Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GermanKity (talk | contribs) at 10:46, 20 August 2021 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Marcegaglia.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.
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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Marcegaglia

Emma Marcegaglia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John (Bam) Ransom

John (Bam) Ransom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard to unpack this article, but despite having published in notable publications he doesn't seem to have the coverage to meet WP:GNG Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 26 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Zimmerman (bishop)

AfDs for this article:
Joseph Zimmerman (bishop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article presents an abysmal failure of GNG. The two sources are a blog style database with directory style information about bishops, and another blog style listing of bishops by diocese. Netiehr provide enough information to qualify as indepth coverage, and they certainly are not reliable, and their indepdence of the subject is also questionable. It shows in how sub-standard this article is. We do not have any indication of Zimmerman's nationality. He may be American or Canadian, but could also be German, Swiss or Austrian. One source indicates that he was a priest of a missionary order, a group who much more often than diocesan priests serve as bishops in areas other than where they are from. My search for additional sources turned up no substantive coverage. We clearly cannot justify having this article with so little sourcing, and my search was not able to come up with anything else. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Every article should be assessed on its own merits. Most bishops will pass GNG but this doesn't mean that we should automatically presume that every single bishop will pass GNG even without any evidence. That would be absurd. It reminds me of the circular reasoning often found surrounding secondary schools and professional footballers who often used to get a free pass on GNG just by simply being able to prove that they existed at some point although consensus has recently leaned slightly more towards GNG over other guidelines on a wider number of topics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we even had a source that was the diocesan controled paper actually giving a full article on the life and ministry of Zimmerman I might be inclined to overlook the technical failure of passing GNG and keep it, and if we had non-diocesan controlled Catholic focused media giving indepth coverage of Zimmerman I would clearly vote to keep, although I am sure some eitors would be hesitant to even call that indepdent. However here we literrally just have blogs that are in directory style and lack any actual prose about the life of Zimmerman. What we know about him you more have to guess, or is unsourced, than is sourced. So evidently he was born in Switzerland, joined a missionary order, and was bishop in Madagascar. We have no indication of if he was a priest in Switzerland before being bishop, or in Madagascar, or both, or both and other places, or just other places, maybe other places on the African continent, like Mozambique and Tanzania, or maybe far flung like Nigerian and Ivory Coast, or maybe elsewhere in Europe, or maybe he was somewhere else where languages similar to Malagasy are spoken (like Indonesia or the Phillipines among many other countries) before he was sent to Madagascar, however all of that is idle speculation that I am trhrowing out with only the knowledge that the Catholic Church is an interantional Church that in the 20th-century as well as the 21st-century has significant operations in the vast majority of the world, and that there are longstanding shortages of priests from some areas and they are supplied from elsewhere, and that at least until the 1980s the main source of priests was European countries, and they went from those to all corners of the world. The balance has been readjustied some of late, so that in the US there is a reliance on foriegn priests no longer in the main from Europe, and not as much from Latin America as the Catholic memership is, but heavily from the Philippines, Vietnam and Nigeria, and maybe to a lesser extent from a few other countries on the African contient. However there are lots of people who go against any extablished grain, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the general flow of leadership is still to this day in the main American leaders being deployed abroad, although there are attempts to limit how much of the leadership in any local is done by Americans abroad, yet Taniel Wakolo was a Fijian serving as mission president in the US, and Thierry Mutombo, who we need an article on but I am not convinced that the Church News, Deseret News and Ensign information on him I can find plus Jeffrey Bradshaw's presentation to the FairMormon conference would be enough to pass GNG requirements (they would be far more than I can find on Zimmerman), and any coverage in addition. So for example I can find [8] which is more than I have been able to find on Zimmerman. The problem is that I know the information there is outdated. In the interim Mutombo served for a time as mission president in Baltimore, Maryland (a positions that we have generally not considered a level of notability) he is now a general authority seventy (a position that structurally is closer to being a Catholic Cardinal than a Catholic bishop, but the analogies are complex and so equivalancy is hard to prove). We also have this coverage [9] that is only super incidentally about Mutumbo. I have a suspicion that at some point I will be able to build an article on Mutumbo, at 43 he is the youngest current General Authority Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the sourcing on him is not yet substantial enough to justify an article, but it is way more than we have on Zimmerman. See I can produce more mentions of Mutumbo like this [10] I can even find this article in French on Mutumbo, although it is a published article on not just the Church, but I believe the Africa Central Area where he serves as second counselor [11]. We can also find clearly independent news mention of Mutumbo's call, but I doubt it passes the indepth requirements, see for example here [12]. Oh, and here [13] near the bottom you can find a published version of the courtship story of Thierry Mutombo. This [14] Church News is the most substantial coverage of Mutombo, although lacking some of the deeply personal touches of Bradshaw's presentation. It is far, far more than we have on Zimmerman, but as I said, I am not convinced it is enough to create an article. We have basically nothing on Zimmerman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some people will tell you that a stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is like a Catholic diocese, which caused at least someone somewhere to argue that Mitt Romney having been a stake president made him like having been a Catholic bishop. This is however not a very good analogy for a lot of reasons, so I will not trott out the fact that Mutumbo was a stake president. People who have thought about the matter in a broader context argue that stakes are actually more like multi-site Megachurches, and the stake president is like the executive senior pastor of a megachurch, except most megachurches have more members than most stakes. There are Catholic parishes with more members than any stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would instead argue that overall an Area President in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is roughly equivalent to a diocesan bishop, although since all Area Presidents are also General Authrity Seventies, I would argue that their equivalance is a little bit more like archbishops who also happen to be Cardinals. Mutumbo has not as of yet been an area presdient, he is a counselor in an Area Presidency. Do not even make me try to find an analogy to the counselor system. Someone is going to claim "counselors to area presidencies would be sort of like auxiliary bishops", and I would say "yes, as long as you emphasize the sort of like, and do not read to much into the equivalance issues".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Keep. This is tough, but a Diocesan bishop generally meets notablility Delete, as after reviewing, I see that was not a guideline. In light of new guidelines and research, I have once more reversed my position and believe we should keep this article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a clearly discrminatory standard. We do not accept as default notable people who are stucturally much higher in other religions. There is no agreed upon notability guideline for religious leaders that trumps the requirements of GNG, and GNG is clearly not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misread that page and have corrected my vote and comment. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrrho the Skeptic: Would you consider giving this a second look in light of WP:BISHOPS and the substantial expansion work undertaken by User:Genericusername57 and User:Eastmain? Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and the info. I have changed my vote back to keep above. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG with additional sourcing added to the article and per guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide. Zimmerman was a diocesan bishop of the Roman Catholic church, holding that position for 28 years. The article has been substantially expanded and sourced since the nomination was made. Based on the additional sourcing, and Zimmerman's long tenure as a diocesan bishop, this seems like a clear "Keep" to me. Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also notable per WP:BISHOPS. Cbl62 (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That project guidance needs to be rejected. Individual projects do not get to establish such standards, and in this case it is clearly being used to institute uneven coverage of religious minorities as opposed to a major religion, in some cases in ways that ignore what is actually the majority religion in a particular location, so we have the absurdity of an article on the Catholic Bishop of Utah who has virtually nil societal impact but not on the Area President of the Utah Area of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has very large societal impact. Also considering how long this article languished as a super meaningless stub, and how many Catholic bishops articles still remain such, declaring all Catholic bishops notable has the actual impact of creating lots of short meaningless articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your extensive comments above regarding the comparative notability of Mormon church officials (e.g., Thierry Mutombo) don't seem to have any bearing whatsoever on this article, as AfD does not exist to make points about other topics. See WP:POINTy. Moreover, your mischaracterization of this article as "a super meaningless stub" ignores the substantial expansion work undertaken by @Genericusername57: and @Eastmain:. At the time of the nomination, the article was a very short stub, but thanks to the diligent efforts of these two editors, this article now passes muster. Cbl62 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop engaging in hate speech. Referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by that deprecated term that you use is seen as very insulting and rude. I ask that you cease and desist from engaging in such hate speech immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our main article on the LDS church notes that it is informally known as "the Mormon Church". Do you have any sourcing to support your novel assertion that referring to the church in this manner is "hate speech"? If not, please recant this assertion. Also, would you consider responding to the substance of my comments? Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond to hate speech, and trying to tell someone who has informed you that what they are doing is hate speech by telling them they are wrong is just plain wrong. President Russell M. Nelson's speech given in General Conference of October 2018 clearly outlines why members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not appreciate being referred to by incorrect names, and other speeches by him have clearly outlined specifically why the nickname you insist on doubling down in using is incorrect. A more recent study has shown there is a clear connection between negative editorial content in news articles and using this name. If a group has asked that a name be stopped using, and you insist on using it spitefully in direct opposition to their request to stop using that name, that fits the very definition of hate speech. There is no substance to a comment that opens with such hate speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness. Your argument boils down as follows: 1) JPL has unilaterally decided that the term "Mormon church" is "hate speech" (though JPL has not cited a single source where the LDS church has made such an assertion), 2) Cbl62 quoted the main article on the LDS church which also uses the term (and JPL has not complained about use of the term there or in our articles on Mormon missionary, the Mormon Trail, Mormon fundamentalism, Mormon cosmology, Mormon pioneers, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir), 3) Cbl62 is thereby doubling down (and doing so "spitefully") on "hate speech", and 4) therefore, JPL need not address the merits of this AfD. Brilliant. Simply brilliant! Cbl62 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Its name has been changed. You are showing severe ignorance on the subject by insisting on doubling down in using a term that has been clearly depricated. The fact that you cite something that has had its name deliberately and publicly changed shows that you are doubling down on your course of rudeness and disrespect. This is clearly the methods and processes of one who engages in hate speech. I have infact complained about the incorrect use of the term in the horribly named article on missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also consider that a clear example of hate speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last linked, actually goes to the article on Tabernacle Choir. And if the hate mongering editor had bothered to actually research things instead of attacking others with blanket statements with no proff, he would see I was a major force in getting the article renamed, although I wanted to rename it correctly to Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 23 August 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 coverage of the independent sources can be combined to meet WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ager

