of coverage to him as a person on his own. The fact they always mention whose grandson he is, doesn't change that. Dream Focus 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (or redirect to Caroline) - He's notable because reliable sources cover him, due to Camelot's continued pull. The comparison to royalty is apt; divorce him from his family, and he's a guy who ... went to Harvard. Caro7200 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recognize they are notable because of the sources. There is no rule, policy, guideline or anything that disqualifies a notable person because of how they became notable. -- GreenC 22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I recognize that Wikipedia very often considers living persons to be notable simply because they are covered, in whatever contexts and for whatever reasons, in reliable sources. Not because the subjects have actually accomplished anything of note. Caro7200 (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that Caro7200 admits "he's notable" and understands that Wikipedia "considers living persons to be notable simply because they are covered, in whatever contexts and for whatever reasons, in reliable sources." That's exactly what's going on in the article about Jack Schlossberg, who has received received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. - tucoxn\^talk 00:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that coverage of the Kennedys in People or the Post is primarily about attracting eyeballs and therefore revenue. And it's also important to note that when the article was originally deleted, in 2011, the subject was mostly known as a Kennedy who attended school. In 2021, the subject is mostly known as a Kennedy who attended school and, I guess, accompanies his mother to events. As an alternative to deletion, the article can be redirected to Caroline. Caro7200 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every commercial news source is in the business of attracting eyeballs and making money. Your requirement for him to have done something more (what?) is not supported by any rule, policy or guideline, it's setting the bar higher than exists, we gauge notability based on coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are lots of Wikipedia articles about people who are less accomplished than Kennedy, and we do not reject articles because of how their notability was achieved. -- GreenC 17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC) (sig orignally posted 03:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, yes, we can pretend that, when covering heirs and socialites, the NYT, for example, and People or the Post have the exact same motivations. I see this as most similar to an Alyssa Carson situation... And, as per the "weak" aspect of the vote, I don't think that it's completely unreasonable that JFK's grandson has an article primarily because he's JFK's grandson... Caro7200 (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah a rare sighting of WP:INHERIT: I don't think that it's completely unreasonable that JFK's grandson has an article primarily because he's JFK's grandson. This is precisely what WP:INHERIT is made for, it is an argument to avoid in AfD. Arguing keep/delete because of who he is violates WP:INHERIT. We have articles because of sources. -- GreenC 17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did advocate last year for keeping an article on one of Oswald's girlfriends ... so perhaps I've become a soft touch when it comes to the Kennedys. Caro7200 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If this were the first time this article had come to AfD, I might have recommended deletion, but this article has passed AfD with a "keep" twice before, and the subject hasn't gotten less notable in the intervening three years since the last "keep" verdict. In fact, he has since been the subject of articles in People, Esquire, and the New York Post. So he seems to pass the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few editors cited coverage in the New York Post to support Keep !votes. According to recent consensus, this source is "generally unreliable" which means that it doesn't contribute to notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW of the 30 citations in the article only 2 are to the New York Post, one of which reports his father died in a plane crash thus could easily be replaced with another source, such as a book. -- GreenC 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons cited above and in the 7 prior deletion discussions. Easily passes WP:GNG. WP:Notability#Notability is not temporary is not transient. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage is there. The anti-Kennedy nomination statement ("as Massachusetts showed last year people have stopped bowing to the Kennedy family and their false presumptions they are better than the rest of us") concerns me. We haven't bowed Of course it'll talk about his being a Kennedy. The nomination statement shows a bias against the Kennedys that is concerning. Nominator's feelings on the Kennedys are so strong that they seem to affect his judgment of notability. He should strike some of the nomination statement, IMO. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Kennedy statements have been there in most of the AfDs, like dog whistles. We keep having these repetitive AfDs. -- GreenC 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand the impulse for Egalitarianism and anti elitism. I have some sympathy for that.

And true enough, the Kennedys, like some other wealthy families, act like pretended Royalty.

But all of that has nothing to do with notability as it is understood in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per snow, as well as the fact that the premise of this nomination is just some kind of rant about the user's person beliefs about the media. "the fact that foreign journalists disrespect our Republicanism and create articles built on" is admitting that the subject meets notability guidelines for a WP page. Not a matter for AFD at all.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is this a personal vendetta by the nominator? I dropped eleven sources in the last AfD nom for this article which was started by the same nominator. The notability of this person (scion only known for looking somewhat attractive he may be) is approaching indisputability. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if America looks like a monarchy from time to time, it's not Wikipedia's fault. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:45, 11 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopakumar.R

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

Non-notable artist who fails WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO, WP:SIGCOV. Citations in the article are only some passing mention. Google search doesn't provide anything better. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sigcov. Possibly (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This artist does not meet our criteria for inclusion; does not pass WP:GNG, nor WP:NARTIST. I could not find any sigcov in RS's when doing a BEFORE search. Netherzone (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:44, 11 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 keep. Tone 15:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Did It Again!

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

Fails WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable producer. After further research a song he produced is currently #15 in the United States. Seems like John Pack Lambert above missed that research. Urboysummy(talk) 23:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I guess he meets WP:BASIC and WP:COMPOSER as he have produced notable songs with artists including "223's" by YNW Melly & 9lokkNine, "Jump" by DaBaby & Youngboy Never Broke Again, "Best Friend" by Saweetie & Doja Cat and more. Akronowner (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Urboysummy but improve sourcing; some of the assertions of the article are dubious. (Discovering Austin Mahone and T-Pain - I can't find reliable sources to confirm either.) JSFarman (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His work has made him notable. Not sure why anyone would not think he is notable in his field. Dream Focus 13:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO by having Billboard #34 track, although article can be improved with more citations if there are any. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:56, 7 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 delete. Tone 15:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Robicquet

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

Current sources doesn't pass WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our standards for models and academics. Please convince me he passes based on the intersection. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has some high-citation publications, but they tail off very quickly, they have many authors, and he seems to have left academia for industry without spending enough time to develop a notable academic career. I don't think a single-digit h-index in a high-citation field is enough for WP:PROF#C1 unless there is more to say than that he was briefly a member of a high-performing research group. And beyond that, there seems to be little else that rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 6 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 delete. Sandstein 13:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Tikait

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

Does not appear notable though his father and brother are. Holding a portfolio in an organisation does not bring automatic notability. Vikram Vincent 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources do not actually add up to demonstrating notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:10, 11 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 delete. Sandstein 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ajdani

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

WP:1E for modeling—the Superbods contest doesn't have a page, and the (encyclopedic) content of this page is essentially accounted for on Mister World Philippines—and WP:ENT for acting—his (IMDB page only lists minor roles in two television dramas. –LogStar100 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LogStar100 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –LogStar100 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. –LogStar100 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable body building competitor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 4 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 delete and redirect to Matt Brash. Daniel (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Vet at Large

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

Ignore the nonsense content in the article. That's vandalism that could be addressed if the show or presenter were notable, but I cannot find any evidence that it was. Nowhere to redirect as the host (Matt Brash) redirects to the article and the only article I found about him isn't enough to meet WP:BIO. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with TNT Although I remember the series, WP:Before does not actually show any real coverage, with just passing mentions about the programme in news stories about the host. Current page is just drivel so delete and if someone can find any real sigcov then they can rewrite properly. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's also this article on Matt Brash, but I still don't think there's enough for WP:GNG either for him or the show; it's a little closer for him, but the content here would need WP:TNT so there's no point moving the article and refocusing even if he were found to meet GNG. (In particular, the history would probably have to be WP:REVDELled anyway based on the long quote from the presumably copyrighted blurb to the book, the inclusion of which I can't see is justified by fair use.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that Cunard has made an article (amazing, thank you) about Matt Brash, I'd support changing this to a redirect to that article. But I think technically that should be effected as a delete-then-redirect, given the copyright issues I mentioned with the page history. If just straight-up converted to a redirect I'll just nominate the relevant bits of the history for REVDEL, so no real harm either way. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have removed the blatant vandalism, but it still isn't notable, is unsourced, and is a relic of Wikipedia's worst years. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Brash, the star of Zoo Vet at Large, after I created an article about him. Cunard (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd withdraw, but I share the same copyvio concerns as YorkshireLad and suspect some of the BLP vandalism would need to go too. StarM 23:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Brash per arguments existing Jeepday (talk) 18:11, 9 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Patrick

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

Feel like this needs more than PROD. He's a practicing attorney who has been frequently mentioned in the press, but there's no evidence any of the coverage is in depth or about it. His highest profile case appears to be one to which he contributed an amicus brief, rather than took an active part in litigation. Note: he is not the Michael Patrick who is the Hofstra Dean. StarM 21:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written. This appears to be an exercise in attempting to construct an appearance of notability by inheritance from tertiary relationships with notable matters. I also note that the article was created by a WP:SPA, which is never a good sign for a topic of commercial interest. BD2412 T 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with comments from User:BD2412. I looked on Google and other than at where he is a partner and legal listing sites I found ditto. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards. He just has not done more than the average lawyer. Even I have been asked from time to time by the media to comment on cases, but my several appearances in Business Review and on WRPI do not make me notable. Compare Mark S. Zaid, for example. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Practically all of the content of the article was added by WP:SPAs, which on these types of article always makes me suspicious that someone in the office of the businessperson has written and updated the article over time. Substantively, the subject has done nothing that would make him notable among attorneys. New York has no end of law firm partners who specialize in intellectual property, have written articles in law journals, and who have been on CNBC. Those facts don't make him notable. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:11, 9 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rita Centura

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

Proposed deletion declined by paid editor. PROD'ed as "There is no coverage in independent, reliable sources. The subject's most notable exhibition is the Florence biennial, which is a pay-to-exhibit event. Does not come close to meeting the notability guidelines for artists, WP:ARTIST" those concerns remain. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding anything in a BEFORE search to substantiate notability, just her own website & social media posts, which do not count towards notability. No museum collections nor in-depth critical, art-historical coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG and NARTIST fail. Possibly (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. There's also the UPE issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no secondary and reliable sources with significant coverage about the artist. And I didn't see any signs of complying with WP: ARTIST. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NARTST, GNG, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:SNOW. I found zero hits on Google newspapers. She has no works in major collections or museums. She has fifty-one (51) followers on Twitter under @arcentura, and most of those are animal rights groups, not fans of her art. We are not a social media account or free web service, and in 2021, everyone knows that after our 20 years in existence. There seems to be unanimous accord to delete this page. I would need a lot to convince me to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 5 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 redirect to Philip Bloom (businessman). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stein Jr.

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

Suggest delete and redirect to Philip Bloom (businessman) who seems to be the originator of the conspiracy. Not seeing significant coverage of Stein as an individual to substantiate notability. For reference, another participant was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brian Wheeler - Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philip Bloom (businessman), not independently notable, no SIGCOV in multiple RS satisfying WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I guess, per nom. I'd prefer one article on the conspiracy itself. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:57, 10 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravko Dizdar

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice this AfD just as I added a reference to a journal article written by this person to an English Wikipedia article. D'oh! :) https://www.bib.irb.hr/pregled/znanstvenici/20735 shows 112 entries: 50 journal articles, 18 articles in convention proceedings, 14 summaries from conventions, 10 other papers, and 9 book chapters. https://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+Zdravko+Dizdar seems to indicate over a hundred references. The article lists an award, hr:Nagrada Ljubica Štefan, which seems a bit recent and isn't particularly well known in Croatia, though. However, a generic search finds me a fair bit of general notability, with some coverage in Jutarnji list [6], BBC Croatian [7], Index.hr [8], etc. He appears to be generally recognized as a relevant historian in Croatia, and if we can have an article on Barbara Radulović, we can keep this, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WorldCat[9] seems to suggest he has ten different books, several of which have gone through multiple editions (up to 11). Tends to suggest successful reviewed books, just hard for English speakers to find the reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joy; a historian with a sizable body of work and overall coverage that passes the WP:GNG threshold. I've also found a journal review of one of his books. On a side note: WP:NACADEMIC, interpreted strictly, is a ridiculously high hurdle compared to e.g. WP:NFOOTY. The notion that a country like e.g. Croatia has 10x more notable footballers than notable academics leads to reductio ad absurdum, therefore the degree of scrutiny (such as what counts as "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed") should be adjusted accordingly. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 17 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ho

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

A karting driver with essentially no meaningful coverage that completely fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing that shows that GNG is passed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 3 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Ugochukwu

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

A karting driver with essentially no meaningful coverage that completely fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per 5225C, I checked the sources used in the article & asides this piece of which I’m not sure the subject of our discussion is even mentioned there none of the other sources used appear to be reliable.Celestina007 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable young teen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 5 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Santucci

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

I can't find enough significant coverage in reliable sources to show this businessman reaches the required level of notability. It might seem like there's a lot of references, but none of them are of the required standard, most aren't even about the subject. I stripped out the External Links section as it mostly contained deadlinks, links tangentially related to the subject, or iffy sources: none of them were usable as references. He might have done a lot of stuff, but that doesn't equate to notability here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. I don't see any actual evidence of any notability. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine career DGG ( talk ) 10:26, 7 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 keep. There is general consensus to retain the article. Although some participants who favoured deletion invoked WP:BLP1E, most other commentators felt that it did not apply in this instance to the extent of meriting deletion. Note also that a concurrent move request ended up with the article having been moved to the subject's real name: Keith Gill (investor). El_C 15:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeepFuckingValue

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

The subject is a living person known primarily for a single event, the GameStop short squeeze. WP:BLP1E applies. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This discussion concerns the deletion of the article DeepFuckingValue. For the concurrent discussion about moving the article to another title, please see Talk:DeepFuckingValue § Requested move 2 February 2021.

Keep - WP:BLP1E does not apply since points 2 and 3 are not met. Their role in the event is very well-documented, and they are not likely to remain low-profile otherwise. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." DeepFuckingValue sought out interviews with media, making them fail this criteria and BLP1E. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough info here that it makes sense to split it off from the main article. It could be merged, but that wouldn't be ideal. It's more than just a passing mention. Benjamin (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - #3 "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Event is significant and the individual's role is substantial and well-documented. UserTwoSix (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Elliot, seems to satisfy WP:BLP and WP:GNG as this person has seen much media coverage. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GameStop short squeeze per WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can't know right now whether or not Gill will have sustained coverage in the press (WP:1E) or whether or not he will remain low-profile (WP:BLP1E). I also disagree with the idea that he sought out media; from every indication, it seems to have happened the other way around. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Reuters doxxed someone, and then everyone else wrote about the doxxing. 64.246.153.97 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters did not dox anyone. He gave an interview. He runs a YouTube channel that makes his personality, his likeness, and his portfolio known. He has made no attempts to stay low-profile. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elliot321. This is WP:NOTBLP1E. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per other comments, not all requirements are met for 1 event, nor is the event insignificant. However I would suggest renaming, as his coverage uses often uses his real name, not just his reddit or other social (YouTube etc) usernames. This article is named after the reddit user, but his notability is not specific only to that. DrGvago (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GameStop short squeeze per our general guidelines on one event notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You have !voted in four AfDs in less than two minutes. I find it extremely unlikely that you have even bothered to read the article, let alone check its sources. jp×g 17:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they just clicked publish in less that two minutes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Johnpacklambert could clarify for us. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not throw personal attacks at people who !vote against an article you created on an AfD discussion.--JBchrch (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if this scans as a negative implication about Johnpacklambert's character; I did not intend this when I wrote the comment. jp×g 01:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from casting aspersions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case I am not sure why more time was needed to deliberate. This is a calssic case of BLP1E.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering the subject has been the subject of several profiles from RSes like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous media stories. Integral figure for understanding the GameStop story, and why WallStreetBets has attracted millions of new members in such a short time. This feels like deletionism for the sake of deletionism. Edited to add: Once kept, I'd vote to change the article title to Keith Gill, as the story has legs, and he is becoming (or already is) widely known by his real name, as in [10]. Also, technically, this article, if DFV were kept as the title, should be "u/DeepFuckingValue" due to Reddit quirks, but then it starts to get ridiculous. Moncrief (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on, he’s already being asked to the house financial services committee. 2603:8000:D900:87C7:25B6:E36B:7F9:8A88 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC) — 2603:8000:D900:87C7:25B6:E36B:7F9:8A88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
so that's ppl trying to hiding something to history — 14.187.98.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect. Notable enough to redirect to GameStop short squeeze Quiddy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Gill, his legal name. EdJF (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Gill is significant enough to warrant an article but shouldn't be known primarily by an online moniker. bachwiz18 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bachwiz18: This discussion is about whether to delete the article, not what its title should be. I would encourage you to give your thoughts about moving the article to another title at the ongoing discussion at Talk:DeepFuckingValue § Requested move 2 February 2021. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJF: Am I correct in understanding that you want the article to be kept and retitled? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Redirect to his real name~~. Cited in many news articles. More articles on him than many other wiki articles on a person. Got a bit politically significance since he is asked to testify at congress.Newslack (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about whether to delete the article, not what its title should be. I would encourage you to give your thoughts about moving the article to another title at the ongoing discussion at Talk:DeepFuckingValue § Requested move 2 February 2021. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said keep OR redirect as per the people who suggested it above. So definitely not a delete.Newslack (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to redirect it, would you be suggesting that we redirect it to the disambiguation page that currently exists at Keith Gill? Or would the article continue to exist as-is, just at a different title? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as is, just at a different title. This is what I mean. Sorry for the confusion.Newslack (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I just wanted to clarify as, typically, when "redirect" is suggested in an AfD discussion, it is intended that the content of the article be replaced with a redirect without being moved elsewhere. Provided it's okay with you, I'll strike out the bolded part of your original comment to make your intent clear to the person closing this discussion. If you want your voice heard on the issue of changing the article title, though, I would strongly recommend you leave a note at Talk:DeepFuckingValue § Requested move 2 February 2021. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. History is in the making, this individual is about to testify in congress as he is a significant person of interest, that alone is good reason to keep this as a separate article.N7ee (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC) — N7ee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There is one simple question we must ask. Is DeepFuckingValue a noteworthy individual, or is he not? I would say by the fact that the news is reporting on him this very day in the very serious chance hes interviewed by a congressional committee, that the answer is evidently yes. In addition, the argument being made claims that hes primarily known for one event and therefore not noteworthy. By this logic, the article for Sirhan Sirhan should be folded into the article on Robert F Kennedy's assassination, as he is an individual whose sole noteworthy act was involved in a single, larger incident. (Note: This was the first comparison I could think of, this is in no way intended to imply a personal opinion on this individual equating him to an assassin.) Jyggalypuff (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with one of the other articles on the GME squeeze. Wikipedia is not the news. This is a clear example of recentism. Having said that, I suggest it be held off for a month or so. Otherwise a new one will be created. Hollth (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to GameStop short squeeze. A lot of people have very shallow understanding of notability rules. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS apply here. Just because something grabs headlines doesn't mean it gets an article. However a lot of people, those who vote, often just see something as having sources and then say that's enough without considering other policies. And a lot of what people consider "notable" ends up being totally subjective. WP:TOOSOON applies here too because we have no idea how this will play out or if this guy will get more notability later on. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Keith Patrick Gill - It's clear that DeepFuckingValue is tied to a notable topic, and there seems to be enough content here to warrant him having his own article versus a section on the short squeeze page. The upcoming congressional testimony, although not currently mentioned in the article, adds another point for his notability. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 17:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Keep?) - Why would you delete this article about a main figure in one of the biggest stock-news since 2008. — 85.191.66.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Notability is not inherited just because somebody is associated with a notable topic (which we do have an article on, GameStop short squeeze). — Bilorv (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reasoning outlined in Elliot321's initial comment. Cautilus (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to r/wallstreetbets (or GameStop short squeeze as second choice): it's absolutely WP:BLP1E. I've done my DD as I hear the redditors are calling it and there's no coverage I could find of this man prior to the squeeze. If he testifies at Congress and is widely quoted and covered in news media then the situation has changed, but we do not presume that something will happen even if today it looks likely to. — Bilorv (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on recent news and coverage, he is notable. Note: There is also a Page name change being suggested in the talk page to his real name. Expertwikiguy (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Keith Gill (investor): Per reasons above. Coverage goes beyond WP:BLP1E. Article seems good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Superastig: This discussion is solely about whether to delete the article, not what its title should be. I would encourage you to give your thoughts about moving the article to another title at the ongoing discussion at Talk:DeepFuckingValue § Requested move 2 February 2021. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - 207.161.86.162, I know that this discussion is about whether to keep or delete the article. There's no need to tell me that. I've been participating in every AfD for more than a year. Although I have given my brief thoughts in the discussion you suggested, there is really nothing wrong if I vote to keep and rename it. So, be it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elliot321. As the story develops, however, I would be open to reassessing at some point in the future whether a merge per WP:NOPAGE is desirable if the subject becomes but a footnote in the larger narrative. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elliot321's clear reasoning on the application of WP:BLP1E (3 cumulative conditions, only 1 is met) — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Man, whenever a new article is created or someone gains fame out of nowhere, there's always at least one person that's just about ready to be like Oh mY gOd ! nOmInatIoN FOr dElEtIon!!?/1/ yeah, calm down buddy. This doesn't need to be deleted, here: WP:BLP1E SilentRevisions (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only meets one condition of WP:BLP1E, Gill seems likely to maintain his notoriety having stated in the past he wishes to continue posting to YouTube, his appearance in congress, and films already being proposed on the GameStop situation. Many already view Gill as a notable value investor. Applepinepotato (talk) 14:22, 10 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. Mutharasan