AfDs for this article:
Rob Ager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability presented, person primarily mentioned only in passing in articles, one that is about the person is an interview, so not a secondary source. A search failed to find anything particularly noteworthy, and looks to have failed WP:NBIO. Nominating this since a notability tag has been repeated removed without explanation or improvement to the sourcing, therefore seeking wider community opinion on this. Hzh (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He is a notable person. Per WP:NBIO, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Major publications like the NYT and Esquire have discussed him, his theories, and anaylses. The New York Film Academy deemed him notable enough for not one, but two interviews. In one interview they describe him as "one of the first internet-based movie critics and [having] also helped pioneer the video movie critique". Also pinging Silver seren, who previously discussed the notability. ~ HAL333 15:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm confused on how the existing sources don't establish notability. There are reliable sources talking specifically with and about Ager's work, which by the way seems to be used around the world in film theory classes. His work is covered in a variety of news, from The Irish Times to Wired. And just a ton of books, from American Cosmic to The Screen Is Red to Esoteric Hollywood to Conspiracies Uncovered to The Suspense of Horror and the Horror of Suspense to Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo and the Hermeneutic Spiral. I could go on a lot longer if you want. SilverserenC 20:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what Silver seren said and presented. Peter303x (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unsure about this. Notability for YouTubers (and other people mostly known for what they do online) is always a bit tricky to assess. Ager would certainly pass WP:NENTERTAINER criterion 2: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, but that has since been deprecated (I learned upon looking it up for this AfD). His videos/essays/theories/analyses have been cited a fair number of times as demonstrated above, but I'm not convinced that he meets either WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR on account of this (I don't know that I would consider a chemist or journalist notable based on this level of coverage of their work). It might be better to cover what Ager says about specific pieces of media in the corresponding media articles (e.g. Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining (film)#Spatial layout of the Overlook Hotel, as noted in the previous AfD nomination) in WP:DUE proportion rather than having a biographical article where such content would (at least in my mind) seem a bit out of place. I would be interested in what the people who participated in the previous AfD back in 2015 think. @Silent Key, Ianmacm, Ormr2014, and Shrillpicc100: Care to weigh in? TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm also unsure about this. What is being proposed is not really a biography, more of an online résumé. Needs more depth.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what Silver seren presented. I'm pretty sure he passes based on 1-2 criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Koikefan (talk) 05:14, 25 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anzio Storci

Anzio Storci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion of a Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty meaningless in the absence of actual, you know, cited sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can’t find anything online to support this bio except for a single profile in Gazzetta di Parma. If anyone is able to demonstrate offline sourcing I’ll reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per rationale by Praxidicae & Mccapra. I too do not see anything cogent that suggests GNG or anybio is met. Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The best I could find was [15], which appears to be a collection of issues of a magazine; unclear if it has anything to do with Barilla the Pasta company; and this, the reliability of which I'm unsure of. However, there are several passing mentions, and a presumed language barrier for most people who have searched for sources thus far: so I could be missing some sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:05, 2 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Das

Koushik Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously marked it for Speedy and deleted. And re-created by same user. Doubt on COI. Advert and Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 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. Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai Fateh Singh Ji

Bhai Fateh Singh Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable source covers the subject in detail and factual accuracy seems to be disputed. Redirect to Wazir Khan (Sirhind). TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to recall that Raj-era sources are disfavoured with respect to some topics, such as castes, but I am unable to find where this is set forth in writing. I've tried looking at WP:DEPRECATED and the relevant wikiprojects but I would greatly appreciate a pointer. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, it is a longstanding practice but I am not really sure about the specifics of its evolution. If you need critiques of Irvine's historiography in contemporary scholarship, I can provide them. WP:HISTRS might be relevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I see no reason why history written during the British Raj should be any less reliable than any other history written in the same period. Post-raj historians may well be pushing one POV and those of the Raj period another. I am often wary of older British historians in dealing with some subjects, because we now know much more, but a historian dealing with something very specific will normally have had a source, even if he does not cite it. This article is about quite specific events. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fateh Singh (Sikhism). Bhai and Ji are terms of endearment. Thus, Bhai Fateh Singh Ji and Fateh Singh are the same person (the beheading is mentioned on Fateh Singh's page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Redirect per nom and 68.189.242.116's comment. Fails WP:G5 because the blocked user was not in violation. The user was not blocked until 3 minutes after making another substantial edit on August 19. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered this possibility, too, but this article purports to be about an adult commander who beheaded Wazir Khan (Sirhind) and died in 1716, who bore the same name as the child Fateh Singh (Sikhism) who was killed by Wazir Khan in 1705. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:G5, while the sockpuppet account (User:Grayson Indica) was blocked after having created this article, the sockmaster acccount (User:Punjabier) was blocked in 2019 and banned in 2020, making any subsequent creations by this editor subject to deletion via G5. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 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 Ronald McDonald. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Voorhis

George Voorhis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The one source is not clealry relaible, but even if it was one source is not enough to show notability. It also is much more about others than Voorhis. Voorhis was a clown involved in the activities of a fast food company in part of the US, it seems there were other clowns working with the same fast food company in other parts of the US at the time. Considering the size and cultural impact of the company in question, if Voorhis was really a defining force behind their top recognized clown and his rise to fame and cultural impact, we should be able to find more sources on him. However, I looked though all the links to sources on the article {news, newspapers, scholar etc] and it turned up several mentions of other George Voorhis in totally different times and contexts, but not one additional source that actually discusses this George Voorhis. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 18 August 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 19:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Coyle de Barneval

François Coyle de Barneval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find anything beyond a few trivial mentions that only say that he was a merchant who married Jeanne Dupleix's daughter. That's not significant coverage, and he can't inherit notability from his mother-in-law. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 18 August 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 13:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amirmahdi Farzin

Amirmahdi Farzin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an Iranian Sports writer that doesn't exactly meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The sources provided are not WP:RS. A search on GNEWS both English and Persian turns up fewer than 3 passing mentions which do not qualify a page. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note to reviewing Admin, the subject already created the page under Iman Farzin in the past which was deleted and according to discussion they were socks involved. So changing the name was just an obvious move to evade a block. There's also an article in draft here. Riteboke (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus at last AFD. What has changed since? GiantSnowman 18:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article 99% describes what he wrote and cites him, i.e., it is not about this person. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searching "ایمان فرزین" doesn't really yield anything that hasn't already been cited in this article. The biggest issue is the lack of depth in the coverage. Even if there were 100 trivial mentions cited in the article, this still wouldn't satisfy the requirement that WP:GNG has for the coverage to be significant, which means that it needs to address Farzin in enough detail for us to build a reasonable biography from the sources alone without having to add any original research to fill the space. This article is actually a textbook example of WP:REFBOMB, with the overwhelming majority of the articles/websites cited mentioning Farzin only once, either in a list of people or as a person quoted about some event or as someone that posted something on Instagram. There is nothing in my searches or within this article that establishes notability in the context of a global encyclopaedia. As with the previous article at Iman Farzin, I remain in favour of deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt it's different enough from the prior version to avoid a G4, but still no indication to be found of meeting GNG. Star Mississippi 20:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and please block the account creating the article for gaming the system Mardetanha (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as a professional spokesperson, he certainly gets a lot of media mentions - but there anything about him, rather than just what he's had to speak about? Note, this article has been deleted 4 times in the Farsi Wikipedia - see fa:ایمان_فرزین. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 23 August 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 12:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Roth

Cliff Roth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources found. Fails WP:GNG Sreeram Dilak (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 12:07, 18 August 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 Sun Ra Arkestra. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luqman Ali

Luqman Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sun Ra Arkestra. He is not mentioned at that article, but that is a problem over there that can be solved through the editing process. Mr. Ali was a documented member of that notable jazz ensemble but never received much notice for any additional activities. Most of his individual coverage is in the form of obituaries, including one very informative obituary here: [16], but that still does not add up to individual notability outside the group. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sun Ra: After this AfD began, I added a few references to this article. The subject's biography of intermittent involvement in both the Sun Ra Arkestra and the Nation of Islam, his time in Africa, etc., could make an interesting case study, but I don't see the references now in the article or the brief mentions of him in Szwed's "Space is the Place" as sufficient to demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO notability. I differ slightly from Doomsdayer520 above, in that I suggest the Sun Ra article, where the subject is mentioned, as a redirect target. One day, someone may take the time to distinguish the two articles, particularly the list of musicians (which includes some involved in the Arkestra only after Sun Ra's death). AllyD (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sun Ra Arkestra. The significance of Lugman Ali has to do with his work with the band, so that seems to be the appropriate redirect target. As mentioned by Doomsdayer520, his name can be added to the article along with any other past members. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:06, 2 September 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. ✗plicit 03:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Souzan Safania

Souzan Safania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing in the English & Turkish articles do not appear to meet guidelines as far as independence and reliability. A BEFORE indicates no coverage that would meet CREATIVE or GNG. Creator is refbombing without regard to quality in an effort to have the notability tag removed. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't mention even a single work in which she acted. If this person is a notable actor, there should be reviews of her work and discussions of the works that she has acted in that were notable. The article in Iranian Wikipedia also ought to be deleted for the same reasons. You can't just cite someone's Instagram page as the entire discussion of their career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's very hard to make a case for an actress who hasn't starred in a single notable production. Kind of like trying to argue the case for a sportsperson that's never played their sport. It should be a clear GNG pass really for us to have an article on them. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 18 August 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Monro

Ryan Monro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN/WP:BASIC. No coverage outside of mentions in band coverage. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. He's also a programmer. He is mentioned in the Speaking clock article because he is also notable for creating a web-based simulation, Online Time Service Home Page, of the Australian "Talking Clock" 1194 service, described here: Silva, Kristian (2019-10-16). "When Telstra shut down the Talking Clock, one man took the time to salvage it". ABC News. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist chasing more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:51, 8 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Martin

AfDs for this article:
Michael A. Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR/WP:BASIC. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 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 Threshold (band). Eddie891 Talk Work 14:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McDermott

Andrew McDermott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BASIC. Been in CAT:NN for ten years, hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 25 August 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. ✗plicit 13:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lee Rock

Derek Lee Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:BASIC. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He was in two notable bands, which causes a problem because there is no perfect destination for a redirect. Even so, this individual article adds non-notable biographical tidbits and is dependent on the achievements of each band which are already covered at their articles. He has done nothing notable outside of either of them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Music says "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Being in two notable bands would meet this imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the first sentence of that guideline states that the person may be notable if any of the following conditions are met. This musician just barely meets that criterion but he has nothing for any of the others because he has never done anything notable beyond performing with those two bands. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: Musicians don't have to meet every criterion, only "at least one of the following criteria" according to the guideline. He's not the most notable musician on Wikipedia, but notable enough to meet guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to disagree on whether being in two bands is enough, but I absolutely did not say that this guy has to meet every criterion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well how many criterions do you think he has to meet? I figured one was enough because that's the established guideline. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking about the quality of the encyclopedia. What do we learn from an article on Derek Lee Rock that has reliable and verifiable sources? He was in Suburban Legends which we already know from their article, he was in Melee which we already know from their article, he does some other things that have received no notice, and he twirls his sticks while playing. I repeat that the notability guideline says that a person may be notable if any of those criteria are met. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rather than a simple rote check off of criteria, I'm onboard with the may be notable argument above from DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS), especially when one considers one of the bands he was with, Suburban Legends, was a rotating door of musicians to fill the shift work needs for multiple daily shows at a theme park. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:55, 1 September 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. Clear consensus that the article shouldn't be retained below. Inclusion in the list of supercentenarians appears to be sufficient so no merge required. Daniel (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Ligny

Valentine Ligny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has nothing more than extremely trivial and non-notable content on the life of a person who has never done anything more than live to a very advanced age. Possibly the only useful paragraph in the whole article is the last one, and I propose that either the article be merged to a mini-bio at List of French supercentenarians or that it be deleted completely. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources in particular do you think demonstrate that GNG is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As others have mentioned, WP:BIO1E is an issue here. None of the sources seem to demonstrate why she is notable beyond her age. Inclusion in the lists mentioned by Melaleuca and Derby is sufficient. -Pax Verbum 07:07, 4 September 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debashish Sethy

Debashish Sethy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this is a case of WP:MEMORIAL. There is no indication of notability prior to death, the incident in which he was killed did not gather major attention, and the posthumous award does not seem to be sufficient to claim notability pass. Soman (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to "Death of Debashish Sethy" or similar; WP:ANYBIO #1 clearly applies to him based on Shaurya Chakra award, but as he is notable solely for his passing, the article should be renamed to account for that. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as an event it clearly fails WP:GNG and as a biography it fails WP:BASIC, Shaurya Chakra isn't a significant enough award being third highest among gallantry awards and having thousands of recipients. Also do note that, "meeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". The article is effectively a memorial and improvements don't seem possible with the actual barebones coverage that is available. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 1 September 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 02:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.G. Devasahayam