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

The article was proposed for deletion by me a while ago but the tag got removed by a user who did not explain in the summary as to why it should not be PROD'ed. Anyway, the subject of this article is a non notable politician who doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or any criterion from WP:NPOL. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a party functionary at the level he is is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 13:07, 5 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 keep. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 14:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Peter

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC SpareSeiko (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator nominated the page as failing WP:BASIC, without even checking the references, The page was nominated while I was editing it.Dtt1^Talk 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already checked for the sources online on the web. I still think he doesn't qualify WP:BASIC. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a female opera singer Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near meeting our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG through multiple reliable source pieces about her. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article such as full articles in The Express Tribune, Gulf News, and other national reliable sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to the sources in the article there is this substantial Western media piece (https://www.ozy.com/around-the-world/on-a-high-note-meet-the-worlds-first-sufi-opera-singer/93273/) that I am adding. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Now added; I also found sources besides the one I mentioned, and from what I can tell this just scratches the surface. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:37, 10 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. Sandstein 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Johanningmeier

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

Current sources doesn't meet WP:GNG SpareSeiko (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable since Google gave me several notable sourceCommanderWaterford (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)s in a quick search, just needed to be added.[reply]
Keep I added information from notable sources (Variety, Deadline, Playbill) as well as full filmography to improve content Buzzers1 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the article's sources, 1 and 2 are trivial, 3 is IMDb 4 is a self-published source from Phillip Silverstone, whose article was deleted as "not notable" - not considered a subject-matter expert. 5 quotes her, but does not establish any significant coverage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider validity of sources highlighted. The keep !votes are not compelling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR; I added a Chicago Sun-Times and a ReelChicago review for her recent film, and a Hollywood Reporter review of a previous film, as well as a Getty Images reference indicating she was a guest star on a television show that is noted in other press as part of her career (e.g. Chicago Tribune), so it looks like Johanningmeier has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," and has just recently cleared this criteria with her latest film. I also think the filmography chart is a great addition but it could be split into films and television shows to make her acting career more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 01:52, 28 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 keep. Noting also that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Monen

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

Current sources don't pass WP:GNG SpareSeiko (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is that including the ones on the Spanish Wikipedia article as well? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been improved. In any case, the AfD is one of several part of a disruptive and indiscriminate edit rampage by a currently blocked blocked sock puppet account with a clear WP:NOTHERE behaviour (see following thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#"Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay" comment at AfD).--Asqueladd (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG and has two starring roles which is enough to make him notable, in my opinion. User:Asqueladd has demonstrated this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 15 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Haji Syed Ahmad Ali Khan Bahadur 'Qayamat'

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

Current sources doesn't show WP:GNG SwashWafer (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwashWafer (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create

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. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.M. Salim

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

Not significant enough to pass WP:NPOL SwashWafer (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwashWafer (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 13:08, 5 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 delete. I find the policy-oriented arguments from the 'delete' side of the conversation significantly more persuasive than the 'keep' arguments. Daniel (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Munawar Faruqui

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

This seems to be a pretty cut and dried case of WP:1E. The reliable sources provided in the article cover the subject specifically in the context of his arrest and I could find no sources outside of those. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep according to Clause #3 of WP:SKCRIT i.e. "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question." Umakant Bhalerao, please explain how this is a " cut and dried case of WP:1E" when the subject was in the news for different incidents in 2020 and 2021. My maths may be weak but it looks to me like 2 Events and not 1, how could you miss that? I suggest you withdraw this erroneous nomination. WP:GNG is easily met due to both national and international media (BBC, Deutsche Welle, Guardian,^[1] Independent^[2]) covering it. Refs for 2021 incident.^[3]^[4]^[5] Refs for 2020 incident.^[6]^[7]^[8] I started the article. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Indian comedian held over 'indecent' jokes at show where he did not perform". the Guardian. 24 January 2021.
^ "Court denies bail to Indian comedian over alleged jokes that 'hurt Hindu sentiments'". The Independent. 28 January 2021.
^ "The Indian comic in jail for jokes he didn't crack (though there are videos in YouTube where he reportedly made fun of hindu deities)". BBC News. 28 January 2021. Retrieved 1 February 2021.
^ Welle, Deutsche (20 January 2021). "India: Muslim comedian detained over anti-Hindu jokes he might crack | DW | 20.01.2021". DW.COM. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ "Indore: Stand-Up Comedian, 4 Others Arrested Based on Complaint by BJP Leader's Son". The Wire.
^ "Arrests Have Riled up More People, Receiving More Threats: Agrima Joshua". The Wire. 14 July 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ "कॉमेडियन मुनव्वर फारूकी पर मुकदमा दर्ज". Hindustan (in Hindi). Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ "Case against Stand-up comedian Munawar faruqui for hurting Hindu religious sentiments". Telangana Mata. 15 April 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

@Walrus Ji: I've already gone through the references including ones you have posted above and they are all about Munawar Faruqui being booked and detained over cracking Anti-hindi jokes. I literally did not find any sources except these when I did a name search on Google. If you provide any three sources that show he has received in-depth significant coverage prior to this incident, i will be more than happy to withdraw my nomination.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Bhalerao, How is this a 1 Event case, when I gave reliable source of 2 events separated by year? He is covered in every Indian newspaper (> 40) you can find them just by clicking the links on this AfD page search option. I could also find 4 reputed international news papers listed above. Is this not enough for you? You seem to have some unrealistic standards for GNG that even international coverage seems to be not meeting for you. There seem to be some fundamental issue in the understanding of GNG. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrus Ji: Ok so what are his accomplishments? Does he have notable performances? Did we know him before or was he ever discussed in the media prior to this incident? He's probably only been in the news because of making derogatory comments against a religion and cracking offensive jokes in videos. I would ask you to let other editors participate in the discussion and put forward their views.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Bhalerao, He is getting the international coverage for what he did (and did not). People get coverage and hence notability for all kind of reason. Anyway, you still have not answered, why you are continuing to ignore the fact that he was in the news in 2020 as well. Are you saying that those 2020 coverage links don't exist? This nomination, built over 1Event rule, fails there itself. The international coverage, passes GNG. Yes this can go on for a week, but you have an option to withdraw. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrus Ji: I have seen many articles discussed in international media and they were yet deleted. Being in the news is not enough and we also need to see why the subject is being in the news. I don't see any notable works by him, neither was he discussed in the media due to his performances before. All i see is he got booked and detained over making offensive statements about a religion and its very common for media to report such things, especially in India. I think i have made clear why i believe this article does not meet the notability requirements for a biography. the final decision now rests with the admin.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji has been indef blocked by arbcom. Reasons not disclosed. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS - absolutely no coverage whatsoever in reliable source independent of the incident for which he has been in news. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important indicator of the deterioration of freedom of speech. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Have a look at this https://m.freepressjournal.in/article/viral/why-is-arrestmunawarfaruqui-trending-on-twitter/50e8ebb1-4501-43fd-8036-ef794710ad30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainabfarooquiii (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject doest pass notability criteria for stand up comedians, nor general notability criteria, nor WP:ANYBIO. To establish notability, we need sustained in-depth coverage, the subject doesnt have it. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, Munawar is also an Indian Youtuber with 560k subscribers and with millions of views on his videos.

youtu.be/BOxmYq1zuzk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainabfarooquiii (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

struck out repeat vote. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:BASIC, primarily due to two separate events so WP:BLP2E would apply here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in my opinion, the subject fails BASIC as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable comedian, lacking any significance outside a single event. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Its not one single event there are two of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.236.189.197 (talk) 18:17, February 4, 2021 (UTC)

This IP has no contributions outside this subject. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The topic isn't notable at all, the topic is trending for very little time and after some time it will again be non-notable. Okden Nash l9 (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:event, wp:notnews Only one trick... Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Delete per WP:1E. The above WP:ILIKEIT comments are unhelpful and far from proving the subject to be notable. Tessaracter (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's another article in the series of freedom of speech violations of artists, ( in other news : journalists, protesters, farmers) by the ruling government and supporter mobs. As BBC also noted in an article: ^[1]

His arrest is being seen as the latest assault on freedom of speech in India, encouraged by vigilante activism by Hindu mobs and exacerbated by trolling by online armies on social media. Last year, at least half-a-dozen comics apologised for hurting religious sentiments.

.AdithyaKL (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Indian comic in jail for jokes he didn't crack".

Delete – it seems most of the "Keep" votes have to do with freedom of speech, but that's a separate issue than whether this particular person is notable – is there an article on the freedom of speech issue that Munawar Faruqui could be redirected to? – Epinoia (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Jack-in-USA (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above "keep" !votes, mostly by SPAs don't really indicate any evidence of notability. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Shashank5988 is casting WP:ASPERSION on editors he does not agree with stating Above "keep" !votes, mostly by SPAs. Vikram Vincent 08:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject has received wide and enough coverage, and I guess it is enough for him to merit an article. Nonetheless, it appears to me recentism, and I would thus favor slow keep over deletion but I'm fine if it is deleted as well. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Also see my previous comment) It seems pressing to have an article with a neutral point of view and reliable sources in a politically and communally sensitive case. I'm not too familiar with all WP policies yet, so I don't know if something related to this exists. AdithyaKL (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out - Duplicate Vote.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Umakant Bhalerao: I thought relisting allows presenting new arguments. Can I move my above comment down here, to keep one vote?

Delete: As per WP:NOT, Subject is only notable for a single event Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:07, 15 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis John Gardella

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can not understand how this individual would be considered notable to anyone other than family and friends. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BASIC. Fails everything. I am not even sure what the rationale for the creation of the article was. He was once married (per article) to a "b-movie actress" and that is a claim to notability? ExRat (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being married to an actress is not a default sign of notability, and nothing else here is either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 4 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyman B. Samuels

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability other than having been married and divorced from an actress. Article doesn't even state any other claim to notability. ExRat (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. His own career was run of the mill, or redirect or merge to his wife's article. Bearian (talk)
Delete per non --Devokewater (talk) 17:25, 8 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Engelbert Jr.

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability other than having been the the married (for three years) and then divorced from an actress. Article doesn't even state any other claim to notability. ExRat (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion, and WP:GNG, or redirect to his wife's article. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the husband of a film actress is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet to fulfill the demands of the wiki notability standards. Jenyire2 06:47, 8 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 keep. Consensus is keep. Please note that the nominator's rationale is discounted as they have been blocked as a sockpuppet and Doomsdayer520 has changed from a delete rationale to keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z LaLa

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

Current sources don't pass WP:GNG Woinfosd (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator has been blocked as a sock related to a probable UPE and/or extortion scheme. Nomination should not be considered in Good Faith. -- GreenC 16:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Woinfosd (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is the second nom. Fails WP:SINGER. There is some media presence, but mostly related to her extravagant clothing on a few awards ceremonies. Kolma8 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a close call because she has a charting single ([11]) and some media notoriety in "worst dressed" lists. She has some listings for modeling work, and gets noticed occasionally for her gimmick of singing in lots of different languages. Those are minor achievements that the article desperately over-interprets with terms like "controversial" and "pushing the boundaries", or implying that she is a social justice champion because she has LGBT fans. She is present in the media but not quite comprehensively enough for the requirements at WP:NSINGER and WP:NMODEL. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Wikipedia topic fall for WP:GNG, 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. This topic has everything that is needed to fulfil General notability guideline. According to WP:SINGER second rule (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.) and serval other rules this topic meets WP:SINGER and singing in lots of different languages isn't minor achievements. WP:NSINGER has no guideline for having good third party charting like this ([12]). The topic also falls under WP:NMODEL, with significant roles in multiple notable singles, large fan base and made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. So this topic is nominated the second time, which seemed clear attack as it was last time.Umair Ahmad Butt (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has a enough notability to stay. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Couldn't find any substantial coverage of her music, reviews of it, interviews with her, etc. besides one small podcast -- worst dressed slideshows don't qualify as "significant." Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to WP:GNG & WP:NMODEL with significant reliable reference, should stay on Wikipedia.Arslan Ahsan (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most editors suggesting this should be kept are failing to do so with policy/guideline based reasons and so this is leaning delete. Relisting to see if better consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above: plenty of non-trivial coverage in independent sources, Sadads (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I revised the organization of the article, added a reference from HuffPost, and edited WP:PUFFERY. Per WP:MUSICBIO, Z LaLa had a single on the Billboard chart for twelve weeks, with a peak position of 10, so notability is supported. In addition, she objectively appears to have WP:BASIC coverage of her "notable style" in independent and reliable sources (e.g. SFGate, HuffPost, Business Insider, E!Online) because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My original vote above was to delete, but thanks to the recent work performed by others, I would now support a Keep verdict. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 26 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 delete. Consensus that sources are not sufficiently in-depth to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Bull

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

This page only has 2 sources, and most of the information is unsourced. (I can't find any more sources about her) Larryzhao123 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Larryzhao123 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Larryzhao123 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. I don't see any books, magazine articles, web pages, or newspaper articles about this person in particular. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when we have this level of coverage of winning a beauty contest, doing so is clearly not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 4 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson (ODNI)

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

Not everyone who was an associate deputy director fifteen years ago is notable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too low of a post to make someone notable barring actual significant coverage which we do not have. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of everyone who had an administrative appointment in the US government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 4 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gandolfini

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Two minor roles in the past in films and one in a show. Thank you, Kolma8 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, passes WP:GNG, is a star in two upcoming films of high coverage, in particular his role in the Sopranos film. Rusted AutoParts 20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as a note, Rusted AutoParts is the original creator of the article. Kolma8 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep easily meets WP:NACTOR. KidAd talk 20:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd: Which of the those three WP:NACTOR:

1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3 Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Many Saints of Newark is the primary one, he's playing Tony Soprano. This is garnering significant media coverage as he's the son of Soprano's original actor. Also has a major support role in Cherry. Rusted AutoParts 21:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Even though the upcoming films are only upcoming films, they are high-profile enough projects that the casting being done is enough to describe the subject's role with respect to the work. BD2412 T 22:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Lol what kind of nom is this - keep per Rusted AutoParts. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the nominator's talk page, it appears they have a history of – let's say "frivolous" – AfD and PROD noms. KidAd talk 22:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd: It's a dishonor that you're so easy to drop a precedent ad hominem. Kolma8 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...really? This is a clear NACTOR pass as previously discussed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of current and likely more future coverage for Sopranos movie. Not sure about other roles but I think that alone has generated enough for an inclusion.-- LostLogin (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV in Esquire, E!, and other sources. I would not label this nomination as "frivolous." Bearian (talk) 21:19, 3 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niamh Algar

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. A lot of "appearances" on a WP:BEFORE and some coverage related to BAFTA. I don't think it is enough for a stand alone article. Thank you, Kolma8 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of the article is WP:SPA. [[13]] Kolma8 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely doesn't fail WP:NACTOR and passes WP:GNG. The subject has appeared in numerous prominent (and a few leading) roles in both television series and films. A quick search brought up a number of reliable, independent sources. Agree that the WP:SPA is suspect, however. ExRat (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. KidAd talk 21:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - squarely meets NACTOR. There are enough reliable sources already in the article, specifically about this person, to comfortably pass the "Significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. Creation by an SPA is always a concern, but unless there's evidence the creator is evading a ban, it's not cause by itself for deletion (if the subject is appropriate but the content questionable, the correct thing to do is to remove or fix the questionable content). As it is now, the article seems uncontentious and not promotional, a fairly standard actor bio. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG by virtue of several RS pieces covering her. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 5 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ladeen Curran

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

This article does not assert any notability beyond King of the Claddagh, which is not enough to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines once it became an honorary role. Two of the books cited in references have previews that simply reference that he held the title. There is otherwise no evidence that he was a notable man. StarM 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The (ceremonial/honorary) office/title held by the subject doesn't meet WP:NPOL or applicable criteria. There is nothing to indicate that there is enough coverage of the subject (independent of the office/title) to the extent that WP:SIGCOV or WP:ANYBIO is met. (Various attempted searches in the Irish Times and other national papers return nothing. At all.) In all honesty, all modern/ceremonial holders of this title should likely just be covered (if refs are available) in the King of the Claddagh. Each doesn't need their own titles/articles/redirects. Guliolopez (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NPOL. WE generally don't keep holders of honorary local titles such as "colonel" or "laird", unless it meets GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Article does not meet WP:GNG.Alex-h (talk) 14:41, 4 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Burr

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

14-year old railway activist. Coverage is limited to local news (weedonbec-village.co.uk www.northamptonchron.co.uk and local radio). Chuka Chief_talk 17:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely this young man will go on to wider notability but currently it's WP:TOOSOON. ... discospinster _talk 17:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire, which is the non-profit Burr runs.--Chuka Chief_talk 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I wrote the articles. I have frequent contact with Harry, and he's due to be in some national press/magazines/media in the coming months. Maybe this article is too late, in fact. Not many people like Harry exist in the UK, he deserves a spotlight, don't you think? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumveeHardhat (talk • contribs) 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: HumveeHardhat (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a WP:BEFORE search seems to find nothing of note (only his social media). This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If the claim by the article creator is true, better to draftify this until the SIGCOV is released. Though, since this subject and Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire are tightly coupled, it is unlikely he will survive WP:BLP1E. Jumpytoo Talk 21:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~: Jumpytoo: Can you clarify what SIGCOV means, please. And I assume Draftify just means, make a Draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumveeHardhat (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC) (Struck duplicate! vote Possibly (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

SIGCOV (Significant coverage, what is required to meet WP:GNG) would be the national press you discussed in your earlier vote. And yes, draftify would mean moving it into the Draft namespace. Jumpytoo Talk 06:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet a notable individual per the coverage and WP:GNG. Possibly (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON; but it's more likely that the subject is like most local activists and organizers who, while noble in their pursuits, simply don't meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that he is 'due to be in some national press/magazines/media in the coming months' is an example of WP:CRYSTAL, we have no way of knowing whether he will be notable or not in the future. We can only assess his notability right now and, right now, there is not the level of coverage available to satisfy WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails GNG. Nightfury 14:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I've tended to suggest deletion of articles about minors, unless they show very clearly WP:SIGCOV. Draftify is fine with me. I note that, by 2021, Wikipedia has been around for 20 years, and claims that an editor doesn't know we have policies are not as strong as they were in the past, or that some cause deserves a spotlight is not allowed. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON - local and coverage of transport issue. Widefox; talk 18:14, 7 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Hijab

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

Was previously deleted via PROD with the rationale Expired PROD, concern was: Having searched for additional references, I am convinced that this man fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. The existing article, which reads like a puff piece, is very dependent on sources directly associated with him. Once you strip away all the stuff referenced from sites he is associated with there’s almost a total absence of reliable third-party coverage. This rationale still applies.

This source is not independent, we have a passing mention in Buzzfeed, a brief article in the Romford Recorder and a YouTube video. A WP:BEFORE search does not yield any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, only more passing mentions like this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some minor mentions does not ad up to inclusion on Wikipedia. I could do no better than nominator when searching for sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a guy who's got a mike. does not meet our inclusion criteria. Mosesheron (talk) 19:00, 3 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punya Elizabeth

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

She has starred in three films but the only film where she got to play a major role would probably be in Gauthamante Radham. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi there, I created this article and I thought it will meet the criteria, But whatever it is i will accept the decision of Wikipedia. I only want to contribute best things for Wikipedia. But she appeared in 3 movies, so could anyone help to improve the article, if possible ? Otherwise, it is okay ! Much Love Onmyway22 (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Don't see the subject passing WP:NACTOR. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even so please don't Delete the Article if she hasn't Participated in Multiply Movies Yet it means she's just a starter it doesn't do any bad if we give a chance until we get more updates about her. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Author Hi there, I failed to find the supporting reference for Punya. And I understand the article is not meeting the criteria that is mentioned by the nominator. I want to keep the Wikipedia right. You may delete it. I am agreeing with the deletion. Thank you. Love you Wikipedia :) Onmyway22 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence in article or searches that this person passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 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 redirect to Dia (film). While keep participants argue for notability, no policy/guideline compliant sources or criteria are mentioned. Redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kushee Ravi

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

The article was previously AFD'ed and deleted for not satisfying WP:NACTOR. The subject has since worked in two films which have not been released yet. So its pretty much WP:TOOSOON for an article to be considered. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have the multiple significant roles in notable productions we require as a minimum to show an actress is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should Not Be Deleted the subject has been notable in the south Indian film industry. Very strong references have also been submitted to justify the claims. The subject's released films maybe just one at this point in time but she is in the limelight and working on a couple of films with renowned production houses. The strong references have been submitted to justify that as well. User:rangasn (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2021 (IST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete a case of WP:TOOSOON. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dia (film), where they played the lead role. WP:CHEAP and possible search term.-- `Ab207 (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Must Not Be Deleted Or Redirected The title looks to be notable in their respective field. The latest edit also shows that the individual has received some awards & accolades recently. It again proves the individual is actively involved in their respective field. The title deserves to be in the encyclopedia. User:Subashini_srini (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2021 (IST)
Keep has some good reliable sources, can be edited.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 01:43, 28 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 keep. The article in its state at AfD was apparently quite severely misrepresentative of the subject's accomplishments. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Pearson

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

Being a CEO of a company in itself is not an assertion of notability. The subject lacks enough in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the references provided in the article are mere mentions, press releases, comments by the subject which are not considered as an independent coverage and do not help to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - This discussion desperately needs context, because this article doesn't explain, at all, what this guy is really notable for! He changed MAC computing, profoundly, and permanently.

Here is what this guy is actually notable for:

It's NOT, as the article presents it, that he founded a tech company, that has X amount of revenue, this or that financial stat, or this many employees. No... it's that he is a legit OG in the world of MAC computing because of the massive impact of the tools he developed and popularized. Granted you can't remove that from the company he used to do it, but he (and the company itself) are notable for disruptive innovation, specifically through the software tools he helped develop and popularize.

Here is the real story on notability for this guy, in non-technical terms. Before Jamf, MACs were for hipster dudes in coffee shops to use to do art or whatever, but your work computer? That was going to be a PC, because PC owned enterprise computing, completely. MACs stayed in coffee shops. The reason was that there were no tools to manage big networks of MACs at the enterprise level; they didn't exist. Enter Jamf, with tools for just that very thing. Fast Forward to present day... those tools are in widespread use... Almost all the largest fortune 500 companies and top universities are using them to manage large enterprise MAC networks. IBM! Freakin' IBM, the grandfather of PC computing now runs the worlds largest MAC deployment with like 300,000 devices using those tools. <--- THAT, is what is notable, not that the company made money from it and hired a lot of new employees, etc.

I hope that context is helpful in your analysis, because the article definitely doesn't say it (but it needs to, if it survives). Very few sources lay it out as plainly as I just did, but it helps explain things like, why are college MAC programming textbooks quoting this guy? Why is this guy giving keynote addresses at MAC conferences? Why is this dude the go-to guy for every tech journalist who needs a quote about enterprise MAC computing?

=============== Deleteopedia (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Based on the analysis & source assessment chart below, the cites do meet the general, as well as the more contextual, specific notability guidelines:

Analysis: Application of relevant guidelines to sources in the assessment chart

Meets "significant coverage" under WP:GNG.
- "Multiple" sources enough, significant coverage in "most" isn't required (as the nomination indicates). Notability only requires "multiple" sources with significant coverage, see GNG's WP:SIGCOV (three sources is a general rule of thumb).
- Sources below are not "mere mentions": This is the meat of the objection, so the assessment chart below addresses this for each source individually.
Meets "significant coverage" under WP:SNG (better than the GNG alone; provides in-context guidelines & examples).
- A person's" significant coverage" requirement for a single source is lower than other topics. Specifically, this is because WP:PEOPLE uniquely allows combining multiple articles to show "depth of coverage". In other contexts, each source individually must be in depth enough to show significant coverage. When a person's notability is at issue, no single individual source alone must contain significant coverage, stating in WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; ... and,
- Company notability is evidence of CEO's/Founder's Notability; Jamf, is notable under WP:COMPANY, which indicates It's not simply "a company" (as the nom states). Wikipedia agrees, (Jamf, specifically, is notable). In the specific context of publicly traded companies (JAMF is its NASDAQ symbol),WP:LISTED indicates a presumption of notability, "given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable" and also WP:LISTED indicates the exact type of source assessed below is ideal. It provides that "independent press coverage and analyst reports.. establish notability".

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Forbes article	It's Forbes	It's Forbes	Entire article is historical bio of him & partner founding Jamf.	✔ Yes
Business Insider Australia	Zero connection to this guy; it's literally on the other side of the world	Extremely reputable publication	Also a historical bio. The "Two Guys" in the title? He is one of them.	✔ Yes
Combined 23 Business Journal articles spanning 12 years	standard business periodical; No COI	national publisher with affiliates in every US region	WP:PEOPLE uniquely allows combining (see analysis)	✔ Yes
CIO magazinearticle	Strong editorial process, no connection	Well known international publication	not a bio, but a perfect example of the MANY articles where this guy is the "explainer-in-chief" of MAC enterprise computing	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

=============== Deleteopedia (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: As per source chart above. RetiredProgrammers (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: As per source chart above. VirtualSwayy (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on arguments presented by user:Deleteopedia and also meets Wp:GNG. Peter303x (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 3 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Sharma ( TV Actor )

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

Though he appears to have been the lead on Chandrashekhar (TV series), doing a search for his name and that title only yields passing mentions at Tellychakkar, an entertainment site, i.e. not a vetted news source. Similar lack of references searching his name with other show titles. So, fails WP:GNG, and with one major role, seems to fail WP:NACTOR as well.

Note for anyone else researching, that there are probably many Karan Sharmas in Indian entertainment. Karan Sharma (TV actor) exists as well, so please consider if you have the correct one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nomination that Cyphoidbomb has made and, making similar checks, I find the same result. I can be persuaded to alter my opinion with the unearthing and incorporation of better references. Fiddle Faddle 19:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FAils WP:NACTOR Lembit Staan (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, also the title of the page is not allowed on Wikipedia. Hyderabadi Wikipedian (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above fails WP:NACTOR. Cuoxo (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In any case, this article must not remain at this title because it is ambiguous with Karan Sharma (TV actor). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't fulfill WP:GNG. SwashWafer (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both GNG and NACTOR. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a blink. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -Hatchens (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Fatzaof (talk) 12:51, 5 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Clamage

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

The sole claim to notability Clamage's documentaries have been repeatedly featured in national venues, such as the prestigious New York Film Festival, winning him numerous top prizes. is unsourced, and I cannot find any evidence to verify the claim. The references in the article are mostly primary sources establishing family ties, but it does not appear his films were notable StarM 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. There are zero newspaper articles about this person. Three of the five references on the page are not even about this subject. I found a single link to an article about him via Twitter, but no account. Producers are rarely considered notable. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 1 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Silverio Mendoza

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

WP:BIO1E of a person notable only for having had a minor local street renamed after him following his death. This is not significant enough to make him permanently notable for the purposes of an international encyclopedia -- a very large percentage of all streets everywhere (not all, certainly, but a lot) are named after local people for one reason or another, so this can't be an automatic notability freebie for every single person who ever had a street named after them. It would take a lot more evidence of sustained international significance, passing the ten year test, to make him notable enough for permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per WP:BIO1E Kline | vroom vroom 16:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. Number 5 7 14:34, 31 January 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Corn

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

This article definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails GNG, and per nom. I am not able to find new sources for this either, has been tagged for notability issues since 2018. Jooojay (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails [[WP:GNG]. Luciapop (talk) 08:06, 6 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. No prejudice against renomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Ahlawat

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

Non notable actor and film producer with a few minor roles and sourced to paid sources. A Google search doesn't show in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:BASIC. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he meets WP:BASIC. Nalbarian (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nalbarian, Could you please clarify how he passes WP:BASIC? Ref# 1 and 2 are paid articles while ref# 3 is a press release with disclaimer at the bottom. None of these are considered reliable and independent of the subject.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:49, 15 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzchak Etshalom

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

Fails WP:GNG - The only reliable independent sources were My Jewish Learning, YU Torah, and Jewish Holidays, and those weren't actually super relevant to his career. The other sources pulled from were a school newspaper known as the Shalhevet Boiling Point, several about the author sections from Urim Publications, the actual amazon page of a book, and other sources that don't prove notability. Further searches find no other possible sources that mention him in any meaningful way. I chose not to notify the creator of the article of this discussion, not only because the creator has a clear conflict of interest, and not only because they pushed this article through after it was rejected from AfC for complete plagiarism of a non-notable and unreliable source, but because they have been blocked for sockpuppetry at two proposed speedy deletions of this article. I don't see reason to keep this article. I could be wrong, and that Yitzchak Etshalom is actually notable and these sources barely pass him through GNG. It's close. But I personally believe this article should be deleted - there's an argument to be made that Rabbi Etshalom is accomplished and should be notable, but I don't believe he is right now. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The post was kind of long, and I don't want to fearmonger, but we should probably keep watch for further sockpuppetry if the creator finds out. The past two usernames had to do with jewish culture and being a bookworm, so i don't know I guess keep a look out? Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't about the author sections on the websites of publishers he signed with count as a clearly paid source, or at least a compromised one? Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comment from Bearian (talk · contribs), Adamant1 (talk · contribs), and buidhe (talk · contribs) - thoughts on this discussion, and also a comment on possible sockpuppetry from the two users below? Take a look at the page history, the contested speedy deletions, the grammar usage I want to know your thoughts. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited, read the article and I do believe that Yitzchak Etshalom is a notable person. I would like to see more sources but It should not be deleted. The newspaper article does show notability in my opinion. Rosh Beit Midrash is big position in what I've researched. The sources are fine, just more are needed. They were not fine when they were from amazon.com but those were removed. I believe this article subject is noteworthy and should not be deleted. From the sources one can clearly see that Yitzchak Etshalom is notable within the Jewish community of Los Angeles I think this article needs a few better sources. Overall I am contesting this deletion I think it should be closed and better sources should be added. (judged by nominator as Keep)

@Sycolo: Sources from Urim Publications are what's known as "paid sources" - where the institution has something to gain from giving an unreliable description. I'm not alleging that Urim Publications has done that, but as a general policy, Wikipedia doesn't rely on publisher "about the author" sections as a reliable source (see WP:SPONSORED). As for the newspaper, the Shalhevet Boiling Point is a school newspaper, and while school newspapers can be used to provide some basic background information, they do not establish notability on their own. Also, I'm curious - why would you revert the SineBot signing your post? It seems strange given that I can see who wrote this anyway. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am new to wikipedia, I am just trying to contribute and give back to what Ive benefited for years off of. Thank you for explaining that. I would agree then in that case that those are unreliable sources and should be removed. I think that school newspaper is an overused for a school newspaper considering what you told me. Also, I do not know how these discussions work and when to sigh or not. Again I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me and help me use wikipedia more correctlySycolo (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Sign all your posts with four tildes, ~~~~. My problem is, if there's nothing left after removing those sources, which is essentially correct, then the article is inherently non-notable. Should Yitzchak Etshalom have greater press coverage? In my opinion, yeah, absolutely. Does he right now? No, not enough to warrant an article here. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Yitzchak Etshalom is notable because of the multiple sources written on him. My main issue with this article is that some of the sources may be compromised so I would like new sources but he is notable and I am contesting this deletion just clean up the self published ones and add some non compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.104.175 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC) (judged by nominator as Keep)[reply]

@67.49.104.175: To establish notability per the general notability guidelines, there needs to be multiple independent, reliable, significant sources providing in-depth coverage about the subject. Urim Publications is a sponsored source, making it unreliable, and the Shalhevet Boiling point is a school newspaper, meaning it could be useful but it cannot establish notability. The rest of the sources similarly do not establish notability. In the absence of other sources, which are on you to provide because I could find none, this article is non-notable.Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any reliable sources. This is not even a close case. A biography of a living person for general purposes of notability needs a good source for every single claim, especially possibly controversial claims. As far as special notability as a religious leader, I don't see any evidence in the article as it stands. I have long agreed with the common outcomes for clergy articles here at AfD. Just to be sure, I did several searches online, but I don't see any citations to the most well-known media either of newspaper of record or within the Jewish community, such as Haaretz or The Forward (I searched specifically in their website). There are zero such sources. In 2004, the argument might have been accepted that articles about living person can have "compromised" sources, but in 2021, no reasonable person can make that argument since Wikipedia has been around for 20 years and everybody knows what we are and are not, especially 15 years after the Seigenthaler incident. I don't have the expertise or buttons to investigate allegations of sock puppetry, so I regretfully demur. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear fail of the general notability guidelines and the ones specific to biographies of living people. The only possible thing that might give him notability is his published works, but there's zero evidence that they are notable or, more importantly, that he is notable for writing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 3 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 keep. Consensus is that the arguments for meeting WP:GNG trump the other specific guidelines. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yogananda Pittman

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

Only notable for being promoted to acting chief after the storming of the Capitol. I did find a few sources about her prior to 2021, but they were not substantial. I also don't believe that Chief of the Capitol Police is an inherently notable position. WP:BLP1E Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG as the first woman and African-American chief of the United States Capitol Police. KidAd talk 01:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prior to Steven Sund, I can't seem to find any other Capitol police chiefs to have articles of their own. No reason to keep her, especially considering the fact that she is an acting chief. Being the first [Insert race/ethnicity/gender here] is a poor ground for establishing notability here.--Kieran207 talk 02:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieran207:, as an aside, do you consider Steven Sund notable? Natg 19 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19:, That's a tough one, He might barely pass in my book. However, he has almost twice as much sourcing as Pittman. And also, Sund's coverage within those sources are more direct than in Pittman's case.--Kieran207 talk 02:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieran207: Does not notability derive from ongoing coverage in reliable sources? Since when did notability depend upon holding a notable position? Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She fulfills GNG and therefore is notable. (And for what it's worth, I think she should be notable as well, the Capitol riot was an extremely significant event, and replacing Sund with a black women in the context of that event is even more important than her being just the first black women in the post.) WestCD (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. While it has been suggested that WP:BLP1E applies, there has been continuting coverage of her actions as Acting Chief. For example on 18 Jan by CNBC,^[1] on 19 Jan by Politico,^[2] on 22 Jan by wtopnews,^[3] on 26 Jan by People and CNN,^[4]^[5] and on 29 Jan by The Week.^[6] See: Wikipedia:What is one event. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but most of those articles are about things she has said not things she has necessarily done. It's different when most of her coverage is just comments she has made instead of actions as chief.--Kieran207 talk 01:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieran207: The 18 Jan CNBC article is about the action of ordering the shutdown of the Capitol complex.^[1]. The 19 Jan Politico article includes more than passing reference to Pittman's career, the actions she has taken since becoming Acting Chief and the challenges she faces.^[2]. The 26 Jan People and CNN articles are about the action of appearing before a congressional hearing with the House Appropriations Committee.^[4]^[5] The People article also covers actions she took during the Capitol Riot,^[4] which are separate from the event of her being appointed as a result of the Capitol Riot. By my count 4 of the 6 articles quoted are about actions Pittman has taken, not just what she has said. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC) updated Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reason to keep: WP:BLP1E requires 3 conditions to be met (1. reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. 3. the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - see WP:BLP1E for full wording). 1 is not met, see above, so in consequence 2 is not met. 3 is not met because if the event is the Capitol Riot and its aftermath, then the event is significant, or if the event is Pittman's appointment then Pittman's role in that event is central, without her the event could not have occured which to my way of thinking is way above the threshold of substatnital, and in addition the appointment was well documented. Any one of the conditions not being met is sufficient for WP:BLP1E not to apply, but all three? Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, only the Politico article is a valuable RS about her. The Jan 18 article just mentions her as a passing reference, and the other articles mention her only in relation to the Capitol Riot, as they are congressional hearings or interviews about what happened during or near the time of the Riot. Natg 19 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:NOTBLP1E. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kieran207's argument above. Kolma8 (talk) 21:31, 1 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 merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Daniel (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in Texas v. Pennsylvania

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

Though this Supreme Court case was notable, and many of the participants are notable individuals, this list of participants is not a notable topic, as the Supreme Court case was thrown out, and there have not been any consequences for these House members. The participants are mentioned in passing in Texas_v._Pennsylvania#Participants, and full lists can be found in the citations.