M.G. Devasahayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject, fail of WP:GNG, WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NSOLDIER. nearlyevil665 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jarprakash : I wonder how he is not a notable person as per your guidelines. There are reference about him in Wikipedia itself. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scott_Christian_College_alumni 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragyan#2016 even you can google to find his notabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarprakash (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name being present in other articles is not a notability criterion in and of itself. For one thing, anybody can add just any name to any Wikipedia article at any time regardless of whether that person would clear our notability criteria or not. So if all anybody had to do to make themselves or somebody else notable enough for a Wikipedia article was to add the name in question to just any list of anything, then we'd automatically have to keep an article about every single person on earth. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Fails also WP:ANYBIO, as he ultimately didn't receive the highest Ashok Chakra Award. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jarprakash : Agree with Գարիկ Ավագյան and removed it from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarprakash (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is Indian but doesn't have a Hindi Wikipedia page. Pointly (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless better references can be furnished. Of the eight references in the article, two are dead links. Some were written by Devasahayam himself. Others quote him in an interview fashion. One is a list. None are significant coverage of Devasahayam by independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no strong notability claim here above and beyond "he was a person who did stuff", and the sourcing isn't solid enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to have a strong notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 24 August 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. Source assessment shows at least some non trivial independent reliable coverage by each source, which can be combined to meet notability guidelines per WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna Kohli

Prerna Kohli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual, fail of WP:GNG. Awards cited in the article are non-notable. nearlyevil665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [17] [18] seem to be reliable sources; I'm not clear why the award is non-notable; we often treat things like 100 Women (BBC) as suggesting notability. Furius (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That first TOI source has no byline and appears to be the same promotional bio that appears on her website in the "About" section. Per the second TOI source, the awardees "were selected by the women and child development ministry", and the President hosted a lunch for them, so this may need some clarification if the article is kept. Other sources in the article include what seems like an advertorial from Silicon India, which states in its About Us section: "Siliconindia has cemented the US-INDIA technology boom and provided the most relevant and critical content for this ecosystem by projecting stories of burgeoning entrepreneurs, outstanding technologists, and accomplished CEOs, along with business analysis and opinions specifically impacting business and technology in India and the U.S. [...] Over the past 22 years, the edition has recognized thousands of such companies and has become a powerful platform for proud entrepreneurs," a Tedx Talk she gave, a link to purchase the book she wrote, and the citation for the book she wrote. On the other hand, there are sources in the article that suggest she may have WP:BASIC notability as an expert, e.g. Free Press Journal, 2021, India Today, 2020, TOI, 2016, and there are twenty links to news articles I have not yet closely reviewed on her website in the Other Media section that might further support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. The References provided here either paid articles or press releases look at 'Free Press Journal', 'Siliconindia' and India 'Today'. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO.GermanKity (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This source assessment table reviews sources that make a WP:SECONDARY assessment of her as an expert, including articles from mainstream news sources listed on her website, as noted above, and others found during an online search:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
How safe is your daughter? (The New Indian Express, 2013) Yes Yes ~ At p. 4 of a long article about the sexual assault of children in India, Kohli is quoted for her opinion as a psychologist, and shares details from her work with a client; at p. 5, she is quoted as a psychologist for her opinion and shares details from her work with another client. ~ Partial
20s is the new 40s! (Times of India/Entertainment Times, 2015) Yes WP:TOI The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. ~ quoted twice as a child psychologist for general statements, including about "Today's kids" ? Unknown
Understaffed and overworked, Aligarh prison guards lead stressful lives (Times of India, 2016) Yes WP:TOI The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. ~ Brief reporting on her past and future work in jails, and quotes her opinion on contributing factors to guard stress. ? Unknown
Food de-addiction is the new thin (The New Indian Express, 2016) ? This article is entirely based around Kohli, and reads like an advertorial for her "one-of-a-kind food de-addiction centre at Gurgaon, where she plans to counsel food junkies" Yes Yes ? Unknown
There Is A New Body Type In Trend And It's 'Rib-Popping' (Outlook Magazine, 2017) Yes Yes ~ quoted as a "leading psychologist" for her opinion on the fad and anorexia nervosa. ~ Partial
Dhinchak Pooja’s ‘Selfie maine leli aaj’: Why are cringeworthy videos so popular? (Hindustan Times, 2017) Yes Yes ~ quoted as "a Delhi-based clinical psychologist who has worked extensively with patients suffering from social media addiction." ~ Partial
Four things you should know about smell (The Hindu, 2018) Yes Yes ~ quoted as a psychologist for her opinion, including biological differences and genetics. ~ Partial
In-law and out of love (Deccan Chronicle, 2018) Yes Yes ~ quoted as a psychologist for her opinion after "Queen Sofía and her daughter-in-law Queen Letizia of Spain were arguing in public." ~ Partial
Arjun Rampal And Mehr Jessia Part Ways, Here's How You Can Deal With A Divorce The Healthy Way (Doctor NDTV, 2018) Yes Yes ~ several paragraphs quoting her as a psychologist about divorce, i.e. "we spoke to psychologist Dr Prerna Kohli as to how two people can have a positive and healthy attitude towards a divorce." ~ Partial
HT Brunch Game Show: Your childhood buddy, your girl friend, or your dog— who is really your best friend? (Hindustan Times, 2020) Yes Yes ~ "Psychologist Dr Prerna Kohli has been an adviser to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and is a member of a nutrition committee" [...] "Kohli, a four-time gold medalist, clinical psychologist and a social worker. She lists five rules to being a dependable friend:" ~ Partial
Worried about your kids’ mental health? Here’s what experts recommend (Hindustan Times, 2020) Yes Yes ~ quotes her opinion as a clinical psychologist ~ Partial
Don't let the walls close in (India Today, 2020) Yes Yes ~ "Other experts also observe similar issues. Dr. Prerna Kohli, a Clinical Psychologist who is an adviser to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights says," ~ Partial
Losing a parent: Here’s what families can do to help children deal with grief and loss (The Indian Express, 2021) Yes Yes ~ substantial quotes as "Clinical psychologist, author, and founder of MindTribe.in Dr Prerna Kohli — who has also been an advisor to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and is a member of the Niti Aayog Nutrition Committee" ~ Partial
Prince Harry undergoes EMDR for dealing with past trauma; here’s everything you need to know (The Indian Express, 2021) Yes Yes ~ several paragraphs of her opinion/explanation: "In order to understand more about EMDR, indianexpress.com reached out to Dr Prerna Kohli, a clinical psychologist, author, and founder of MindTribe.in, who has also been an advisor to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and is a member of the Niti Aayog Nutrition Committee." ~ Partial
Snow White and her social media filters: Why is India still obsessed with fair skin? (The Indian Express, 2021) Yes Yes ~ several paragraphs of her opinion, after being introduced as "an eminent psychologist and founder of MindTribe" ~ Partial
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}}.
There also appear to be additional independent and reliable sources available, similarly quoting her as an expert in varying amounts of depth. Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, I wouldn't consider The New Indian Express to be reliable, they are already suspected to carry undisclosed advertisements masked as news and their article seems to affirm that suspicion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:54, 31 August 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucile Randon