The topic of listing out these participants was discussed in Talk:Texas_v._Pennsylvania/Archive_1#Lists_of_"participants", but was never resolved, so I am bringing this page to AfD for a wider discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:@AleatoryPonderings, Reywas92, Masem, Feoffer, DolyaIskrina, Soibangla, Love of Corey, Goethean, and Herbfur: (users involved in the previous discussion)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above ping did not go through because the edit must include a signature (I just saw this in deletion sorting). re-pinging @AleatoryPonderings, Masem, Feoffer, DolyaIskrina, Soibangla, Love of Corey, Goethean, and Herbfur:. Reywas92^Talk 01:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As I said before, this is important information that absolutely belongs at Texas v. Pennsylvania, not chopped off into another article that gets 2% of the main article's pageviews. Might as well delete it altogether if it's split to an unread page. The signatories and lawsuit plaintiffs were significantly covered in national and regional news through this process, much more than those of other amicus briefs, and we should make this clear on the main article. No part of this is indiscriminate or undue, all being prominent politicians whose participation here received clear and substantial coverage as context to the lawsuit. Reywas92^Talk 01:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point, clearly nothing appears to be set to happen to this specific list of people (it would be those that subsequently voted on Jan 6 to try to challenge the results, which includes many of these people, but even *those* people are unlikely to see anything given the way the political winds have shifted.) We have have reference links that provide all these to those that are curious but the full list is overkill for Wikipedia's coverage of a case that didn't even get heard at SCOTUS. This is very much failing WP:NOT#NEWS at this point. --Masem (t) 01:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: FWIW, I just added "Amicus brief filed by 126 Republican members of the House of Representatives"[14] soibangla (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Notable subject, but not worthy of a standalone article. No reason to have a seperate article about a topic already covered elsewhere.--Kieran207 talk 02:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Neutrality^talk 02:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania: Not notable on its own but has useful information. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania: Failure is not a criterion of notability. Plenty of failed battles, putsches and coups are of historic significance. Further, the argument that the suit was frivolous, baseless and of no legal merit makes these signatories more, not less, noteworthy. These are elected legislators and yet they signed on to the thing. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't notable at all and very few people will want or need this information in the future, especially after the attack on January 6th. It simply fails WP:NOT#NEWS, so I don't think it merits inclusion, let alone a standalone article. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lists of supporting and opposing state attorneys general into Texas v. Pennsylvania. The members of Congress are not really worth mentioning. BD2412 T 19:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the case, as this is far too much detail, and much if it not individually sourced. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Tessaracter (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is nothing more than a character assassination hit-piece, given it only provides specific names. Love of Corey (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be fine with a redirect too but outright deletion is not warranted. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania, the full list of parties is always appropriate to list in a case article, even if only in a footnote (the infobox usually can only fit in an "et al" when there are as many as here). NOTNEWS has no bearing here because this information will always be a part of that notable case, if they formally signed on then they are parties (however nominatively) so we're not just talking about who voiced support. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But not all persons on that pages are parties to the case. Most are co-signers of amicus briefs, which we normally do not document in full. --Masem (t) 00:20, 7 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 delete. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 05:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Brewer

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

Unknown background singer that fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Only semi notable for her background vocals for Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind, Fire. This article also uses deprecated IMDB sources multiple times as a references to her background credits. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG and the subject, or someone close to the subject, has had a hand in editing the article. ExRat (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While AllMusic is a reliable source, the others are not, and there is a distinct lack of siginficant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources presented. While Bearian is right about Allmusic being notable, it is notable when the page of the artist/band has a staff written biography. If it's just the basic facts and discography, it is not reliable. Same goes for the album pages: when the album has a staff written review, it is reliable. When it's only a track listing and user reviews, it's not reliable. This case the Allmusic entry doesn't contain a biography, so it's unreliable. IMDb is not reliable in any case. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS, and GNG as well Jenyire2 07:53, 3 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 delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Burkinshaw

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. He seems to have been a run of the mill diocesan spokesperson, and might be deceased. There is an allegation that he has 70,000 followers on YouTube, and growing, which is not verified and not verifiable. Even if it could be verified, I agree with the consensus that having even 8,000,000 followers on YouTube is not automatically make a person notable. According to my searches on my versions of the YouTube and Twitter apps, he has no followers at all as of this afternoon. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 3 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 keep. No !votes to delete and a rough consensus that reviews of the author's work in major Indian papers of record satisfied the relevant notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Khan (author)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_Khan_(author). The Non-notable author who terribly fails WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR. The entire article is on the back of a self-published book. Wholly promotional vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be quite a few reviews of the subject's book in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR, based on the reviews of his novel. My remaining concern is that I'm not sure how reliable some of the sources are. I would not oppose a userfy or draftify. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm definitely not an expert on the Indian press, but WP:RSNP lists The Hindu and The Indian Express as both generally reliable. The Hindustan Times and The Statesman appear to be major Indian newspapers of record. I would say that reviews in those outlets are probably sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR and/or the GNG. The article certainly does need to be excised of promotional content, but of course AfD isn't cleanup. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Abdullah Khan is a well-known author literary critic and screenwriter. His interview and reviews of Facebook ok have appeared in all all leading newspapers and magazines of India Pakistan and Bangladesh. Check the links. It has been reviewed by India's top newspaper like The Hindu , The Hindustan Times, The Indian express, The New Indian express, the Sunday guardian, the business standard, the business line and many more. In Pakistan it was reviewed by the Friday Times and in Bangladesh the number one newspaper of the country, the daily star, published a review.

this book. A detailed profile was published by Indian edition of Readers Digest. In addition to that a chapter from Patna Blues has been included in in BA/Bacon/BSc general English course of University of Kerala. University of Kerala is one of the the biggest Universities in southern part of India. Patna Blues is been translated into many languages. Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Marathi, Bengali , and Hindi translations are already out. A simple Google research will reveal that the debut novel of this writer is getting a lot of media coverage. You can also check the webpage of of various Indian literature festivals where Abdullah Khan was a speaker.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannu80 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 3 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hussein Taslimi

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

Fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Serv181920 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Baháʼí Faith in Iran or Persecution of Baháʼís. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject falls below notability criterion. Luciapop (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable functionary in a religious organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Persecution of Baháʼís, the article has valuable information about the persecution of Baha'is in Iran. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss delete or merge options
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, no evidence of notability. Setreis (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:23, 14 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Davis

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

A person only notable as a university professor does not look notable to me. It also relies on mostly primary sources too. –Cupper52^Discuss! 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems to me a clear keep as WP:prof notable and the material here http://www2.scc.rutgers.edu/ead/uarchives/davis2f.html , now in the article, useful for some additions (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Article needs more thorough sourcing but this looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C8 (founding editor of a journal which is arguable notable although we have no article on it), of #C5 ("New Jersey Professor of Mathematics Education at Rutgers University"), and plausibly also of #C1 (heavy citations for "Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics" and "The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages") and #C7 (through both the effects of the Madison project on elementary-level education can be documented and his work as mathematics advisor to Sesame Street). And the nominator's rationale seems to boil down to "people cannot be notable for being professors" which is just incorrect. The primary nature of the sources is irrelevant to academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I added 13 reviews of 3 books to the article, so he also passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the comments above and, I am tempted to say, per nom: "only notable as a university professor." We do have an entire notability guideline, WP:PROF, dealing specifically with notability of university professors. I have added a ref to the subject's bio in the 13th edition of the American Men and Women of Science (the source is mentioned in the Phil Church's bio of Davis and I looked it up using my university library online access, although the item is currently behind a paywall.) In addition to WP:PROF I believe the subject passes WP:BIO as well. Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Davis' work on the Madison Project is discussed in detail on pp. 51-55 of this book[15], a ref to which I have added to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF, when even one would be sufficient. XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:PROF Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - based on what's in the article right now, he passes PROF and/or AUTHOR. Good work by David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 1 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 keep. Consensus that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rose (podcaster)

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

Not notable in a Wikipedia sense, but perhaps notorious? Coverage is not significant enough to meet notability requirements and looks coat racked to me. It's pretty negative and some users have been trying to white wash. Looks like a run of the mill disinformationist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure There seems to be a fair bit of coverage of him and his views, all negative. But sadly if he is a notable idiot he is still notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Vice article and the BBC would seem to be the only trusted sources, but they seem to be more about that Icke fellow than this guy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph is not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice article is explicitly about Rose, not Icke. One BBC piece is about Icke, the other is about Rose. As per Slatersteven, what's wrong with the other sources? Press Gazette, CNBC, News-24.fr etc. are all clearly reliable. OK, WP:RSP says there's no consensus on Salon. The only source that seems dodgy to me is Living Vegan. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewing the citations in the article, we have one long, in depth piece about Rose [16]; a short puff piece about Rose [17], but is it RS?; and three short pieces about Rose [18] [19] [20] on his mayoral campaign. The Salon and Press Gazette pieces are not primarily about Rose, but do contain significant coverage of Rose. The Telegraph, CNBC and News-24.fr pieces contain significant coverage of his channel London Real and mention Rose. The ITV piece has significant coverage of London Real but does not mention Rose. Politifact, swlondoner, El Confidencial, Deadline and McGill all just mention Rose. The other BBC News piece mentions Rose's Icke interview, but does not mention Rose by name. Vice + Salon + Press Gazette + first BBC News piece + Indy100 seems plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. The mayoral candidacy on its own would fail WP:NPOL. Some of the coverage focuses more on London Real, so I did wonder if it was better to have an article on that than on Rose. But I think, combined, it makes sense to have a Rose article on his actions (Vice), London Real stuff (including the Icke interview - Press Gazette/Salon/Telegraph/CNBC/News-24.fr) and his candidacy (second BBC News piece/Indy100/City AM). Bondegezou (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is further coverage of Rose that doesn't add to the article and isn't cited, but demonstrates notability. Being arrested while campaigning was also covered by the Metro and EuroWeekly News, and mentioned by the Local Government Chronicle. Esquire has a piece inspired by Rose, although not really on him. GQ mentioned him. CoinGeek mentioned him. There's a bigger chunk on him in this piece from Fast Company. But beware there are a lot of other Brian Roses in the world, notably Brian Rose (boxer). Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brian Rose is a prospective candidate in the upcoming London Mayoral elections, so I am not surprised to see that an article has been whipped up ~~as potential publicity material~~. This is not mere cynicism on my part: a couple of determined and eager IP addresses have been editing the 2021 London Mayor election article to add/amend Brian Rose's details. We have to see this article for what it is, a rushed CV padded out with citations, and for me, it's certainly not passing GNG, it certainly borderline fails POLITICIAN and with the context of an upcoming election, there are questions about what this article is being used for - campaigning? If Rose does anything notable at the election, then we can revisit this question. But for now, it's a no. Delete. doktorb _words^deeds 23:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should withdraw the allegation of promotionalism, Doktorbuk. The article was created by an editor of good standing. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorbuk, it is certainly not promotional in its current form! You may feel it is accurate to describe it as having begun as a "rushed CV padded out with citations", but that seems an unfair description of what there is now. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou Philafrenzy Point taken and accepted. I've scored out that term. doktorb _words^deeds 09:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about enough to satisfy the GNG in the sources mentioned above. People don't have to be right to be notable. I think the public would reasonably expect us to have an article about him. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started the article, prompted by the discovery that Rose had the second shortest odds (after the strong favourite, Sadiq Khan), in the 2021 London mayoral election, with leading bookmakers including William Hill and Paddy Power. Living in London, and having never even heard of him, as a curious Wikipedian I had to find out more. There is plenty about him online, albeit much in sources of marginal or doubtful reliability. I was subsequently surprised by the level of editing activity, and as usual the article is better for it. I think there is enough in the article to meet WP:GNG. Also created London Real as a redirect to him, as it appears to be very much his personal vehicle. Incidentally, we have articles for several other fringe candidates with longer odds, (see 2021_London_mayoral_election#Other_candidates), such as Piers Corbyn and David Kurten, both also on the COVID/lockdown/vaccine sceptic/conspiracy theorist spectrum. Edwardx (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please delete anything about brian rose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:B697:2D00:101B:3231:C43:F11 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was this edit someone changing their !vote or was it vandalism? Bondegezou (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like vandalism. The first IP is registered to BT and geolocates to Lewisham, UK; the IP that changed the !vote is registered to AT&T and geolocates to Wisconsin, US. Both are static. I’m reverting it. SK2242 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only reliable source providing significant coverage is BBC News. There should be at least 2, preferably 3. SK2242 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated by Bondegezou. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst my politics don't line up completly with him, Brian Rose is a prospective candidate in the upcoming London Mayoral elections and a podcaster with a large following and good quality interviews that are good enough to be references for other articals in their own right.Back ache (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, as rightly or wrongly, he's the most talked about London mayoral candidate right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FFS if Binface has a Wikipedia page then this tool needs one too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.72.205 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you’re referring to Count Binface? Anyway, that’s not a good argument to make. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. SK2242 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear relevance and WP:RS coverage. Alex (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG Rankersbo (talk) 12:38, 4 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Murugadoss

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously AFDed and deleted as non notable actor. The subject has since worked in two Tamil films which have yet to be released, so it is pretty much WP:TOOSOON for an article. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, WP:TOOSOON applies. Films have not yet been released, so there are no reliable sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to show that WP:NACTOR has been met. Ravensfire (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. This seems like a promotional biography by fans for participating in a recently aired reality TV show Bigg Boss Tamil 4. Sunlitsky (talk) 20:13, 29 January 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Ingemi

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

Alright, here it goes. So, I stumbled upon this article after I began thinking about creating an article on her as well. However, it can quickly be ascertained that she does not qualify for an article per WP:GNG. Most of these articles are press releases with a passing mention of her (except for ref #10 which is a press release focused on her) or blogs (like Awful Announcing). I waited to see if anything would come out of this Barstool controversy (ie. articles focusing on her) but nothing has happened. She may be notable on Hockey Twitter(TM) but not for Wikipedia HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found the article as it was being mass-attacked, presumably by Barstool fans. But aside from a current controversy, I'm not finding extensive coverage about her, nor reason to believe she's yet notable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure she created this page for herself and self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.173.80 (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was not self-created, the user that is credited as creator is very likely from Europe based on my experience with them. Yosemiter (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much showing she's risen above other journalists in her field. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom sums it up. I can't see much about her in sources other than passing mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST, nothing found that ticks wikinotability boxes ps. see my (rambling) "comment" @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Bork. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to her role as a sports journalist, I concede to the previously stated assessments. Would placing primacy on her role as the play-by-play announcer for the Pride impact any notability assessments, as many play-by-play commentators who are known for their work with a specific team have Wikipedia pages? Given the relatively small number of bios for women who are not players/coaches working in ice hockey, I would be very willing to rework the page if the modifications might result in "Keep." This is a question asked in good faith and I would really appreciate it if a minimum level of respect could be maintained in any responses. Cheers. – Spitzmauskc (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spitzmauskc, that is a good question. I did check out other articles on female sports announcers recently but all the hockey-related ones had at least one independent news coverage of them (usually about them being the "first). She just doesn't pass GNG yet. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Like anything that people want to write an article about on Wikipedia she would have to have multiple independent sources about her. So what her role happens to be is somewhat moot if there are no sources about her because even play by play people would need independent sources. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 3 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Addimando

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

Stub article of a local crime story, very little evidence of ongoing notability and violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - was a WP:BEFORE search done prior to this nomination? I only ask because a very quick Google search turned up multiple articles in newspapers, all reliable sources, that establish notability: The Poughkeepsie Journal, CBS News, Hudson Valley Post, Mid-Hudson News, Putnam County, plus those already in the article, especially the long New Yorker article. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone's comments. A simple search of news stores find literally scores of articles from reliable sources, many national news media, over a long period of time about this case. A move to a better name might be in order, to the killing rather than the defendant. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 29 January 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 redirect to Hov1. Daniel (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Lindhe

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

Non notable musician fail to Pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and return to a redirect. When I created the page, it was a redirect to Hov1. The article that ensued didn't allow any development for independent notability as a solo act or career other than Hov1. Upon deletion, certain elements of this article may go under a section "Members" in Hov1 page where each member sub-section can be expanded with unique information pertaining to to the member including Noel Flike, Axel Liljefors Jansson, Ludwig Kronstrand and Dante Lindhe as well. werldwayd (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have implemented my idea and worked a brief paragraph of Dante in Hov1 page under Members based on this article under discussion. werldwayd (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the group, which this originally was. No notability outside group. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hov1 – I see some passing mentions in Swedish tabloids but nothing to suggest notability outside the band. Wham2001 (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or *Redirect to the group Hov1 not Notable outside the group Samat lib (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hov1, not independently notable at this stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:13, 3 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maxamuud Xoosh Cigaal

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

WP:1E + Article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NSOLDIER. Source in the article and BEFORE did not show anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 06:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search does not bring anything that gives GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being subjectively the "last" person captured in a fort does not in any way make someone notable. The page tries to claim much bigger impact and importance than really exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added three more sources to the page. The sources describe him as a leading anti-colonial figure as well as one of the main native African sources regarding tactics both by the Europeans as well as the counter-tactics used by Africans. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Taleh#Dervish_forts -- all the sources seem to discuss him in that context and I am not seeing an independent pass of GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please check the sources that are being added against the information that is being added to the article. They are not SIGCOV, they do not support the material being added to the article. They are simply being added to puff up the article, not because they have anything to do with the subject. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Just because a Latinized name is spelled different from its native name doesn't mean the two characters suddenly become different people. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of the sources you are adding are about individuals other than the subject. But directly, how does this reference and this reference support any of the content you have added? // Timothy :: talk 15:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "Africa in Soviet Studies" source discusses a "false letter". This letter they're speaking about discusses a letter which Xoosh claims was forged by the British to be derived from a man named Salah, a revered individual who the British knew was influential enough to cause a rift within the anti-colonial camp. According to the claim of Xoosh or Hosh, the original letter contained no damnation of the anti-colonial struggle, whilst the forged letter did. (if you are interested in the Salah letter, this page gives some insight [21]). As for the "Diwaanka" source, you most sources have snippets, but this link gives you most of the content (here). If you try word-find the term "Xoosh" on that page, you frequently see "waxaan ka qoray" before the name of Xoosh. The term "waxaan ka qoray" literally translates to "this was derived from" or "this was written from". On the extended Diiwaanka version you see even more such examples. In each of these examples entire chapters of colonial and pre-colonial history is singularly derived from this man. The entire chapter you see on these pages come from this man as a source. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What you just described is a mention of a name, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, now its your turn to translate what "madaxdii Daraawiisheed" means. It means "head of the Dervishes", meaning Xoosh was among those who led the longest lasting anti-colonial resistance in African hsitory. How does leading the longest anti-colonial resistance in Africa translate to non-notable? Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Go on any translating service and type "madax", the lemma form of the word madaxdii. It will either translate as "head" or "leader". Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Anyone advocating that this page be deleted, you should also advocate that Koos de la Rey and Christiaan de Wet be deleted. This page is essentially an overlapping subject because Boers and Daraawiish not only had the same adversary, but at the same time. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 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) 07:58, 15 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. Daniel (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Goenka

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Merely on the basis of awards nobility can't be established. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple references in the article, many in languages I don't read/speak, the argument by the nom is very week based on existing references. Is this a drive by nomination, or does the nom have a point? I don't know, but a better argument the explains why those references don't meet WP:GNG would make for a more effective AFD, also addressing what is different between now and the AFD the resulted in Keep Jeepday (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has a number of reliable sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 09:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that the industry rewards (NASSCOM, Computer Society of India etc.) are a "well-known and significant award or honor". I can't locate significant coverage outside of mentions of these rewards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Goenka participants who are not blocked: Vejvančický (talk · contribs), Eastmain (talk · contribs), Panyd (talk · contribs)
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Goenka (2nd nomination) participants who are not blocked: Mccapra (talk · contribs), Csgir (talk · contribs), and Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus unclear. The comment appears to lean keep, while the keep vote is weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 20 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shashidhar Kote

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

Did not think it meets WP:SINGER. Passing mention in the tabloids and fails WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in these two refs. [22], [23]. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 7 sources are not enough to show significance and the first one is self published.Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seven sources is more than enough if they have significant coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a singer she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. As an Actress or TV host, there may be something there, but I still don't see any significant sources or significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Current sources satsifies WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. There are more than 5 references with significant coverage. So it's correct to keep the page. Thanks. User:NinadMysuru (talk) 02:57, 15 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. There is pretty much an even split for Keep or Redirect/Merge here, which of course is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Eversole

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Eversole (DE-404). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor". the second ship was named after the first which was sunk in action, not after him) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Eversole (DE-404) . If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD most of these short namesake bios come from the DANFS entry about the ship (here for Eversole: [24]) and so they should all be on the relevant ship page already. regards Mztourist (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: "Should" but in the cases I've looked at there is not as much info in the ship page as in the short bio - hence my suggestion of "Merge" not just redirect: where there is content available about the namesake of the ship, the reader should be able to find that content in Wikipedia, whether in the ship article or in a standalone article. PamD 12:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its all in the DANFS page so they can just read it there, or it can be copypasted onto the ship page. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we should delete and leave a notice for any potentially interested readers to "just go to DANSF"...? I don't think sending people away to other sources is a good business model for WP. Just sayin' - wolf 00:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into USS Eversole (DE-404). Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Andrew - wolf 00:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that having two warships named after him is a "significant award or honor" and thus passes WP:ANYBIO Dream Focus 02:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Eversole (DE-404) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. // Timothy :: talk 02:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Warships are expensive. Being chosen as a namesake of an expensive naval vessel is a form of peer recognition. We acknowledge that peer recognition is a strong notability factor in other fields, like WP:ACADEMIC, and the same should hold true here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in a previous discussion, "there were nearly 400 destroyers built in the Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing classes." As with the submarines (named after fish) and the various coastal patrol boats in WW I (named after just about anything) and Liberty/Victory ships, just coming up with enough names was an effort. This is not a rare distinction: it was a WW II commonplace. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of him that they named two ships in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too.

As to available sources, it is to be noted that George M. Campbell was part of the same flight, and has a similar AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion of this specific page (nor any of the others below where you've cut and pasted the same comments) in the mass deletion which was closed as a procedural keep. What possible difference would it make if this was marked as the 2nd Nomination? I'll tell you, none whatsoever. He lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS as do most of these single Navy Cross ship namesakes. Spare us the outrage and add RS if they exist. Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the timing and the intent and the out of step process. The nominator knew about the prior nomination, as he had done them both. He chose to omit it.

If it makes no difference, why was it hidden?

Why was that fact suppressed? Answer me that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suppressing anything and your argument is nonsense; posting it to all of these AfDs is borderline DE and definetely PW:POINTY. // Timothy :: talk 12:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Your unsubstantiated Ipse dixit statement should not be confused with an explanation by the nominator.

Not one omission. It was repeated, over and over and over again.

Wholesale deletions require wholesale responses. Every article had related problems. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense, the nom doesn't have the power to supress anything, everyone knows this, and you still have no sources. // Timothy :: talk 13:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Eversole (DE-404), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to USS Eversole (DE-404) for the same reasons as all these other Navy Cross honorees. In a sense, it's a reverse case of WP:NOTINHERITED, as nobody would seriously have considered him worthy of his own article if the ships hadn't been named after him. The Navy Cross is a second tier valor medal, and in this case it is more evident than ever that there's nothing to say beyond a very short action description which is certainly already in the ship articles. We do not need to multiply the number of articles simply to pay tribute to people; indeed, we shouldn't do so. A redirect to the the very short narrative in the ship article is enough to inform readers. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 5 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 keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Evarts

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Evarts (DE-5). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Evarts (DE-5). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Evarts (DE-5). Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Evarts (DE-5) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. // Timothy :: talk 02:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many national news stories and the Navy put his name on a ship. A ship. A ship was named after him. Don't have time to keep adding sources, but many more hits were available.Comm260 ncu (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Where are the "Many national news stories"? Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability, which shows that being a ship namesake doesn't prove notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a few I found with a quick search. You may add more as you find them. Thanks for the notability guide. That's quite the rule!Comm260 ncu (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 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 redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. There is a consensus here that this should not be a stand-alone article. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur V. Ely

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I supported deletion of this article in the mass deletion, I still hold it does not meet the inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Lieutenant posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor" and the ship doesn't even have a page) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to a re-created USS Ely (DE-309), and add a line for that cancelled ship to the table at Evarts-class destroyer escort. If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. If a USS Ely article is created then merge to that article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II per above. // Timothy :: talk 02:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II#E, where he will have to be entered under the "E"'s, as he's currently not on the list. The data regarding the naming of the cancelled ship can be included in the "notes" field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too.

This flyer went down with George M. Campbell, which has a similar AFD. And the expansion there suggests what could be done here, with reliable sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II per Mztourist. Cavalryman (talk) 10:07, 31 January 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 merge with USS Harold J. Ellison (DD-864). While the most preferred target was the cancelled DE-545 destroyer escort, I assume that is a result of the bandwagon effect, and that given the choice, most people would prefer the target to be the destroyer DD-864 since that one was actually built. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold John Ellison

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a ship named after you in the circumstances Ellison had it occur is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least one warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). It's probably more appropriately part of the ship's history than a standalone article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 01:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TimothyBlue: I think you have the wrong target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merging as necessary, to USS Harold J. Ellison (DD-864). @Mztourist:, @PamD:, @GPL93:, you may wish to change your suggested targets to the completed ship that was his namesake (as USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545) should probably be redirected to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort,never having been completed or commissioned). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I'm ok with either, as you note DE-545 was cancelled while DD-864 was built, but given that DE-545 has a page its not unreasonable to redirect there. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: agree with a redirect to DD-864 and a merge for DE-545 to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort. // Timothy :: talk 09:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood the earlier comment, I agree redirect to DD-864 and merge DE-545 to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort. Mztourist (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in my view, having the US Navy name a commissioned ship for an individual should confer notability of the subject. Merging into multiple other ship pages just feels sloppy and harder to maintain as we find time/sources to improve a bio article about this person. I agree that more independent sources would be ideal to improving article quality, but this is sometimes difficult given the time period. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what that says. You aren't notable from being related to someone, or loosely connected to something. Having your achievements notable enough to be recognized with a significant award or honor like this is totally different. Dream Focus 06:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that having a military ship named after someone is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Dream Focus 06:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545) No-one above seems to be saying that sufficent sources exist to meet WP:BIO here, so covering this person in the context of the ship is the logical solution. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545), insufficient sources for independent article. Cavalryman (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). Only George H. Gay Jr. and John C. Waldron from Torpedo 8 have received sufficient coverage, one for being the sole survivor, the other for commanding. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update. ~~I am now in the process of seeing if there are other Torpedo 8 articles to nominate for deletion; already found Henry R. Kenyon Jr., John P. Gray.~~ I have bundled the rest of the Torpedo 8 articles in one nomination, Kenyon's. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to USS Ebert (DE-768). There is consensus that this should be merged or redirected; I have redirected, but the history is retained if anyone wishes to merge something from it. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilan Ebert

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Ebert (DE-768). Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Ebert (DE-768). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Ebert (DE-768) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge' relevant information into USS Ebert (DE-768). Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Ebert (DE-768)#United States Navy (1944-1951), where all relevant information regarding him is pretty much already included. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into USS Ebert (DE-768), only one source provides SIGCOV so fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 20:33, 31 January 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 redirect to USS Edmonds. Consensus that the topic does not have sufficient coverage in independent sources to merit a stand-alone article. Any relevant content will be accessible in the page history and can be merged into the boat article as deemed appropriate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bert C. Edmonds

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering having the ship named after him seems to be more a memorial action initiated by his mother than anything else, I think this article fails our inclusion guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, construction and sponsorship is organised and authorised by the Secretary of the Navy. The sponsor is like a godparent for the ship. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Edmonds. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Aviation Ordinanceman posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Edmonds. If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Edmonds per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 01:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge relevant information into USS Edmonds. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Edmonds, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Edmonds per SOP. Enough already. A Silver Star isn't even close to a Navy Cross, and neither establish notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:23, 5 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 redirect to USS Durant (DER-389). As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilan Ebert Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth W. Durant

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one tertiary source is not enough to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Durant (DER-389). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Pharmacist's Mate Third Class posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Durant (DER-389). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Durant (DER-389) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 01:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Durant (DER-389), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Durant (DER-389), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 20:42, 31 January 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 merge to USS Donaldson. Consensus that this topic did not receive sufficient coverage in independent sources to qualify for a stand alone article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trose Emmett Donaldson

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Donaldson. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Donaldson. If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Donaldson per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 17:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Donaldson, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into USS Donaldson, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to USS Donaldson. Consensus has already been reached. A ship named after one has been established to not provide notability per a recent discussion, and a Navy Cross doesn't either. It's well past time to close all these similar nominations. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:21, 5 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 redirect to USS Doherty (DE-14). Consensus is that the topic does not have sufficient coverage in independent sources to qualify for a stand-alone article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Joseph Doherty

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The subject didn't win the Navy Cross as the nomination states. This indicates that these nominations are being made without accurately reading and researching the subjects. In any case, a warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Doherty (DE-14). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a DFC. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS_Doherty_(DE-14). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS_Doherty_(DE-14) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS_Doherty_(DE-14), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Doherty (DE-14), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Doherty (DE-14) per SOP. The DFC is pretty far down the awards list. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 5 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 redirect to USS Diachenko. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilan Ebert, same or similar rationales. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex M. Diachenko

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a complete failure of both the notability guidelines for soldiers and the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Diachenko. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Watertender 2nd class posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Diachenko per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. // Timothy :: talk 16:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Diachenko, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Diachenko, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect Show the sources or shut up and stop complaining about perfectly acceptable procedure. Reywas92^Talk 23:13, 2 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 redirect to USS Frederick C. Davis. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilan Ebert, same or similar number and spread of rationales. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Curtice Davis

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Frederick C. Davis. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Frederick C. Davis per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. // Timothy :: talk 16:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Frederick C. Davis, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Frederick C. Davis, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 21:04, 31 January 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 redirect to Edward C. Daly. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilan Ebert, same or similar number and spread of rationales. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward C. Daly

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete receiving the navy cross by itself is not enough to show notability, and there are no other significant signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Edward C. Daly (DE-17). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Coxswain posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No SIGCOV, no GNG, no notability. SK2242 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Edward C. Daly (DE-17) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Edward C. Daly (DE-17), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Edward C. Daly (DE-17), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 21:05, 31 January 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 keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willie York

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. While he did receive SIGCOV, he doesn't seem to be much more than a local personality. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG notability is based in SIGCOV in multiple RS, unless a specific guideline applies we don't assess the merits of the actions that led to that SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG and WP:PERSISTENCE are met. The argument that you can meet WP:SIGCOV and yet fail GNG is inexpliciable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does seem to pass WP:GNG. Regionality doesn't matter so much if the sources are independent, reliable, and span larger areas themselves but that last one is iffy. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hyper local coverage of a person of only local significance is never considered enough to lead to a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per nom - he received significant coverage. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:11, 8 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 redirect to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damon M. Cummings

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643). Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to the ship per Mztourist. It is apparent from the various deletion discussions regarding these single Navy Cross recipients with ships named after them that we need to get a community view on whether having a ship named after you is a “significant award or honour”. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a ship named after you is not a "significant award or honor" when the navy is churning out almost 500 ships in a very short time and for some inexplicable reason feels they all need to be named after people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was were named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is that at all relevant? There was no discussion of this specific page (nor any of the others below where you've cut and pasted the same comments) in the mass deletion which was closed as a procedural keep. What possible difference would it make if this was marked as the 2nd Nomination? I'll tell you, none whatsoever. Mztourist (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is relevant, faux outrage, hyperbole, and walls of text are camouflage for lack of sources showing SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643) per Mztourist. Cavalryman (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus.Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:53, 5 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 redirect to USS Cross. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Cushing Cross Jr.

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. A warship being named after someone is all but WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and even if we discount the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of destroyers that were named after "they died in the line of duty and that's the only thing of note in their career" people (which the ship named after him was), having a ship named after you is the same thing as having a building named after you. It's not an "award or honor" in the context that terminology means, and notability is not inherited from the ship. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Cross, the ship named after him, as he does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, or WP:SOLDIER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Cross. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Cross per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a ship named after you is not a signifcant honor when they are being churned out left, right and center with the odd view that they have to be named for a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Cross, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Cross per The Bushranger. Cavalryman (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to USS Cross based on the points above. Luciapop (talk) 20:52, 3 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 redirect to USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108). Daniel (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry L. Corl

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 13:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a ship named after you is not a significant honor under the conditions existing when this naming actually occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 12:13, 31 January 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 redirect to USS Cooner. Daniel (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bunyan Randolph Cooner

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Cooner. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Cooner per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 07:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having one of a group of over 500 ships named after you is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Cooner, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship were named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Cooner, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and merge. My grandmother has a whole street named after her, but she's not notable. Deb (talk) 12:48, 5 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 redirect to USS Howard F. Clark. Daniel (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Franklin Clark

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Howard F. Clark. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg awarded two DFCs. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Howard F. Clark per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 07:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a ship named after someone considering the actual conditions under which this naming was done does not fit the definition of a significant honor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Howard F. Clark, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Howard F. Clark, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 22:50, 31 January 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 redirect to USS Christopher. Tone 10:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Jensen Christopher

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Christopher. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Christopher per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 07:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a ship named after you is not a significant honor when they are being mass produced with tight naming schedules included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Christopher, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Christopher, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to USS Christopher. The sources at present do not meet the GNG, and I have seen no indication that others exist. The argument that he has received a "significant award or honor" is at war with current consensus. I frankly fail to understand the vehement objections raised against such mergers: All content can be merged, and it helps to consolidate our coverage, which benefits the reader. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:08, 5 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumner Atherton

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER (Lt awarded a DFC) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DFC not significantly notable, not seeing SIGCOV either. Zawed (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the author of this article. His DFC is significantly notable - please read improved article, which covers his post WWII career in aviation. He was also featured in US Navy Recruitment as a hero and honored by the State of New Hampshire. I have also included his participation in the location of a crashed civil passenger aircraft in 1968. User:Adin-Atherton (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you are clearly related to the subject which should be disclosed per WP:AVOIDCOI and your Keep and contributions will be assessed accordingly. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see my profile. I am British. No blood connection and also no COI. Like any author, it’s pride in my active research to salvage past work against such nominations for deletion and prevent my past contribution from being put in the bin. The subject matter is of interest to me and I hope it will be to others. Yes I happen to share the last name (as do many many thousands of others throughout the globe). I reiterate that anyone who created an article in his or her own time will feel the way I do.User:Adin-Atherton (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mztourist. A DFC is a DFC in this regard, and it might have the most captivating story behind it, but it's not the highest or second highest decoration. The references in the Career section appear to be somewhere in between trivial non-trivial mentions, but I have a hard time understanding how some of the assertions are supported by the sources. I didn't literally read each one of the 60s newspaper clips, but calling him specifically a pioneer of aviation looks like WP:SYNTH. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the creator of the article. In my quest to salvage I have culled all the “trivia” (post war career). As mentioned above I and trying to preserve a WW2 decorated veteran from being culled from this encyclopaedia. I hope this makes a difference. A shorter article might generate some fresh perspective. User:Adin-Atherton (talk) 21:45, 10 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 redirect to USS Chatelain (DE-149). Tone 10:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Paul Chatelain

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Chatelain (DE-149). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Gunner's Mate first class posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Chatelain (DE-149) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 07:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual that does not pass GNG or meet the notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Chatelain (DE-149). Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too.

Redirect to USS Chatelain (DE-149), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:52, 5 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Campbell

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor" and the ship wasn't even completed) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one tertiary source is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Lot of reliable sources. No compliance with WP:Before. Cf., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. England. Will easily meet or exceed WP:GNG. This is just a part of a mass deletion effort in different form. It was a second deletion nomination, that was part of a proposed mass slaughter. Wolf in sheep's clothing. As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is the second nomination for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly.Further, if it is not kept, the proposed redirect is a poor fit. Clearly it would be better to go to Squadron 8, rather than some generic medal burial ground. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC) t[reply]

What are the "Lot of reliable sources"? Just throwing every comment you can think of and pointing to other pages up for deletion which will all be judged on their own merits is absolutely no basis for which this page should be kept. The technicality that this page was part of an earlier proposed mass deletion closed as part of a procedural keep is irrelevant. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the policies cited on the shortcut to the right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Shortcuts

If you have RS add them in, just saying they exist is unlikely to save this from closing as a redirect. As noted on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles "The provision of reliable-source references is the best way to save an article.". Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lettler

You said you did WP:Before. Assuming for the sake of argument that is true, why don't you add some more? And how did you miss the ones I've added already? If you didn't find them, you need to recall that WP:Competence is required. If you did find them, we should not be going through this exercise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for GNG, BASIC and does not meet ANYBIO or NSOLDIER. REFBOMBING the article when the soruce is not SIGCOV does not make an article notable. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article went from something so short it could be merged to something quite well developed. [25] Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is a reliable source. This person had a notable award/recognition by having a navy ship named after him. Dream Focus 19:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not the article it was when proposed for deletion. WP:HEY. WP:Not paper. Arguendo, if it is not kept, it should be REDIRECT AND MERGED with VA-8 rather than some generic agglutination of Navy Cross winners. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: User:7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. –dlthewave ☎ 13:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

See shortcut. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Does not meet WP:NSOLDIER, and in no SN is having a ship named after you grounds for automatic notability. The current sourcing does not meet the level necessary to pass WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up anything more substantial. He gets mentioned in action reports regarding the battle, but nothing in-depth, unlike George H. Gay Jr., the lone survivor of the action. I would say merge to the ship's article, however, since the ship was never completed, it does not have one. Personally, I think that all Navy Cross awardees (and their counterparts in the Air Force and Army) should be part of NSOLDIER, but currently, they are not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to the generic and overpopulated List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II is a disservice in so many ways. If a redirect and MERGE were to happen, it makes sense it should be to VA-8, where his contribution makes sense. WP:Preserve and WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG, two sources (Mrazak & Mooney) provide SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Not Delete Either Userfy/Draftify or Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II and Merge with VT-8 (Squadron 8), or Keep, depending on the notability & significance of the ship being named after him, relative to that of a "nation's second-highest award for valour."

A single Navy Cross is insufficient for WP:SOLDIER, and as far as WP:ANYBIO, it's hard to say that having an (uncompleted) destroyer escort named after a person (during WW2) qualifies as "a well-known and significant award or honor." If it is sufficient, it should be included on the WP:SOLDIER page.

However, I'm wondering how it compares to a "nation's second-highest award for valour." [I.E. Is it more or less of a "well-known and significant award or honor" than a nation's second-highest award for valour?] If it is at-least as well-known and significant as a nation's second-highest award for valour, then perhaps it could be combined with his Navy Cross to qualify as being equivalent to 2 second-highest award for valours, and thus qualify for WP:SOLDIER.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with VT-8. I agree with Cavalryman that these two sources might make the subject meet GNG. On the other hand, he is really only notable for WP:ONEEVENT and might not qualify for a stand-alone article. Merging seems a good idea to preserve the reliably sourced content. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:57, 5 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 redirect to USS Calcaterra (DE-390). Daniel (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert A. Calcaterra

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Calcaterra (DE-390). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Machinists Mate 1st class posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Calcaterra (DE-390) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 06:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two sources are not enough to truly pass GNG, and he does not meet the notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Calcaterra (DE-390), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Calcaterra (DE-390), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:31, 2 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. The only !vote was expressed weakly and no interest expressed for deletion. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Douglas

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

notability Robingunes (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robingunes (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a few sources of Hürriyet: [26], [27], [28], though I’m having trouble to understand what this is. Is it a stage name for VEYasin or is it an album? Because one of the sources calls him "DJ Hey Douglas" while this article says its a project. We need to look into WP:ENT or WP:NALBUM depending on what it is. Also a note for the nominator: nominations on the English Wikipedia tend to have more than one word in it. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 11:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more additional source in the ongoing AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if the third time is a charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 21:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources above. Also has been selected the "Best DJ of the year" in the 46th Golden Butterfly Awards as seen here, which is a pretty big thing in Turkey. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:28, 19 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.