Lucile Randon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, just like many other longevity pages, is purely unnecessary. Out of four paragraphs, one is only one sentence, one is pure statistics, one is life information, and one is about her COVID-19 infection. Her article can be easily merged and made into a mini-bio at List of French supercentenarians. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would say this fails WP:BIO, under WP:BASIC, because its just trivial coverage of a person, focused entirely on two elements - their long life, and their survival of COVID-19. Unless someone could examine the article's subject some more - background, history, other notable elements (beyond those covered) - I don't think this article is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia.GUtt01 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changed my mind on this, based on a good point in this discussion by Furius. Apart from being a good stub, I think the concern is for the lede of the article and a couple of sentences, which could just be amended and changed since they do appear to be original research without appropriate citations. GUtt01 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles cited on the page easily pass WP:GNG and she is the second oldest person in the world. There are plenty more sources and there is plenty more information about her life on the fr.wiki page. Furius (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I might not want to read up about a person who has lived a long life, I would say that, regardless of this, such an article would only really be worth the mustard of notability, if there was more on the subject themselves, beyond being the longest-living person (regardless of first or second in that respect). Other than being the oldest to survive COVID-19, I would expect a bit more than this on the article:
What was their occupation?
What was their life like?
Did they make other achievements?
Did they witness significant events in their life?
Not having such details just doesn't make the article notable enough. Without that personal life information and maybe some other worthwhile information to make such an achievement seem more notable than it sounds as it is, it hardly seems right to have this article exist on the merits of being a person who lived longest/second-longest, and survived against COVID. GUtt01 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(a) All of this is covered in the French wiki article, supported by reliable sources - she was a governess to the Peugeot family and others in the 1910s, converted to Catholicism and became a nun in 1923, and worked in hospitals in that capacity from 1945 until 1979. (b) The point is that there are multiple reliable sources in English and in French for this figure, so it passes GNG and is notable. You can't just create new criteria for notability and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Furius (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a second check of the article, I think the grounds for deletion just got eroded by your argument.GUtt01 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about deleting it completely - I agree that the subject is notable. Too notable to be deleted, but not notable enough for a standalone article. There's nothing in the article that can't be merged into a mini-bio (similar to what's there already in the article, just in a section of the page List of French supercentenarians). As for the French wiki article, why, I might change my mind if you translated that French to English! 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you find some translator program or webservice on the internet? GUtt01 (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the French article and, apart from a few facts, there's basically nothing that isn't already in her article here. MattSucci (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don’t we add those facts? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that info regarding the name and occupation of her father and details of her sister are necessary. MattSucci (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's called padding. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:35, 19 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Skružný

Josef Skružný (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources found. Requesting speedy delete. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Sreeram Dilak:, I see you're a new user, so I wanted to give a friendly reminder that WP:BEFORE should be followed before nominating an article for deletion - including a simple google books search of the subject's name. I found quite a few hits on Google books of his name, so I can't imagine that "No reliable sources found" could be true with a WP:BEFORE. Hope this helps - I'll follow up with some of the sources below in a bit. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've found a lot of sources under his name and pseudonyms, as well as alternate spellings of his name (like Josefa Skružného, J. Skružného, etc), including coverage of his books and screenplays in the Czech press. If other editors don't want to go through the sources I picked below (which may not show up, since a lot of them are just Google's snippet view), then just Google Book search his name or one of the alternative names.
    Either way, he seems to have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, or at least WP:AUTHOR. Here's some of the sources I found:
    • Coverage of him and his work[19]
    • There's coverage of some of his plays, such as "Podvodnice" (1923)[20], and others[21]
    • A comedy film of his received coverage[22]
    • This source seems to call him a "well-known" humorist[23]
    • This source says he was a part of a circle of authors for "Folk theater" (Czech: "Lidové divadlo")[24]
    • Some of Svatopluk Innemann's works were based on the ideas/themes in Skružný's works (I don't know if this translation means he filmed some of Skružný's screenplays, or was inspired by them?)[25]
    • One of his novels gained "widespread popularity" (Translated from the snippet "Tento románek Josefa Skružného , jemuž dopomohl k široké popularitě okruh čtenářů autorem redigovaných „ Humoristických listů “ , byl zfilmován režisérem ...")[26]
    • A popular comedy book of his was made into a film[27]
    • He was screenwriter for the film Lásky Kačenky Strnadové[28]
      - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:58, 23 August 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. Some of the "keep" voters have demonstrated that the subject is good enough to pass WP:GNG aside from being the Wikimedian of the Year. Additional concerns regarding the person can take place in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Najjar

Alaa Najjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While certainly admirable, being the Wikimedian of the Year 2021 does not automatically confer encyclopedic notability; we still require significant coverage in reliable sources. In web searches, I only found [29], as well as a passing mention in [30]. These are insufficient for notability. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus many others, I could add them to the article.--Sandra Hanbo (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are a sources in Arabic (How does Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, work? Some principles of digital advocacy) and (The Wikipedia Education Program, in its second edition, is an imprint of An-Najah University students in cyberspace)in Arabic and this [32] but is not centered for him --Nehaoua (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning the Wikimedian Prize of the Year out of thousands of people is notable, also everyone who won this award has an article on Wikipedia.
    I think that Alaa deserves an article on Wikipedia. By looking at the references in Arabic, we see that Alaa deserves an article. --Osps7 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do want to push back against some of the arguments being made here. While WP:GNG is indeed "a guideline only", we shouldn't disregard it in favor of personal standards of importance. As far as the specific sources that are required for the GNG, we need nontrivial coverage, not just an article that mentions the subject in passing. Of all the sources presented so far, it seems like the nontrivial ones are the UltraSawt article and the The National News article (I mentioned the latter in the nomination)—at this time, I would maintain the view that this isn't enough nontrivial coverage to justify a standalone biography, although I appreciate that perhaps a couple more sources in the same vein as these two might change my mind. Mz7 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think another relevant angle to this is WP:BLP1E. A part of the motivation for this AfD, which I wish I made clear from the start, was a desire to be respectful of this Wikipedia editor’s privacy. I don’t see Alaa as a particularly high-profile individual, and if sources primarily discuss Alaa only in the context of winning the WotY award, I think our BLP1E policy requires us to err on the side of privacy. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "While WP:GNG is indeed 'a guideline only', we shouldn't disregard it in favor of personal standards of importance." And nor did I: I explicitly stated "Being made WotY confers notability, and we allow article creation to complete a set, as in this case.". I also predicted "Media coverage will undoubtedly follow in the coming week"; QED: [33], [34], [35]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentI agree with you, and article should be deleted @Mz7: Should the Arabic language Admin and steward be rewarded with an article on Wikipedia? And there is no reliable sources coverage about him? Just because he won the wiki award and so on, Arab voters are editors on the Arabic wiki and so they vote for their admin, who created the article, is an editor on the Arabic wiki. Is this fair?
    He does not have a page in Arabic because the administrators do not consider him a notable person     Qatar Lover QA (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of علي أبو عمر (talk · contribs). Pahunkat (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and most important the subject is the winner of the Wikimedian of the Year award for 2021. Abishe (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The proposal to delete this page for the Wikimedian of the Year 2021 is a tragic but classic example of systemic bias on Wikipedia. @Jesswade88: @Deb: @Jimbo Wales: @Rosiestep: @Discott:
    Ear-phone (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the preceding comments that the article is above the line of sufficiency. This person is the winner of the Wikimedian of the Year award in its main category and there's evidently growing coverage in reliable sources. Even if we have to be strict for some reason, this is at least a borderline case. In such cases, we usually err on the side of inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even in the sources presented above for keep votes, there is only a passing mention and largely focused on the Wikimedia side. It would be suitable to include details of Najjar at the Wikimedian of the Year article in this instance. I also think this is not a borderline case unless more suitable sources appear, but even if it was, we should err on the side of deletion so as to not see WMF be accused of naval-gazing (topics relevant to Wikimedia being given articles when equivalent unrelated ones are not). I'm also concerned that there's some CANVASSing. Kingsif (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last sentence of Andy Mabbett's message of 15:06 on 18 August 2021. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Wikimedians of the Year have articles, article Wikimedian of the Year is a Featured List. The award is aimed at promoting Wikimedia ideas and values among people, creating article is a way to promote, and deleting it is a way to topple. --ssr (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of the arguments in favor of "Keep" seem to be on the basis of WotY providing notability, and BLP does provide for this, with WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or". However, I haven't seen any arguments for how this is met; can those in favor provide such arguments so that we can properly consider them?
    I would also like to echo Mz7 and pushback against the concept of "GNG" being just a guideline; I've always interpreted it in the opposite direction, that for something to be notable it has to pass GNG (or a subject-specific guideline), but it is a guideline because passing it doesn't guarantee notability, it just opens the possibility of it.
    Finally, I would like to ask if anyone has found any further sources? At the moment, the only source that I can see indisputably passes GNG is the National News source (the interview may also pass, depending on ones opinion of interviews in regards to GNG and independence.) BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: This article clearly meets the first two criteria of WP:ANYBIO. Wikimedian of the Year is a notable award not because we're biased Wikipedians but because it recognises the contributions by people to a project that attracts around 2 billion visits every day. If influencing billions of people is not notable, then I wonder what really is.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: I don't think we can decide if an award is notable or significant based on what the award is for or who it covers; if we did, we would have to consider an award with ambitious scope but otherwise totally lacking in what we would normally term notability or significance, as notable and significant. I think we need actually evidence to prove an award meets ANYBIO #1 - just as we need evidence to prove an entity meets GNG, by the presentation of three sources that meet all five points. BilledMammal (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If an award is not notable or significant based on what it is for, I presume it's the coverage in reliable sources and, in that case, Wikimedian of the Year clearly passes given the amount of sources already in the article. As for GNG, it's merely a guideline as stated above but, even if we take it as a rule, this article doesn't fail to meet its five criteria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I miscommunicated. Where I used the word "notable", I should have used the word "well-known". An award can be notable per wikipedia's criteria, but not sufficiently "well-known and significant" to confer notability on its recipients; we would need to establish that a given award does meet that criteria.
In regards to the five criteria, could you help me by providing the three articles that meet the five criteria? So far I've only be able to find one or two, depending on how one counts interviews? BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy has already provided reliable sources that confirm notability above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first meets GNG, but I think two and three fail the "significant coverage" requirement, as while they mention Najjar, that is all they do, with their coverage focusing on winners or honorable mentions of other Wikimedian awards. BilledMammal (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the person subject to the article thinks about it is completely irrelevant. Lionel Messi may wish not to have a Wikipedia article but that doesn't mean we should delete it. We add content based on what is in the reliable sources. Even if the person echoes the wish not to have an article and it appears in reliable sources as such, I assume that the opposition would end up in a separate section but it won't affect the article's existence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would suggest its not "completely irrelevant." Alaa is a "relatively unknown, non-public person", he's not Lionel Messi. The article on him on ar.wiki w:ar:علاء نجار redirects to the page on Wikimedian of the year; presumably if he was an extremely notable person to the point where we shouldn't take his thoughts into consideration, the project in his native language would have an article on him. I'm not actually arguing to delete at this point: I think that we've established that Wikimedians of the Year get an article as a precedent. At the same time, most of them are relatively unknown, non-public people. Since we know who they are and they're familiar with Wikipedia, if an article is being considered for deletion, it is worth asking them the question if they have a preference, and there is a policy justification for that. Basically I only commented above because I think from a human angle, we owe him the courtesy of pinging him and asking the question.TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a bad idea to judge the notability of a "relatively unknown, non-public person" by asking him whether he wants an article or not. Once again, we decide about notability based on coverage in reliable sources and someone's personal preference doesn't put weight if it's a borderline case. Also, this may set a precedent that other people may hang on to in the future in order to influence what information to be included in the articles about them (Note: We've already had cases on some Wikipedias in which people insisted information about them to be censored.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misunderstanding me: the policy says we can delete the article even if he's notable if he doesn't want it in cases like this. It doesn't say we have to, but it is a factor we can consider. I'm not saying we should judge notability based on it. I think it is clear from our standards that Wikimedians of the Year meet the inclusion criteria. Just because someone is notable doesn't mean we have to have an article, though, and yes, the privacy preferences of an relatively unknown person is something we should consider when its very easy to ask. If he doesn't respond, it'll obviously be kept, but I do think we at least owed him the ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see it exists as a possibility in our policies but, in my opinion, that's not something we should invoke in such cases unless the person is threatened because of the availability of some information in public and censoring that information is necessary for safety reasons.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, based on the discussion above; there have been no arguments presented for the Wikimedian of the Year award being a "well-known and significant award", per the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. I am also not satisfied that GNG has been passed, as no editor has been able to list three articles that meet all the requirements. I recognize this goes against the developing consensus, but it is important to note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies. If it turns out that either of these two bars are met, please ping me and we can have a discussion about WP:BLP1E. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 22 August 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 per WP:BLP1E. The overall discussion was closely divided, but as is often the case with many BLP1E discussions, many of the arguments did not address the key points. This includes some "delete" arguments that attacked the subject personally, and "keep" arguments that focused on the overall amount of coverage without touching the specific issues of BLP1E. Regarding the three criteria of that policy, the first (coverage for one incident) seems undisputed. The second was discussed in one "keep" argument that asserted he is not "low profile" because he posted information online and accepted media interviews. However, the criterion says "otherwise remains", which I take to mean otherwise beyond the one incident, and there was no argument that he has any media profile beyond this one incident. On the final criterion, it was established in the discussion that the larger event is significant and his role seems well documented, but it does not seem "substantial" as he was only one of many people seeking exit. Therefore the subject appears to meet all the necessary criteria of WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Routledge