I put it up - interesting music but hard to pin down since it is a 'dj project' of an individual. But anybody approaching 8m views of a track on Youtube is obviously a substantial artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batterbu (talk • contribs) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to USS Charles E. Brannon. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Brannon

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Charles E. Brannon. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign awarded one Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Charles E. Brannon. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are no inline refs in the article, but we an probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Charles E. Brannon, the ship is notable, he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Charles E. Brannon. The current single source is a bad link, but the article in that directory about the ship can be found here. I would say merge, however there's not enough to merge, a simple redirect will do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Charles E. Brannon, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Charles E. Brannon, as fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setreis (talk • contribs) 07:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Charles E. Brannon per above. I really don't see why this had to be relisted since the result was already #REDIRECT WP:SNOWing. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 2 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 merge to USS Harry F. Bauer. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry F. Bauer

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Harry F. Bauer. Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here. The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (very selectively) to USS Harry F. Bauer per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 05:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a ship named after you is not a signficant honor under the conditions under which this naming actually occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, it's more appropriate to have relevant information (specifically military career and silver star action) about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains significant coverage to write an article with per GNG. -- GreenC 21:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, selectively, following GPL93's suggestion. He doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER, or WP:GNG, and contrary to what has been said, having a ship named after you is not part of any SN. Also, unless I missed something in the article, or in the sources, he was not awarded the Navy Cross, but the Silver Star. which is a couple of grades lower than the Navy Cross. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reference material to fill an article with, so against merging. Having a military ship named after you is a significant award or honor and thus passes WP:ANYBIO. Dream Focus 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references are about Bauer though. Three are in relation to the ship named after him, one is about a ship that he served on, and one is focused on a completely different person. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference in the article shows ample information about him, and his heroic action that earned him a silver star and got a ship named after him. The fact that it then mentions information about that ship afterwards is not relevant. He is notable for his actions, and winning a significant award and honor for it. Dream Focus 00:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, insufficient SIGCOV of the individual to meet GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I'm inclined go with selective merge with USS Gregory (DD-82) given that the narrative goes with that ship rather than the destroyer which honored him, but merger to either ship is preferable. It's the same story as with the run of "sailors after whom destroyers were named" articles; I'm also seeing the same problem here as with the Ault article, that almost all the biography is unsourced. It seems to me that the principle ought to be that these sailors and marines are documented in the article either on the ship named after them, or on that of the ship/battle where their notable action occurred. I prefer the latter but in particular I just don't see what we are gaining by, in most of these instances, repeating the same story of their heroism in three different articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on adding sources. At AFD, I assume that those who vote will do their own search and see whether sources exist. This goes for the proposer. And you are supposed to be looking at sources, whether they are cited in Wikipedia or not. WP:Notability does not depend on article quality. As I said, dumping lots of AFDs all at once is just an attempt to get the article axed. I can't update all these articles that quickly. You could add sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into USS Harry F. Bauer, fails GNG, only one reliable source provides SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is trendings towards a merge result, but Mangoe brings something overlooked amidst all of these ship namesake AfDs. Bauer is both the namesake of a ship (USS Harry F. Bauer), but was also the commander of another ship (USS Gregory) when he carried out the actions that led to a ship being named after him. This is different from the other AfDs, where the subjects were just serving as aviators/crew. Whether this merits a merge/redirect to the Gregory article instead of the Bauer article is worth discussing further. Also, this is the only AfD in this batch that I've closed in which 7&6=thirteen has explicitly said that they were adding sources to, and given the difference in command level I mentioned earlier, is another reason to relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been expanded and new sources added. Sources contain biographical information about Bauer who was both the captain of one ship and had another ship named for him. Even if you were to merge it is not all clear which ship would get the redirect, and there is enough material to merge that it becomes a WEIGHT issue. A separate article solves all these problems and there is sufficient sourcing for GNG. -- GreenC 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is still the same in that none of them are actually focused on Bauer himself. Three are in relation to the ship named after him, one is about the Gregory, and one is focused on a completely different person who served on the Gregory. Both the Gregory sources are quick mentions, so I think that the weight of what coverage there is leans more towards USS Harry F. Bauer. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in GNG says a source must be "focused", that is an invented high bar. Sources contain biographical information which is sufficient to wrote an article with. Sources contain significant coverage, as others here have stated. You are welcome to disagree, it is an opinion, but what is your point, of course you disagree you didn't !vote to Keep. -- GreenC 21:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does say coverage needs to be "Direct and in detail", which really only leaves his Silver Star citation and the opening paragraph of the USS Bauer's DANFS entry. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:06, 2 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 redirect to USS Bassett. Consensus that the topic is not notable. Any useful content is preserved in the page history and may be merged into other articles as deemed appropriate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar R. Bassett

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Bassett. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Bassett. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a ship named after you is not a sign of notability when ships are being churned out left and right and there is an odd decision that they must be named after someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Bassett, it's more appropriate to have relevant information (specifically military career and Navy Cross action) about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Bassett. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER, but there is some information which would make a nice addition on the ship article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Bassett, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not enough coverage. Setreis (talk) 07:57, 2 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 redirect to USS Doyle C. Barnes. Consensus that the topic is not notable. Any useful content is preserved in the page history and may be merged into other articles as deemed appropriate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Clayton Barnes

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Doyle C. Barnes. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Doyle C. Barnes. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are no inline refs in the article, but we an probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the navy is churning out ships left and right and feels a need to name them after someoone immediately on launch, having one named after you is not a significant award or honor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Doyle C. Barnes, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into USS Doyle C. Barnes. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Doyle C. Barnes, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect As per above suggessted. Setreis (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Doyle C. Barnes. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ashley yoursmile! 08:08, 2 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 redirect to USS Paul G. Baker (DE-642). Consensus that the topic is not notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul G. Baker

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor" and the ship doesn't even have a page) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Paul G. Baker (DE-642). All the pertinent info is included there. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Paul G. Baker (DE-642), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

obvious redirect per above. Mangoe (talk) 18:51, 2 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 merge to USS Austin (DE-15). Consensus that the subject is not notable, but some content about them could be merged into the target article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Arnold Austin

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Austin (DE-15). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Petty Officer posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Austin (DE-15). I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergable content here. The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Austin (DE-15). I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here. The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering the actual conditions srrouding the naming of a ship after him, it does not rise to the level of a significant honor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information included in the section, "Death at Pearl Harbor" into USS Austin (DE-15). Not enough SIGCOV to pass notability criteria, and doesn't pass WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:37, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William B. Ault

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An airstrip and warship was named after him which are "significant award or honor"s and so pass WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Arguably played a significant role in the attacks on Lae and Salamaua and the Battle of the Coral Sea. Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mztourist, Which sources contain SIGCOV? Does the award suffice for him to pass NSOLDIER? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus one Navy Cross doesn't satisfy #1 of SOLDIER, but doing a Google Books search brings up sufficient mentions of him in various books that I believe amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist, Hmmm. I'd rather see a few dedicated paragaph in one source, but you are probably right. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep combined the mentions, the Silver Star and the airstrip and warship all together squeak this past BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwheling the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship and an airstrip were named for him.

As at stands, this is a well developed article. And the existing sources have been ignored by the nominator and the DELETE voters. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently passes both WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Squeaks pass WP:GNG.--Kieran207 talk 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm seeing a lot of issues with this discussion, starting with wondering why people are suggesting merging this with the Bauer article when it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ault. If nothing else that makes nearly all the "merge" recommendations non-contributory to a consensus. Second, inclusion in a group nomination that was procedurally closed as unmanageable really doesn't bear on this nomination; it would have been nice to have mentioned that, but as far as the discussion is concerned, trying to make an issue of it is an attempt to undo the "without prejudice for renomination" close of the previous nomination.

All that said, while there is a bio here, everything that isn't the incident inspiring the medal award is unsourced, and frankly, it's pretty mundane. There were nearly 400 destroyers built in the Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing classes, so having a ship named after him in those classes isn't that exclusive an honor. So we're back to the Navy Cross. Is it enough to make this fellow's story, by itself, worthy of an article? WP:SOLDIER says no; the Navy Cross is not at the highest level, and having a ship/facility named after him is not one of the criteria, so he would have to pass WP:GNG directly, which seems unlikely. At this point I'm not going to offer a definite opinion, but so far I'm not seeing anything that wouldn't support redirecting to the USS Ault article and ensuring that the latter described, in brief, the action which led to the Navy Cross award. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. (What the heck does he have to do with the Harry F. Bauer?) Unlike claims in other recent Afd nominations, he did play a significant part in a major battle, and is mentioned both in the Battle of the Coral Sea and by various sources. He also has a Naval Historical Foundation article. That, and not the ship named after him or the Navy Cross, is what puts him barely over the top as far as notability is concerned IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NHF article is a very lightly edited version of the WP article. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but still, the NHF thought enough of him to post it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article comes from one of a couple of blog-like features, all posted by a single person. It's a fairly random walk through various historical vignettes, ranging from well-known persons and major battles to "Sailor of the Day" sort of material. I'm just not seeing how "whatever catches the poster's fancy" adds up to notability.Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit: [29] by User:7&6=thirteen pasted a swathe of discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry F. Bauer onto this discussion, I suggest s/he fixes it. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And stop nominating these perfectly valid articles constantly. Having a warship named after you is a significant recognition of his notability. This article is referenced and well developed. Dream Focus 09:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To a scattershot of unreliable sources. It does not "[recognize] his notability". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above. Pilean (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the consensus at WT:MILHIST#having a military ship named after you proves notability. Where independent reliable sources are not sufficient to meet WP:BIO, people who had ships named after them should be covered as part of the article on that ship. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+redirect to USS Ault. Having a US destroyer named after you is not a major distinction, and the Navy Cross, while a major award, is not at the level where anyone is going to write 6,000+ articles to cover all recipients. What it says in the ship article is sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 8 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchita Misra

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

Non-notable author. Terribly fails WP:AUTHOR. It just simply a vanity article. None of the citations gives either anything substantial or nothing at all about the subject. At best what could find in the citations just run-of-the-mill academic awards. The article creator has a SPA which indicates UPE/CoI spam. RationalPuff (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked through Gale Literature, Newspapers.com, Newspaper Archive, Archive.org, JSTOR, and saw no mention of her. The two sources on Google News that seem to talk about her, which are already included in the article, are: an interview[30] and a small blurb about a reading she did, which offhandedly mentioned she was a Awadh Samman awardee.[31]
Most of the article's sources are self-published/primary sources or interviews. But the ones that actually focus on her seem to be focused on her debut novel (one source shows her debut book The (In)eligible Bachelors was on a bestsellers list under the category of fiction[32]). It seems like she received some attention when she debuted (which is also what she received the Awadh Samman award for) but nothing much since.
Unless that one award is considered notable enough to pass WP:ANYBIO, it looks like she doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Unless there are other sources, I'd say delete. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narimanbekov family

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

WP:NOTGENEOLOGY. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. There are no sources showing the topic - the family - is notable. The sources are about two individuals in the family, but none about the subject - the family. // Timothy :: talk 05:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and fails WP:N due to a lack of reliable sources evidencing in-depth coverage of the family as a whole. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:49, 2 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles F. Marshall

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:AUTHOR. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a writer nor as a soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- his books might be a bit significant. He worked with the senior military historian for the European Theater, S.L.A. Marshall and his family, no relation, and Sir B. H. Liddell Hart; both died 20 or 30 years before him. Durindaljb (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nom. fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:13, 2 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Jarvis (cricketer)

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

This article about a cricketer born in the 1790s has no evidence of notability-it says he only played one match in his career and there is only one source. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Added a few more refs. In 1826 there was only 7 first class matches played so not much chance of actually playing many games. Nottingham CC have him down as one of their History makers. It's pre Wisden and coverage of sport in newspapers was non exsistant, but as an early player I think there is a case for him to be notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A historically important person in the early organisation cricket in Nottinghamshire, a leading figure in the Nottingham Cricket Club (the forerunner of the current Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club). In many regards, he's like Paul Foley in his importance to a specific county. StickyWicket (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a claim requires reliable sources to have any weight. Please present them or (better) expand the article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nottingham Cricket Club players. Notts have an excellent set of sources on players at this link, which includes a number of Nottingham players. It's really helpful in determining the relative importance of players and their histories. Jarvis' brother, George, was clearly much more notable (and his article needs more work). Charles, however, we know very little about - compare the two Notts summaries of Charles and George. I think it's reasonable to suggest that George is historically important in terms of the development of Nottinghamshire cricket (although I'm not sure it's entirely clear compared to other players from the same era fwiw); I'm utterly unconvinced that Charles is. The table at the list article pretty succinctly summarises Charles; I'm unsure what else we can really add to that if I'm honest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Nottingham Cricket Club players or George Jarvis (cricketer). Trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus is an extremely weak guideline, but fails all meaningful criteria for a standalone article, including GNG. No substantial independent non-database sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davidstewartharvey's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nottingham Cricket Club players as a plausible search term. As much as we say thinks like "he is notable" does not meet WP:GNG which is our minimum standards ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:37, 18 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. After a month, there is no clear consensus one way or another. As ritchie notes, the delete !votes are generally rather lacking in policy, but there is not substantial weight or strength behind the 'keep' votes to establish a clear keep consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Costello

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about being one of two people from a specific geographic area to die in a rebellion. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable individual. Not everyone who dies in a revolt automatically becomes notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’ve added six references. On the one hand it is true that little is known about his life so there’s a lack of in depth coverage. On the other hand there are three factors. First, the number who died in the 1916 uprising was not great, so they are very commonly listed by name and regarded as being of national significance even if they were otherwise quite ordinary men; second, the fact that he is buried in Ireland’s equivalent of Arlington National Cemetery; and thirdly, that he is important enough to have had a memorial built to him in Lurgan which is very controversial and itself been the subject of news coverage in Northern Ireland. Mccapra (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, one of two X to die during Y is no basis for notability and sources aren't there. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Was not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Venusecxces (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete arguments are all very weak and arguments to avoid, but only one keep argument has been placed. Need further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mccapra. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that now with the addition of the statue/monument controversy, he is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to fail WP:SOLDIER. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:03, 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 keep. Consensus is that Geo Swan has improved the article sufficiently such that deletion would not be appropriate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Bartsch

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

He was the superintendent of a local school district. This is not enough for notability, and there is no special coverage. He had a school named after him, but having a school named after you is not a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clearly lacks significant coverage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnpacklambert, if you plan to continue to nominate articles for deletion would you please make a greater effort to keep those nominations fair and accurate?

I know I have pointed out to you, many times, that your previous nominations looked like you were unwilling or unable to comply with the obligations laid upon you by WP:BEFORE. Well, I am going to repeat myself. Once again it looks like you were unwilling or unable to comply with the obligations laid upon you by BEFORE.

Bartsch was more than the first superintendant of a School district. He was one of the most important professors at Fresno Pacific University during its early formative years.

I am going to repeat myself, if you are going to make nominations you have a strong obligation to make them fair and accurate. Anything less is highly disrespectful to the individuals who worked on those articles. Geo Swan (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rescue work by User:Geo Swan, but I'm not convinced the subject passes WP:GNG. The piece from the Reedley Exponent counts, but we need SIGCOV from multiple independent sources, and FPU publications do not qualify as independent in this case. Can you come up with at least one or two further examples of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources sources? Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I went and checked WP:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes to confirm my recollection that, as a Dean, his notability was established by, well being a Dean. Good thing I did, as it actually says "generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis". However, Bartch wasn't just a Dean, he was the young University's first Dean of its School of Professional Studies.
  When Bartsch started, the University was a small religious college, and cash poor. The School of Professional Studies used distance education, correspondence, and its students were not religious students. If I am reading the documents correctly, many of his students were teachers, working teachers, experienced older teachers, upgrading their credential at a time when older teachers had been able to get a teacher's certificate without finishing a Bachelor's Degree, who wanted to keep up in pay and promotion with younger and more qualified teachers, who had to earn a Bachelor's degree before they applied for Teacher's College.
  If I read the source documents properly, this small religious college's expansion to a student body of 10,000 wouldn't have been possible if it hadn't been for the revenue from the distance education to secular students that Bartsch introduced.
  So, I suggest that boosts his Deanship to the level where he measures up to ACADEMIC. That is why I left a keep.
  FWIW he did serve a partial term as Acting President of the University. Geo Swan (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, WP:PROF, WP:BEFORE, and WP:HEY. Based on what's in the article now, the subject clearly passes the relevant notability guidelines. I'm concerned that a reasonable online search was not done prior to the nomination. Superintendents of school districts are not automatically notable, although their policies and decisions can literally be livelihood, life, or death. Professors have several avenues to notability. In any case, Geo Swan did a great job of rescuing this article. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 1 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Sarkhosh (snooker)

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 whole lot of "I like it" vs" I don't like it" arguments here, but there doesn't appear to be a strong consensus to delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

César Luis González

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. A first lieutenant who died in a training accident and received common awards. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When an American military personnel of any race becomes the first of his race to accomplish a feat an article is written and no-one complains. However, now it seems that there is an agenda to delete articles of heroic Hispanic military personnel. Gonzalez was the first Puerto Rican pilot in the United States Army Air Forces and the first Puerto Rican pilot to die in World War II. His name is listed on the "Roll of Honor" of the 314th Troop Carrier Group World War II and both, his hometown Adjuntas and the Capital of Puerto Rico, San Juan, have honored his memory by naming a street after him. Are these accolades given to some-one who is not notable? Tony the Marine (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually, they are. Notability as defined by Wikipedia is not "a noteworthy person", it is extensive coverage in reliable, third-party sources. There is no agenda to delete articles of heroic Hispanic military personnel, and I would ask you to please dial back your assumptions of bad faith - the fact is there are quite a few articles on non-notable military personel that were created based on misconstrued presumptions of notability like yours, and therefore, when they are cleaned up, it can look like "targeting" until you consider the actual facts. That said, being the first Puerto Rican pilot in the USAAF should be a presumption of notability, but...
Weak keep - ...we have to verify it. I can find three hits in gBooks that mention this fact; two of them are SPSes/vanity publishers that have wording that makes it pretty clear they sourced from us. The third is an ABC-Clio published book and should be reliable [33], but my antennae are twitching as to its sourcing (i.e. they may have pulled from us...) and it is only a passing mention to boot. I'd really like to see this sort of fact cited multiple places, especially in "pre-Wikipedia" sources; the fact there don't seem to be any mentioning this makes me twitch even more. (I'll also note the fact isn't even actually cited in the article or even mentioned outside the lede.) If somebody can find a source that is both reliably published, pre-dates Wikipedia, and clearly states this fact, I'll happily change to a "full keep", but as it is right now there's merely the presumption of notability that can only be verified in the weakest of ways. I'm willing to AGF with my !vote here that sources, offline likely, exist, and thus not being a BLP that's enough, but... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete let us stop pretending terms like "race" have any meaning. They are fluid over time, and so the first person of x race in y nation to achieve z military designation is not a good standard for notability. China has 55 races that they recognize as being widely present there, Myanmar recognizes 85 races in their country. We follow sustained 3rd-party coverage, we do not make up inclusion criteria on our own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification please, your assertion that references didn't exist? As per your usual practice, you made this assertion without actually doing your own web search to confirm your assertion other references didn't exist was accurate? I found one. Maybe if you looked you'd find some too? Geo Swan (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Tony, being a first is significant. Geo Swan (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, first X nationality to do/receive/die during Y is not notable. We don't have pages for the first person of every nationality, US state or territory to do something, so no reason why an exception should be made for Puerto Rico. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; WP:SOLDIER is an essay and WP:GNG does not seem to apply here. While some of the uncited stuff probably needs to get backed up with something or get out of the article; AfD is not the same thing as cleanup. jp×g 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG does not seem to apply here On what basis is this rather bold assertion made? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I probably should have said something like: per Bushranger's post above, which examines GNG and presumes notability, erstwhile no other post seems to even consider GNG (instead focusing on WP:SOLDIER or other stuff I don't quite understand). jp×g 23:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment clearly states that he fails SOLDIER and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about whether or not it has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject beyond WP:JNN. jp×g 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly does not have SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "first is significant" -- "Puerto Rico has representation in all international competitions." It is different than being the first person from a U.S. state to do something. Durindaljb (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy that states "first is significant"? Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is filled with countless entries that state "first X military casualty" with this fact essentially being just about this person's only claim to fame. That is sort of what wikipedia is all about! A person is going to have delete a large chunk of wikipedia to delete all such similar entries. Durindaljb (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should all be deleted unless that status has SIGCOV in multiple RS. We should not have a page for the first or last person of each nationality/ethnicity to die in every conflict. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems a rather ho-hum military career. Could be a subsection in an article about Puerto Rico in WW2 or something, no sure we need a whole article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't even feel that this needs to be discussed! Gonzalez was the first Puerto Rican pilot in the United States Army Air Forces! That alone merits it! BoriquaZurdo (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- First x nationality to die during/do/achieve y is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per all above "first is significant". Akronowner (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the relevant policy or guideline that supports this assertion. Mztourist (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. MER-C 12:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, having two streets named after him is a "well-known and significant award or honor." I have also added a commentary source from the Air Force: Hispanic Airmen Impact Predates Air Force that verifies information in the article and supports notability, including per WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 13 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 delete. Notability is not inherited and therefore the consensus is this doesn't meet GNG. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Stokes

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article that fails our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the same response to the exact same delete !votes copy-pasted from similar nominations. WP:GNG is a guideline, and WP:SOLDIER is an essay. I count eight reliable third-party sources, including a book that prominently features the guy; is there some reason this doesn't satisfy WP:V and imply WP:N? jp×g 18:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, we don't see that there are eight RS. I see one or two. Mztourist (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Intothat darkness 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the headcount is clear, the "delete" opinions merely broadly assert non-notability, without discussing why the sources cited in the article do not establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:SIGCOV. SwashWafer (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nom is off-base. It is fine for it to not meet soldier, if it meets gng. Nom seems not to understand this. Nor the editor whose vote is similarly based on only that criterion. 2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been on WP for one day and yet you feel qualified to come to AFD and criticize other Users' deletes? Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes. 2. Is there a rule against it? 3. In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. 4. WP:SOLDIER is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. 5. Regardless of that non-policy, non-guideline essay, 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. 6. GNG, in contrast, is an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard. 7. What is important is the extent to which a comment is based on our guidelines, not how long they have been here or even how many similar comments there are. 8. Your attitude is one that some might consider slightly less than welcoming to editors. Which is not quite what the project strives for. 9. Any further questions? 2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the obvious assumption is that you are a Sock of a banned User. New Users don't come to AFD and start arguing policy and guidelines. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. (I'm not, btw). The obvious assumption is that you flout the rule that requires you to AGF. And that you are ignorant of dynamic IP addresses, and how at no instance of the user they are assigned. And, at the risk of saying it, you appear to be the sort of editor who instead of saying "welcome" says .. something hostile. Not perhaps the best look one could aspire to. Anyway - the substance of what I said above stands. You should know the difference between an essay and a guideline. And that GNG is always good enough.--2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are we to know? Why don't you create an account? I do know the difference between an Essay and a Guideline, as you would have seen by looking above I referred to both SOLDIER and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A military historian made him "a prominent figure" in his notable book. He had ample coverage on an episode of a show on the History channel reenacting the historically significant battle he was part of. Dream Focus 05:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is a nice multi-paragraph Newsweek article that goes to GNG that is not yet reflected in the wp article. And there is no indication the above delete voters considered it when voting."Fallujah "Point Man" Earns Silver Star" It, in turn, points to tv station KCRA coverage and Marine Corps Times coverage of the fellow.2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. 1. This need only meet GNG, and as discussed above those votes that were based only on whether it met the essay soldier failed to conduct the right test, and therefore don't count. User:JPxG was right.

2. The a) Newsweek article I link to above devoted to him, and

b) the tv station KCRA coverage linked to in that article (and even excluding c) the Marine Corps Times coverage of the fellow which we know exists because it is quoted from but I cannot see), and

d) this LA Times article,[34] and

e) this San Francisco Chronicle article,[35] and

f) this Gold Country Media article,[36] and

g) this National Review article that has a few paragraphs on him,[37]

taken together amply satisfy GNG hands down. And make me puzzle as to how they were missed by nom. It also raises the question as to whether they were therefore not considered by the above delete voters, who had reason to believe a before search was done by nom. This is not a close call. 2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, that story has to be some of the laziest "journalism" I have ever read. I used to regard Newsweek as a reliable source, but that story comprised of 4 lengthy quotes (2 from a Marine Corps Times story that can't be found and two from a blog) and a tv story definitely makes me question the reliability of their online reporting. Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 7 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Harris (U.S. Marine)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. I don't understand how this article passed new page reviewers. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability. The NPP was right to pass it, though, as they have no knowledge of whether the action in Helmand was sufficiently noteworthy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another in a long line of well-written, adequately sourced articles on long-dead soldiers dragged to AfD for no apparent reason (WP:SOLDIER is an essay)... jp×g 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol what? Just because an article is well-written and adequately sourced does not mean he passes WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you need to say that. "Fails WP:SOLDIER is not a reason to delete. It is absolutely possible to fail SOLDIER and pass GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on San Diego Union Tribune, Military Times, and Fox5. It's not the strongest case, but it is there. IF NSOLDIER had the same standards as NACTOR or NSPORTS, they would easily pass. // Timothy :: t | c | a 12:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source Evaluation

Source	Evaluation
Antoine, Jennifer. "Fallen Marine Hono…	I fixed the link. It contains very little about the subject, but a good deal about the course. Seems like there should be more written about him if he received this, but no SIGCOV.
"Military honors two for valor with S…	From the San Diego Union Tribune. Meets SIGCOV, directly addresses the subject and goes into depth to explain a significant part of their life.
"U.S. MARINE CORPS RECIPIENTS OF THE…	Listed with award recipients. Not SIGCOV
"Valor awards for Larry D. Harris , J…	Military Times so IS is ? Contains a copy of his commendation which is SIGCOV
Burns, Robert. "Pendleton training ev…	Major local news station in significant media market. Has information about his service and the hornor he received. Gray area for SIGCOV.
l Larry Donell Harris, Jr". Together We…	TogetherWeServed.com. Has SIGCOV, but it is user generated content and there is no information showing editorial oversight or process for fact checking content.

- MilitaryTimes does cover Harris, but it also covers a bunch of other Silver Star recipients, so it isn't exclusive SIGCOV. Both San Diego sources do go into detail, but I'd expect more SIGCOV if someone truly met GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems to be notable. A couple secondary references to show this. Although it isn't well written, it still meets Wikipedia standards. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:GNG. He needs WP:SIGCOV. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources are weak, at best. Soldiers with far higher honors (e.g. the Navy Cross) do not qualify either, so why would he? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing (as it currently stands) to meet GNG - I see in the sources some local coverage in news, and some military sources, but nothing seems substantial and independent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reading WP:SOLDIER (a notability guide) tells me that earning the highest military decoration merits notability. This fellow received the Silver Star; the highest US decoration is the Medal of Honour. It is challenging to observe this fellow earn notability for WP other than his passing. Said respectfully. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay and so has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Tell it to the Marines. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems to fall on the borderline line of WP:GNG, and doesn't get any traction from the advisory NSOLDIER. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete while ignoring WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG is apparently not met. Military times is just a copy of his medal citation, not independent coverage, the two DOD sources are not in-depth coverage, which leaves us with two San Diego area publications covering him (one major, one local). I'd expect more to establish notability here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any SIGCOV is in local or regional media which one would expect would be different should they actually be notable. The one "major" source is borderline SIGCOV. That still leaves us needing multiple intellectually different sources. I ignore SNG's when it comes to AfD's simply because most SNG's, and really all should, presume notability. Under WP:N you may presume notability if there is reasoned confidence that SIGCOV will be written in the future to allow the subject to pass GNG criteria (notes included at the bottom for clarity). I don't see that being the case here so it fails notability criteria at this time. --ARose Wolf 17:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe it passes WP:GNG, although the sourcing can certainly be improved. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Military honors two for valor with Silver Stars and Pendleton training event renamed to honor fallen Marine prove the general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 00:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept, but it needs improvement. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stands. Little more than stub article standard (WP:GNG significant coverage?). No details as to notability for actions as opposed to remembered by Harris Trail renaming. Everyone fallen is remembered, but surely this could open a deluge of articles to those fallen who maybe have a street named after them by residents of their home town?--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The people who are voting keep are baselessly saying that two verifiable sources makes a person pass GNG (we could make millions of articles of people with that many sources). Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lettler says that like it would be a bad thing. Wikipedia already has millions of articles and every time we add another million, this is a cause for celebration. It is our explicit policy that there is no practical limit to the number of articles and so it's not a problem. But attempting to destroy and diminish Wikipedia is disruption. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't my point. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Um... Isn't that the point of GNG? Make sure pages arent created for every single thing, but maintain a low bar to include quite a bit of things if people are willing to take the time to write about it? I have always interpreted "multiple" to simply require two or more sources meeting the other requirements. Once that is met, content inclusion is determined by verifiability, which doesn't have the same sigcov requirement. -2pou (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More than 100,000 people have received the Silver Star. We need better in-depth signifcant coverage than local news to establish notability here. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing mostly circular coverage with little independent sourcing. Intothat darkness 19:18, 2 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Domeij

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally fails our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep soldier who holds the record for the most deployments to be killed in action -- 14 deployments! Of all the celebrities on wikipedia, this is the one you want to erase from history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durindaljb (talk • contribs)
Keep The start of the article reads: Kristoffer Bryan Domeij (October 5, 1982 – October 22, 2011) was a United States Army soldier who holds the record for the U.S. soldier with the most deployments to be killed in action. He served four deployments in Iraq and at least nine in Afghanistan. Sounds like a notable enough accomplish to get an article on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why someone would vote on an AFD discussion by looking at the lead, but ok. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Number of deployments is completely unreferenced.Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another in a long line of well-written, adequately sourced articles on long-dead soldiers dragged to AfD (WP:SOLDIER is an essay) with the same couple people voting to delete. jp×g 15:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist mostly. The deployment record is impossible to verify and isn't notable in itself (and very likely debatable, but that's another discussion). Intothat darkness 17:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by jp. The deployment record is verified. WP:Verifiability. Repeatedly in multiple WP:RS. User:Intothatdarkness, that you missed that (and boldly asserted it could not be veriified) shows the cursory nature of your research inquiry, and the vapidity of your position. Article contents and new references establishes his notability. No compliance with WP:Before. Meets WP:GNG. WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Vapidity of my position"? Really? And your position about the deployment record's reliability seems to show a complete unfamiliarity with how these things work. Intothat darkness 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't like the reliable sources does not make them magically disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you rework it to state he holds the record within the Ranger Regiment for the most deployments before being KIA (which is how the sources frame it) it might be more believable. From my reading of what's been posted so far it's a very specific record that doesn't take the rest of JSOC or SOCOM into consideration. And even with that said, I'm not convinced it's notable. Intothat darkness 20:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete World records (or rather "American records") are not automatically notable. So far none of the "keep" voters has even addressed the question of why that particular record is notable. ApLundell (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people) reads at the top On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, 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. So yeah, this counts. Dream Focus 03:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easily surpasses WP:GNG, which you have overlooked. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not overlooked any of the things the folk from ARS have accused me of. (They tend to make the same complaint about everyone who ever disagrees with them, so I won't take it personally.)

Being a record holder is not automatically notable. Virtually everybody is the superlative something. It is still required to show that their life or achievements are notable, not simply unique.

That hasn't been done for this article, and I don't believe it can. ApLundell (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AP, I am not a member of ARS and I am not here to attack you for disagreeing with me. You deserve your opinion and I am not here to convince you or anyone else that I am right and you are wrong. They will look at what we say and make their own assessment. That being said, I would like to point out that, in case you are unaware, Wikipedia does not concern itself with the notability of the action but the notability of the subject, unless the article is about the action. What I mean is that we are to look, not at the substance of the reliable sources but whether the subject receives adequate coverage in those sources. Wikipedia does not care how notable or distinguished the information is. His service record and length doesn't matter and doesn't have to be proved. Are the sources reliable and do they give him intellectually independent significant coverage? It could be about things you might feel are insignificant but if they give it adequate coverage and ties it to him then it can be included in the litmus test of notability. Wikipedia is indifferent to half the arguments made here from both sides except the facts based on policy, even begrudgedly, flawed policy. --ARose Wolf 18:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reviewed all of the evidence presented both within the article and also conducting my own BEFORE search. This person does, indeed, fail WP:SOLDIER. In my mind this essay holds as much credence as all the SNG's that give subjects unfair advantages over other subjects like WP:NPROF. I digress, in looking at the sources a few things jump out. #1 - One argument here is that he is notable solely due to the length and number of combat tours. That may be the case on military bases and in the minds and hearts of those who knew him and value his service. Wikipedia, to be frank, is indifferent to feelings and emotions, only facts matter based on policy. I did not take into account his service record length or number of tours. #2 - I counted every reliable source that repeated the same information almost verbatim as one source as per criteria for multiple intellectually different sources. This still leaves the subject with coverage in reliable sources that may be similar but do contain intellectually different material as well, on top of the reliable sources that are wholly intellectually different. #3 - The subject received significant coverage in the reliable sources that did include him. Therefore, setting point 1 aside and taking points 2 and 3 into consideration, my assessment is that the subject passes criteria found in WP:N for inclusion. --ARose Wolf 17:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of the Milhist guideline which starts "an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." and ends "a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett You are entitled to your opinion for sure. I am not here to change your view only show how and why I voted the way I did. As I stated, I didn't look at the Milhist guideline because many guidelines are based on presumption of notability which can be rebutted as is proper and we see here is why we have AfD's in the first place. I look solely at basic notability as described in the entirety of WP:N (including notes at the bottom) minus all the SNG's because most are highly unreliable and vague. I also conduct a BEFORE search for sources that may not be located in the article itself. There is significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are intellectually independent. The content of that coverage does not matter so long as it is significant and in a reliable source with exception of the sources in which the content is mostly identical or repeating the same information. According to note 4 at the bottom of WP:N, these sources are not intellectually different and therefore should be counted as one source. That is what I did in my search and still found enough to keep the article. If nothing else I am consistent in my approach across all AfD's and when I have made a mistake I will admit it. --ARose Wolf 15:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:GNG includes sources that exist, even if they aren't referenced in the article. See the shortcut on the right hand side of this comment. And if you had done WP:Before before proposing the AFD

Shortcuts

Actually I didn't add the references on the talk page. I rewrote the whole article.

(The above was moved for user 7&6=thirteen as it split an existing comment in half. It wasn't tagged and only they know where is should go and what context it was said in. I defer to them to decide its fate and may delete all of it and this following comment made by myself should they deem it necessary.) --ARose Wolf 15:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's deployed 14 times, but did he actually do anything other than not coming home in the end? Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*What he did or did not do is of no consequence to the policy on notability. The only criteria is significant coverage in reliable sources plus all the other words we can use to describe it. That's it. If the garbage man down the road gets that for simply being a garbage man then he deserves an article. I know, its an absurd example but sometimes when we provide that we show the simplistic depth of discrimination the policy allows for. It's not about what was done but what was reported and to what detail. --ARose Wolf 22:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

Comment WP:GNG includes sources that exist, even if they aren't referenced in the article. See the shortcut on the right hand side of this comment. And if WP:Before was donebefore proposing the AFD, we wouldn't here at all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG even though fails WP:SOLDIER. Kolma8 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 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 delete. If anyone would like the article restored to user or draft space, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AD Singh

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

Promotional and non-notable BLP. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article already has seven sources. Can the nominator please explain what’s wrong with them? Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

none of the links show anything substantial to meet WP:ARTIST, WP:NMODEL. These are rather just run-of-the-mill page-3 listing of pics. RationalPuff (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are reference links and videos to substantiate him being a fashion designer worked with credible models and actresses at Fashion Shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5090:1685:7458:3E99:E036:C2C3 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reference links from various leading Indian News websites establish that this designer has worked with other renowned WP:ARTIST, WP:NMODEL and qualifies for WP:ARTIST. His work and designs are also available on various social media platforms under verified profiles. They do not seem to be just run-of-the-mill page-3 listings but actual fashion designs with qualified WP:NMODEL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5090:1685:6D97:A8F:DB70:172A (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. Article space should redirect to other AD Singh. LK (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AD Singh is a well known designer in India and his name coincides with another known restaurateur, hence Wikipedia should keep both the pages active. Designer AD Singh as a celebrity is having verified social media accounts (Twitter and Instagram) and dedicated Google profile, so that his high net-worth customers are not duped by fake profiles. So it important to have his wiki page which can help people to identify the correct individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5179:D1EE:DE59:DDFD:3684:2D6A (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LK Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:49, 4 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Sikha

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

Promotional and non-notable BLP. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the four sources in the article, I found one in the Deccan Chronicle, one in the New Indian Express, and one in the Indian Express dating from 2009 to 2019 so this is a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, found a number of credible sources about the subject and have added them to the article. Luciapop (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article is good to go for Wikipedia, the mentioned references and sources put subject on the stronger side to stay on Wikipedia. Additionally, I have found other credible sources about subject which I am mentioning here as below:

^[7] ^[8]

I request other editors to review this and add these links to article to make it the better version Syoz (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC) — Syoz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Shabad, Rebecca (2021-01-18). "'Small fire' prompts brief shutdown of Capitol, evacuation of inauguration rehearsal participants". CNBC. Retrieved 2021-01-31. Yogananda Pittman, acting chief of Capitol Police, acted out of "an abundance of caution following an external security threat under the bridge on I-295 at First and F Streets," and ordered a shutdown of the Capitol complex, according to a statement from Capitol Police.
^ ^a ^b King, Maya (2021-01-19). "The acting Capitol Police chief's tough task". Politico. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
^ Vika, Will (2021-01-22). "Capitol Police acting chief: We didn't tell National Guard to leave Capitol facilities". wtopnews. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
^ ^a ^b ^c Campione, Katie (2021-01-26). "U.S. Capitol Police Chief Apologizes for Department Response to Riots: 'We Will Do Better'". People. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
^ ^a ^b Grayer, Annie; Duster, Chandelis (2021-01-26). "Acting Capitol Police chief tells Congress the department 'failed' during riot". CNN. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
^ Maass, Harold (2021-01-29). "10 things you need to know today: January 29, 2021". The Week. Retrieved 2021-01-31. Acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman on Thursday said that "permanent fencing" is needed at the Capitol to prevent a repeat of the recent deadly riot ...
^ https://epaper.ntnews.com/home/index?date=18/02/2020&eid=1&pid=128653
^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/fashion-and-beauty/250619/for-green-fashion.html

Your commentary is likely not to be considered if you aren't familiar with the relevant notability guidelines and arguing your position based on whether the subject meets those criteria or not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 1 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 and so it is eligible for the BOLD reformulation proposed below. Any disputes about this may be discussed using the normal dispute resolution process. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Tinker

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

Fails NSOLDIER. No RS for most of the details on the page. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Details and references are all found within the book A Message from the Falklands. MrMarmite (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone killed in battle is notable. That is basically what we would have to set notability at to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER, he may qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. The book has reviews [38], including in the prestigious London Review of Books [39]. A play has been created from the book [40], and is itself the subject of scholarly interest. [41] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if this might be redirected to a possible future article about his father Professor Hugh Tinker who has both an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article and a UK Who's Who entry but no English Wikipedia article? Piecesofuk (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure this in itself would make him notable, but The Stage and Television Today archive should have some interesting material about how the play Falkland Sound initially was banned from Plymouth but then was staged at a smaller theatre. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the subject does have one book and it is reviewed I'm not sure I would consider them any more notable for that one book than any other author who writes one book. The play is an interesting spin on the subjects impact but the question remains to be determined whether a person's work, alone, can make them notable even if all that is referenced is the work while there is little to no in-depth coverage of the works creator. Is the work notable or the creator? While the subjects father or relatives may be notable that notability is not inherited. The subject must be notable and while the work they create or the heroics they may perform can be a catalyst in which notability is incubated and emerges, the works and events can not, themselves, be the sole source of notability that receives significant coverage independent of its creator/performer. I find, after conducting my own BEFORE search, in this case that the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion. There are flashes but flashes are no better than mentions in that regard. Fails WP:SOLDIER, Fails WP:NAUTHOR, Fails WP:N, Wikipedia is not... WP:NOT --ARose Wolf 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to be about the book, which does seem to be notable, most of the article content is already about it anyways. Deletion is inappropriate because the notable book is memoirs of the person, making it really easy to re-purpose for the book itself. I can do it if consensus is reached here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more references, and more about the book and play and his letters. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 5 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aderonke Apata