Miles Routledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an obvious BLP violation. Miles Routledge is only potentially notable for one event. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*No longer think the articles need to be moved to draftspace. It no longer meets criteria #3 of WP:NOTBLP1E. See my additional comments below. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:BLP1ENOT, BLP1E does not just say BLPs notable for one event get deleted. This just isn't the case: it would be absurd to nominate D.B. Cooper or Trayvon Martin for deletion because they were "only notable for one event". There are multiple criteria that must be met. One of them is that the individual is "low-profile". WP:LOWPROFILE gives five ways to assess this: media attention, promotional activities, appearances and performances, eminence, and behavior pattern/activity level. Specifically, he created more than one thread on 4chan about his travels that featured his photo and real name, and eagerly gave multiple interviews to a variety of news outlets. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Regarding sourcing: there are plenty of RS right now, and he's in the middle of getting on a plane; either he makes it out, and does a ton of interviews with every newspaper in the world, or he doesn't, and there are a ton of articles about that. I think that seven days is long enough to find out (and if not, I will draftify it myself). jp×g 22:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since it seems like a large number of people are going to read this AfD, and possibly use it to inform their opinions of what Wikipedia editors are like, I'll clarify that I do hope he makes it out, and that later expansion of the article will continue the biography of a living person. jp×g 08:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anvib: While he is certainly self-promotional, I think it's unlikely that Miles would prepare to write an article about himself by spending seven years editing Wikipedia pretending to be an engineer from the United States. That said, I'd be happy to email you a photo of myself pointing to this AfD on my monitor and making a silly face of your choosing, putting keyboard/shoe on head, et cetera. jp×g 22:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article was not self-created; JPxG is a well known and experienced Wikipedia editor. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individuals role in current events is not substantial WP:1E. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, otherwise many more people who have appeared in major media outlets would be added WP:NOTNP. Humongous125 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I understand the viewpoints of those supporting deletion, but I feel the references as they stand now are enough to warrant keeping the article and any issues could theoretically be improved upon with time. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more appropriately covered by a newspaper, not by wikipedia Thecitizen1 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Per ToeSchmoker. I was in disbelief to discover this page. The comparisons with Trayvon Martin and D B Cooper are weak. This is clearly a brat whose actions in the middle of a real crisis have generated enough inconvenience and shock value to land him in newspapers. He will justifiably be forgotten by the end of the week, and if he isn't, we can have another conversation about whether he's notable enough for an article. I am properly indignant that he's being considered a cornerstone of this crisis and repulsed that we are contributing to it. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the point you are making; whether the guy is a dick is not a relevant consideration for notability (and even if it were, it's hard to see how he is more of a dick than a guy who brought a bomb on an airplane and threatened to murder everyone with it unless he was given $200,000). D.B. Cooper doesn't have an article because we think he's a great guy, he has an article because he's received substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. jp×g 20:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without meaning any disrespect, I find it difficult to explain the obvious with reference to granular policy. I cannot see how you analogise Trayvon Martin (whose killing sparked a movement) and D B Cooper (whose hijacking has captured the imagination for decades) with a kid who happened to be at a war zone in the middle of the war. He is the among the least important things in this conflict. I could do the “Wikipedia is not a crystal ball” or “Wikipedia is not a newspaper” thing, or get into the weeds on the notability guideline, but I see this as one of those clear, in-your-face examples where the subject obviously is not notable in any reasonable sense. Many of the other “delete” comments here are clearly inspired by the same sentiment. And apologies if I confused you by calling him a “brat”; that wasn’t the point, it just made me feel better. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Routledge has been covered by multiple major publications as part of a significant event, which is good enough for WP:BLP1E. Whether Routledge's actions are foolish or immoral is irrelevant; many foolish and immoral people have Wikipedia pages. Shannon Alther (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon Alther: Being mentioned in major publications as part of a significant event is not a reason for someone to have a Wikipedia page. Anvib (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think JPxG has made the case for notability; I just wanted to add that the article doesn't merit deletion on BLP-related procedural grounds.Shannon Alther (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After careful consideration, I'm going to lean on the keep side. The subject's coverage of the siege on Kabul and his escape are sufficiently distinct for me to say it passes WP:1E. The sticking point for me was on "There is usually no need to write articles about things with no historical significance whatsoever." The siege on Kabul was historically significant, and in my opinion the subject's coverage of the events that transpired, as well as his wider media coverage, make him sufficiently notable to have an article. Tojam2 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The siege on Kabul was historically significant, but I fail to see how a college student going there while it happened and sharing a couple social media posts is. It's not like he's a journalist. He provides little to no insight to the historical event. I would say he has no relevance to the event. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG presumes notability in the presence of WP:SIGCOV. While there may be a cogent argument to be made in favor of adopting different notability guidelines, it's not really clear to me what an objective measure of "significance" would look like for biographies. As an example, Elián González is a BLP notable in conjunction with only one event (the controversy over whether he would be allowed to immigrate from Cuba to the United States). He is not even mentioned in Cuba–United States relations; in our article on the specific US policy regarding situations like his, he is given only a passing mention as an example of someone to whom it applied. I would say he is notable regardless, since his ordeal was given lots of significant coverage by reliable sources, and consensus is broadly on the side of SIGCOV establishing notability -- determining whether or not someone is "historically relevant" seems like a quite subjective process that's outside our remit as encyclopedia editors (and doing so could potentially be a form of original research).
    I guess what I'm trying to say here is that, if our policies presume notability when a subject is given significant coverage by well-regarded reliable sources, like the BBC (RSP entry), Telegraph (RSP entry), and Times (RSP entry), and in the last few days these sources have all decided the guy was worth writing about, it's not clear to me what basis there is for claiming otherwise. jp×g 23:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: WP:GNG: ---No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.--- Anvib (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reputable media sources here; is there an issue with the reliability of the three I posted in the comment above? jp×g 00:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Did you read above? As per above, sources alone (reliable or not) are not enough, “No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists”. As per above the evidence must show that “this was not a mere short-term interest”. This is evidently a short term interest. This is an individual has appeared in the news for a single incident, at most it merits mention as part of another wikipedia article. He does not merit his own wikipedia article as per BLP. And there are clear concerns about self-promotion as per above. Neither points you have addressed. Anvib (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the topic was notable "because it exists"; I am saying it has a presumption of notability because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is a direct quote of the first sentence of WP:GNG. jp×g 19:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points by JPxG. I think he is now notable by Wikipedia's standards. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If his role was significant, would his name not appear in other wiki articles regarding the event, with some links directing to his page?
If his page is kept, does this set a precedence for creating articles about soldiers, aid workers, etc who have had a more significant role in Afghanistan and also appeared in reputable MSM sources?Humongous125 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that deleting and merging this or mentioning this individual in another article would be more appropriate than this article and would be a fair compromise.Anvib (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article about someone who has multiple stories focusing on them in reliable sources is not "creating a precedent", so much as it's "the general notability guidelines that have existed for many years". If I saw an article about an aid worker or translator who was the primary subject of a dozen news stories, I certainly would not nominate it for deletion, and if I saw it at AfD I would !vote "keep"; I'm not sure what stops you from doing this. jp×g 19:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG:Then why is George Holliday given as an example in WP:1E as someone who’s actions were only significant enough to warrant his name being merged with Rodney King? There is quite a few reputable sources such as the NY Times with articles about him. I also ask again, what is different about Miles that differentiates him from the experiences of any other foreign national stuck in the country? Or is the fact that the MSM has selected him as their poster boy to personify foreign nationals trying to leave the country sufficient for a Wikipedia page about him? Humongous125 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't think an impromptu commentary video by a random YouTube user with no direct connection to the subject is in any way relevant to the discussion, and including a quote that I'm not sure even comes up in it but could easily be understood to be from Routledge himself (if one hasn't actually watched it) is suboptimal. AngryHarpy‍talk 17:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – oh boy, it's another one of those, huh? I've been passively following this discussion, and a lot of the more recent support for deletion features an increasingly undeniable tinge of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I also have to call into serious question statements like sources alone (reliable or not) are not enough, “No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists“ – sorry to say, but no, the second half doesn't really have much to do with the first one at all, and reliable sources alone indeed are enough. Mainly per JPxG's eloquent words above, I find myself in favor of inclusion by this point. AngryHarpy‍talk 17:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er... What? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article, as it stands, is all about one event. There is RS coverage of that one event but nothing broad enough to source a BLP. We don't want BLPs of the type "That guy who made a fool of himself one time when he was young". Unless his other activities establish a broader pattern of notability, I think it is best, both for us and for him, not to have a BLP about him. That said, unless he changes his name, his Google searches are probably wrecked for life whether we have an article about him or not. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I've tagged the article as an orphan. There was one incoming link but it was this which I had already reverted as unreliably referenced and hence non-notable. I guess I should mention it here lest anybody think that I am trying to be sneaky by deleting the only incoming link and then tagging as orphaned. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a prime example of BLP1E. There's absolutely nothing which indicates that this person has any form of previous significance (i.e. notability is not temporary, and the current events are not sufficient to convince me this is more than just the usual RECENTISM of things that are in the news; given the role of this person in this one event is not significant (the examples of people that are notable for only one event and get an exception are those like Derek Chauvin (significant role in a notable event), which is clearly not the case here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the fall of Kabul is a highly notable event, Routledge played no role in it beyond getting trapped in the city (a trait shared by thousands of foreigners and millions of Afghans). Based on WP:BLP1E, this is simply not enough to get an article. In terms of general notability, Routledge received only a few days of coverage most of which has now concluded. (I did find a Russia Time's article published today, but this is not a reliable source). Thus, I think this article fails WP:NOTNEWS. Finally, Routledge is a young university student. If we keep this article, then over the next few decades we would have to keep track of someone who will almost certainly be a private individual who does nothing further of encyclopedic note. This poses major privacy concerns and runs afoul of WP:5P1. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spirit of Eagle et al. If he was one of the three known fatalities, that might be notable, but he's alive. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 23 August 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 21:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amiruddin Shah