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

NOT ADVOCACY, and NOT TABLOID. This personal story, however harrowing, is not encyclopedic content. That other publications print this is not evidence that we should DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is backed up by several reliable sources, including articles from The Guardian, NBC News, The Independent, The Telegraph, and HuffPost. All of extensive coverage is more than enough to establish and justify notability. If you don't like certain parts of the article, then please feel free to remove them, but advocacy alone doesn't mean we should just get rid of an article. Also, the point of view I wrote the article from reflects the point of view of the RSes, and in terms of lgbt topics, reality leans to the left, but If you don't like that, change the point of view. There are even several books that mention Apata X-Editor (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG has also failed to explain what specific problems the article even has. If you list the problems, I could fix them. X-Editor (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an improved version of the article here in which I have removed all of the unreliable sources and trimmed the lede to be more neutral. X-Editor (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per DGG, imho The article has potential to be of value but as of now it’s poorly written & cannot remain on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's poorly written, then fix the article. A poorly written article alone is no justification for deletion. X-Editor (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: while there may be some issues with the article (such as it possibly being a bit too detailed about her story, and I'm not too sure about the "Awards and honours" section: is being Ranked No. 41 in the Rainbow List from The Independent that significant to be included?); I think there is just enough coverage of the person to keep the article: the sources in the article that talk about her are - I think - in depth enough to keep. Issues with the article itself aren't enough to warrant deletion, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to draftifying this article (as Celestina007 seems to be arguing for in their delete !vote above) - although I still think it should be kept (and then possibly trimmed down quite a bit). Seagull123 Φ 16:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123: I made some edits significantly trimming the article. If you want to do trimming of your own, please feel free to do so. X-Editor (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest very much more trimming of the bio section is needed--the details are in the sources; and certainly we should remove the trivial awards and placements; After it's written as much as possible, it might be clearer to see if there is actually any notability . A poorly written article -- or any article -- that is unfixable to a NPOV standard is a justification for deletion. If someone thinks they can fix it, the question is whether it can be done here, moved to draft, or the article started over. . DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: What content in the bio would you suggest trimming? X-Editor (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This afternoon I read every one of the newspaper and web accounts cited, and a good deal else, (except for her book). It is the case, as in almost all survivor stories, that almost the entire account of the horrendous events is due to the person's own statements (and, as is inevitable, the news and similar sources essentially copy each other for this period.) (I also read two lengthy handbooks on how to evaluate such accounts--the conclusion is basically that for humanitarian purposes the only ethical thing is to take them as they are given unless they can be shown impossible--and this is to some degree the direction of current law in the EC, though not the US). My previous experience is with survivor stories from a different continent and generation, and my interest in them is their evaluation for historical purposes, which is another question entirely (as is the way such accounts should be handled in an encyclopedia). What concerns me more about this article is that for the events in the UK the sources also essentially copy each other--this is usually the result of effective PR.

It might be possible to write about this in a way which is objective but not unsympathetic, but this is beyond my abilities. I am not sure anyone here can really do it. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: All sources copy each other to some extent, but all the sources that mention her don't just contain the same information. Some have unique info that can only be found in one or two or a few sources. I also think it would be very hard to write the article from an objective but not unsympathetic POV as the bias in the sources Wikipedia uses often reflects onto WP. And yes, good PR can result in a Wiki article as long as the PR gets picked by and verified by multiple different independent media outlets. X-Editor (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, even high-quality PR copied into WP cannot make an acceptable NPOV article. At least, in the 14 years I've been working with articles on people and organizations, I have never seen it, though well-done responsible PR can in some cases serve as a source for straightforward undisputed factual materials that can with caution be used in a encyclopedia article. PR by its very nature is neither independent or NPOV. The very few honest declared paid editors in WP tell me that it is very difficult to support a business writing NPOV articles for Wikipedia , because their clients do not generally accept NPOV work. And it's also the case that a proper NPOV Wikipedia article about a worthy cause or useful product can incidentally serve to some degree for PR as well as information.

All of us can very easily deal with commercial PR; but when its PR for a sympathetic cause it becomes much more difficult. That's why I don't want to edit this article -- i don't want to seem unfriendly, or act as if I did not recognize the problem or applaud the heroism. And I find it very difficult even to write this. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: PR is a huge part of actvism tho, so it's really difficult to separate the two. I am not a paid editor BTW. If there were articles criticizing her, I would've added them and their content too. At this point, I think it would be best to end our discussion here as we can't seem to come to any sort of agreement. X-Editor (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I do agree with you that "PRi s a huge part of activism." NOTADVERTISING applies to activism just as much as commercial enterprise. It isn't appropriate for us to bend the rules in favor of those causes we support--that's the opposite of NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: As I said before, if there were reliable sources criticizing her, I would've added the content from those sources to the article, but I couldn't find any, which is why it may seem to you that the content is not neutral. I'll admit however, that the original article's POV was bad, which is why I trimmed the lede and removed lots of unreliable sources and their content from the article. I'm also surprised that no one has closed this deletion discussion yet. I guess it's because of our long conversation, so I think it would be best if we end our discussion here and let another user make the closing decision for this deletion. X-Editor (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to point out that the exchange of vies in the discussion is often more valuable than the decision on the particular article. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Fair point, but this discussion has dragged on for quite a while. X-Editor (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As needs to be repeated far too often: *content is no justification for deletion and AfD is not cleanup*. An activist who has been in UK media for multiple years, high-profile, recognised, discussed in depth in peer-reviewed literature.^[1]^[2] There seem to be some very high bars being put up to justify deletion here.

References

^ Chelvan, S. "The DSSH Model and the Voice of the Silenced: Aderonke Apata—The Queer Refugee: "I Am a Lesbian"". The Queer Outside in Law: Recognising LGBTIQ People in the United Kingdom. Springer International Publishing. pp. 79–105. ISBN 978-3-030-48830-7.
^ Adur, Shweta M. "Sexual Rights and Globalization". Companion to Sexuality Studies. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 427–444. ISBN 978-1-119-31504-9.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: I had no idea she was in peer reviewed literature. Thanks for finding those! X-Editor (talk) 01:56, 6 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 redirect to The Guess Who. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Peterson

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Despite the subject being a part of two notable bands, there is nothing written about the subject that cannot be addressed in one of t he two band articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notice is too connected with the musical group he was a part of to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Guess Who. Walter has recently nominated several articles on various members of The Guess Who, and Garry Peterson is actually one of the more deserving candidates for his own article because he has been there since the classic years, was inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame, and has won some high Canadian awards. However, those facts are already mentioned at the band's article and Peterson's achievements are entirely within the context of the band. His brief stint with Bachman–Turner Overdrive is already covered sufficiently at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I concur with Doomsdayer520 that not enough for own page, but notable enough for people to come looking and a redirect to the necessary info is on The Guess Who page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Guess Who. Our core readership, especially younger people, might have heard of him and not connect him to the Guess Who, or might not understand how influential that band was. Please redirect it. For the Gen Zers. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Sasikumar

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

Non-notable author fails WP:AUTHOR. Google search returns nothing substantial, other than linking back to Wiki. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is one among the new breed of writers in Malayalam literature. On the literature side, he has authored three novels of which one was shortlisted for the annual literary award given by DC Books, the largest of the Malayalam language publishers. Further, the subject has published several articles in Economics. The mention in the deletion proposal about Google search does not seem to reflect the truth; my search returned sites such as The Indian Express, Mathrubhumi, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, University of Hyderabad article repository, RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) listings, GoodReads, Bodhi Commons, Gale Academic Onefile and Hindawi research, besides listings by many online book sellers.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-01 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have personally heard of his writer, a person involved with literature. I think this article should stay as the person mentioned meets WP:N.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Atlantis77177 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Delete – I am mindful of the possible systemic bias here and would be willing to change my !vote if it is shown that WP:SIGCOV exists in Malayalam, but there is no actual claim to notability in the article, nor have I been able to find any independent coverage at all of the person or his books in reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. The individual in question is an academic who very clearly does not meet WP:NPROF, and an author. I do not see how he would meet WP:NAUTHOR either; the "DC Books Literary Award" is not a notable award, and being nominated for that does not make an author notable. Barring any indications that WP:NAUTHOR #3 is met, it looks like it might just be too soon for an article about this person. Tachs mentions Google hits – could you give some examples of reliable sources (that is, links to the sources themselves) that you found? Anything written by the person himself is irrelevant here (including any academic papers found through GScholar), as is Goodreads, and anything from book sellers. --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malayala Manorama 1, Malayala Manorama 2, Malayala Manorama 3,Mathrubhumi Marunadan Malayali, all are Malayalam news media houses.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless SIGCOV is discovered this subject does not meet the current criteria for retention/inclusion as laid out in WP:N. SNG's are fine for article creation. The article should and will be tested against GNG criteria. It does not pass this criteria as it currently stands. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources included. Good bibliography section, but I only see primary sources. If the subject is notable it should have at least some secondary sources to back it up, if this is subject to change during the consensus, I will change my vote per WP:HEY. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CAVETOWNFAN: Malayala Manorama 1, Malayala Manorama 2, Malayala Manorama 3,Mathrubhumi Marunadan Malayali, Pallikutam, all these are secondary sources from leading Malayalam magazines.--jojo@nthony (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per WP:NAUTHOR. From the sources provided above, his books seem to have been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:49, 2 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. Three relists and decent arguments on all sides. Can't find a consensus here either way (del, keep, merge). Daniel (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Kanty Zamoyski

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

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY in every respect Smerus (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article on an exciled notable who did nothing of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep: No evidence of notability. Very poor sourcing, possible hoax too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Changing to walk delete per sources fond by LU below. Would be also nice if a Spanish Wikipedian could comment on whether any orders the subject received (mentioned in their Spanish biography) could be sufficiently high-level to grant notability? Particularly the Grand Cross of Order of Charles III seems to be on the more significant side. Also, if this is kept, here is a picture from his wedding [42], likely PD, and here is a movie [43]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC) PPS. Changed to keep as I have concluded that this order meets ANYBIO #1.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep I have found several mentions here, here and here that seems to e reliable sources, however they mostly only mention about the marriage. I don't think he is notable apart from that.Less Unless (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC) ps: have changed my vote to weak keep after the order information was found.Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Less Unless, Johnpacklambert, and Smerus: After reviewing it again, I would like to hear people's thought about whether the GC of Order of Charless III (linked above) would be enough to grant the subject auto-notability or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why the receipt of an order in itself makes the recipient WP:NOTABLE, unless it was awarded for some action or circumstance which was notable. In this case, this particualr order seems to have been distributed mre or less wholesale in the 20th ceentury and he seems to have got it either for being rich or for having married into the Bourbon-Two Sicilies family - neither of which count as WP:NOTABLE in themselves.--Smerus (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* I think this particular order is not an evidence of notability. We should take into account what the order is given for. Some orders are assigned automatically to nobles or royal family members and don't require any other achievements whereas others need something to actually be done. Less Unless (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless, Right, but we can't assume this is the case. Cynicism aside, most orders and such should be given for merit, that's how "it is supposed to be". And the order discussed here is described as ' the most distinguished civil award that can be granted in Spain' and the subject received 2nd class (out of 5). It seems pretty significant to me. The more I think about it the more I learn towards concluding that this order is sufficient for establishing notability (WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus After taking a closer look I am inclining to agree with you on this Order. Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we need sources that cover a person's life in detail, that is still lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ... I'm citing User:Bearian here, on nobility and notability: There are two ways nobility or royalty can become notable in the 21st century: (a) being involved in major scandals and/or (b) being the patrons of notable philanthropies. Having one's picture taken with some people of ill repute is not enough, nor is a one-time socialite dinner. Examples of major scandals would be an sexual affair or financial corruption that gets significant coverage. Examples of patronage of charities would have to show the person is a guest of honour, or has made a significant donation of art or the equivalent of millions of dollars of donations, preferably over a number of years. Op Cit, delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Whiteguru, But this person is from the 20th, not 21st, century. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I realise he was born in 1900. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is an interesting and borderline case. I found a few online sources: a story about his relationship to Juan Carlos I, and more here. That relationship as cousins-in-law is described here. There's a story about what appears to be Poland-Argentina bilateral relations here. So he's basically an in-law of the current Spanish royal family, and a minor noble of the deposed Polish kingdom. I'm not sure that's enough for me. I do not see any evidence beyond the one diplomatic effort, of any independent notability. As we have done many times, I would prefer a merger and redirect in this instance to the spouse's page. I would also ask for the courtesy to be able to take the sources that we have found and add them to that merged article. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented above. Luciapop (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relisting, since the disagreements are varied and marginal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 1 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deric McCabe

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

Delete this article per WP:NYA and failing all clauses of WP:NACTOR until actor has had significant roles in movie and television. This child actor although having feeble notability for co-starring in Wrinkle in time, he has no other significant major roles out of his so far diminutive 6 credit acting career. This article also relies on a primary tweet source which is strongly repudiated on wikipedia. I believe this actor could have article if he gains more roles in the future and receives better coverage. Alternatively you could redirect him to A Wrinkle in Time. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub - I googled his name and NBC, Teen Vogue, Screen Rant, and Rappler have all covered him. The New York Times, Deadline, Rolling Stone, The Boston Herald, Variety, and ABC news all give him bare mentions. That's enough for him to pass WP:SIGCOV. He passes one clause of WP:NACTOR because he's taken roles in "A Wrinkle in Time" and Apple TV's "Home Before Dark". There isn't much potential to expand the article at this time which could be a problem, but he passes the notability requirements, and there are a plethora of reliable sources who've covered him, so I vote to keep VERSACESPACE 03:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:VersaceSpace, Can you provide the sources you mentioned so I can check them to see if he didn't just name check in those articles? because name-checking "bare articles" does not fit significant coverage criteria, That literally goes against it as it doesn't cover the subject. And I suggest we should delete this and send it to the article draft for improvements than keep it as a stub using primary sources and a non-detail description. And the first film is good, but Home before dark is just 10 episodes and he's a secondary character. My overall opinion is that this article's creation was too soon because with child actors, they can disappear from acting very quickly and we would want to make sure not to make article like this too soon, especially if it is a stub with a lack of reliable and significant sources. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

god damn it you got me in an edit conflict now i gotta rewrite this shit lmaooo VERSACESPACE 04:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

anyway im not writing that again but if you look him up in google news everything i listed will show up. VERSACESPACE 04:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ps: pinging @User:SomeBodyAnyBody05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VersaceSpace (talk • contribs) 04:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Subjects references do show notability and do not just show passing mentions. Does need major cleanup, but I believe the actor does just, just pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, as I can personally find significant coverage and he has had two main roles in two major productions (Home Before Dark, A Wrinkle in Time). If I am correct, that is passing the point in WP:NACTOR that the individuals proposing deletion believe he doesn't. Coreykai (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and send to draft~~ Actor currently does not pass WP:NACTOR with only 6 credited roles with one of them as a co-starring role and the rest as small minor roles which does't warranted current article creation. Actor also fails the other two clauses of WP:NACTOR with no award nominations or significant contributions to the field of acting mostly because he's a child actor. Actor aslo fails the reliable source clause of WP:GNG as the article relies too heavily on a questionable primary source. Most coverage I can find on him is name check mentions from his roles as Charles wallace murry in A Wrinkle in time, content farm garbage articles and Questionable sources which is not generally accepted as a reliable or significant source if the content can not be verified, So delete. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck duplicate !vote by the nominator. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Delete he has at most 1 role that was a signifcant role in a notable production. The minimum cutoff is 2 such roles, so we should delete the article until he has another significant role in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has two significant roles, as stated above, Home Before Dark and A Wrinkle in Time. The former is not a lead role but it is a significant role. versacespace 17:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with Johnpacklambert his is role in A Wrinkle in Time is only one step to meeting WP:NACTOR this is a case of not yet. Jeepday (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to satisfy NACTOR or SIGCOV. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 13:06, 4 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyoti Tripathi (2nd nomination)

[1] "Indian comedian held over 'indecent' jokes at show where he did not perform". the Guardian. 24 January 2021.

[2] "Court denies bail to Indian comedian over alleged jokes that 'hurt Hindu sentiments'". The Independent. 28 January 2021.

[BBC_Feb-3] "The Indian comic in jail for jokes he didn't crack (though there are videos in YouTube where he reportedly made fun of hindu deities)". BBC News. 28 January 2021. Retrieved 1 February 2021.

[DW-4] Welle, Deutsche (20 January 2021). "India: Muslim comedian detained over anti-Hindu jokes he might crack | DW | 20.01.2021". DW.COM. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[5] "Indore: Stand-Up Comedian, 4 Others Arrested Based on Complaint by BJP Leader's Son". The Wire.

[6] "Arrests Have Riled up More People, Receiving More Threats: Agrima Joshua". The Wire. 14 July 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[7] "कॉमेडियन मुनव्वर फारूकी पर मुकदमा दर्ज". Hindustan (in Hindi). Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[8] "Case against Stand-up comedian Munawar faruqui for hurting Hindu religious sentiments". Telangana Mata. 15 April 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[9] "The Indian comic in jail for jokes he didn't crack".

[CNBC-10] Shabad, Rebecca (2021-01-18). "'Small fire' prompts brief shutdown of Capitol, evacuation of inauguration rehearsal participants". CNBC. Retrieved 2021-01-31. Yogananda Pittman, acting chief of Capitol Police, acted out of "an abundance of caution following an external security threat under the bridge on I-295 at First and F Streets," and ordered a shutdown of the Capitol complex, according to a statement from Capitol Police.

[politico-11] King, Maya (2021-01-19). "The acting Capitol Police chief's tough task". Politico. Retrieved 2021-01-31.

[12] Vika, Will (2021-01-22). "Capitol Police acting chief: We didn't tell National Guard to leave Capitol facilities". wtopnews. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-31.

[people-13] Campione, Katie (2021-01-26). "U.S. Capitol Police Chief Apologizes for Department Response to Riots: 'We Will Do Better'". People. Retrieved 2021-01-31.

[CNN-14] Grayer, Annie; Duster, Chandelis (2021-01-26). "Acting Capitol Police chief tells Congress the department 'failed' during riot". CNN. Retrieved 2021-01-31.

[15] Maass, Harold (2021-01-29). "10 things you need to know today: January 29, 2021". The Week. Retrieved 2021-01-31. Acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman on Thursday said that "permanent fencing" is needed at the Capitol to prevent a repeat of the recent deadly riot ...

[16] ttps://epaper.ntnews.com/home/index?date=18/02/2020&eid=1&pid=128653

[17] ttps://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/fashion-and-beauty/250619/for-green-fashion.html

[18] Chelvan, S. "The DSSH Model and the Voice of the Silenced: Aderonke Apata—The Queer Refugee: "I Am a Lesbian"". The Queer Outside in Law: Recognising LGBTIQ People in the United Kingdom. Springer International Publishing. pp. 79–105. ISBN 978-3-030-48830-7.

[19] Adur, Shweta M. "Sexual Rights and Globalization". Companion to Sexuality Studies. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 427–444. ISBN 978-1-119-31504-9.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]