Amiruddin Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG lacks reliable indepth news coverage. TheChronium 15:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 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. ✗plicit 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Polion

Elias Polion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. No major coverage and achievements. TheChronium 15:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 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. Geschichte (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Haripriyan

Roshni Haripriyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Only minor roles in few series TheChronium 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:43, 23 August 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 11:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhharrth S Kumaar

Sidhharrth S Kumaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, pseudo science, poorly sourced, press releases. Theroadislong (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 15 August 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 America's Got Talent (season 16)#Sethward. A redirect can serve many purposes, not just because there is significant coverage of it's subject in the linked article. The arguments that this subject's notability is almost entirely the result of one event, are convincing, and the redirect target therefore seems appropriate. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sethward

Sethward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, particularly WP:ENT, because the coverage given for notability is weak: the article mentions three appearances on AGT, and two for an ABC show, with very few references. This article was a recent creation, possibly because the person was considered by the article's creator to have need of an article for making a successful audition on AGT, after two failed attempts. The article was placed under a PROD, which was disputed on grounds that the existing (three) references provided sufficant coverage, despite the information given being minute, raising the issue of notability based on what has been provided. GUtt01 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Cunard. I initially declined the PROD as I felt the referencing was good enough that a proper deletion discussion should take place first. I support Cunard's vote to redirect as an WP:ATD. Sources from this article could be added to the target article. NemesisAT (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't support a redirect on the grounds that interest in him is only while the 16th season of AGT is active. Even then, there is hardly much mention of this person in the article, except his participation (denoted in the relevant article's table). A redirect only serves a purpose, I would think, if there was some coverage on the person in the associated article, however brief. GUtt01 (talk) 12:51, 30 August 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. (non-admin closure) AnsrieJames9 (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Raval

AJ Raval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per article: Fails WP:N (biographies). ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage available. TheChronium 15:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The actress is adding more reliable sources. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Actress is not notable per WP:ACTORS. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She only gets any coverage because her parents were actors, she has done nothign of note and all we have is vapid gossip coverage. We maybe should have articles on her parents, but she is not notable. This is an example of the extreme presentism of Wikipedia, which causes 1989 to be the largest birth-year category, even though there are a whole slew of professions and routes to notability (academics, religious leaders, many politicians and there are more) which very rarely lead to someone being notable by age 32.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The individual in question has received extensive coverage in a number of reliable media sources, including CNN Philippines, The Manila Times, and The Philippine Daily Inquirer. Many of them have to do with her starring in Viva Films productions, not really gossip: [38], [39],[40], [41], [42]. I don't think subjective assessments of the figure's worth is really relevant to this discussion. I'm sure much coverage of Paris Hilton would similarly be criticized as "vapid gossip coverage" but that doesn't have anything to do with her notability, or the fact that she has received coverage that is NOT "vapid gossip coverage" (i.e. one doesn't cancel out the other). Moreover, if being the beneficiary of nepotism were a legitimate criterion for non-notability (and I can't find anything on any guideline that says so), half of Hollywood wouldn't be considered notable. Per WP:BIO, an actor is notable if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The individual in question has at least two lead roles in two Viva Films productions. They have also appeared in at least 6 different Viva Films productions, not to mention her appearances in ABS-CBN television series. I would also just like to remind: per WP:NOTE, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Therefore, however many references currently exist in the article in question is immaterial to questions of notability. Additionally, per WP: Multiple sources, "based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." I have provided 5 sources. Koikefan (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't see the difference in notability between Paris Hilton and AJ Raval then you probably have little to no understanding of Wikipedia's notability policies. It's not a matter of vapidness in the sources, it's a matter of significance and coverage in the sources. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pointing out that their basis for concluding someone as non-notable (existence of gossip coverage) is not a legitimate basis for making such a conclusion (if it is, please point me to the guideline) by using Paris Hilton as an example. I did not make a comparison between AJ Raval and Paris Hilton's notability, so please try to improve your reading comprehension before making sassy remarks at me. Their only bases for dismissing AJ Raval as non-notable is because she has "vapid gossip coverage," clearly ignoring the articles that do not meet that description (which I have linked to above), and that she has famous parents. Those are not legitimate bases for dismissing someone as non-notable. The articles I linked to give significant coverage to this individual. Koikefan (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles you linked to provide minimal trivial coverage. Several of them are about her role with Diego Loyzaga, which is not a significant role and is only brought up due to Diego Loyzaga. The other articles are about her famous parents. Neither case is valid as notability cannot be inherited. AJ Raval may be notable in the future after starring in more significant roles, but currently remains non-notable. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but we must have different definitions of trivial or minimal. At least three of the articles are entirely about her, bordering on profiles. Also, she is literally the lead of the movie, with Loyzaga as her co-star, so of course they're going to be talked about together. You have absolutely no basis for claiming that she is "only brought up" because of Loyzaga. On the contrary, they are talked about together because they are the two leads of the movie. They literally appear in the movie poster together as they are the two leads of the film. I would also like to know how you can conclude a lead role in a Viva Films production is "not a significant role." If a lead role is not a significant role, then what to you is a significant role? Viva Films is the 2nd or 3rd largest movie production company in the Philippines. None of the articles I linked to are about her famous parents, unless you think mentioning her famous parents makes an article about her famous parents. I would also suggest that you don't use strawmen here as I have never once argued that notability is inherited. That's completely dishonest. Koikefan (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a strawman and not dishonest-you clearly said someone was ignoring that Raval has famous parents, which would only be relevant if notability could be inherited. Anyways you're right I have little basis for concluding that Viva Films production is not a significant role, other than it is only one role, and all of the sources focus in on that one role. I'll agree it's not as clear cut as I may have original thought, but right now I still do not see them passing WP:GNG. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You misread my statement. My statement was (copy and pasting): "Their only bases for dismissing AJ Raval as non-notable is because she has "vapid gossip coverage," clearly ignoring the articles that do not meet that description (which I have linked to above), and that she has famous parents." I enumerated their bases (notice I said bases and not basis) as 1. vapid gossip coverage and 2. that she has famous parents. The ignore solely refers to the "articles that do not meet that description"; "ignore" did not refer to famous parents. To address your point about the focus on one role, I will link here a few more articles that discuss another lead role of hers in a separate movie called Taya (this first link is another extensive profile): [43], [44], [45], [46].Koikefan (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't misunderstand your statement if you're saying they dismissed Raval as non-notable for having famous parents. That is in fact an actual strawman argument, as only one person above mentioned Raval parent's and it was in reference to them having their own Wikipedia articles. Their statement is only an opinion on Raval's parents' articles, not on Raval's notability. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 09:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood my statement because you were suggesting I argued that her famous parents have any bearing on her notability, when I said no such thing. You went so far as to imply that I think notability is inherited. As for the other person, they claimed that AJ Raval only gets coverage because "her parents were actors." Since none of us here are mind-readers or are capable of divining why authors write their articles, that's tantamount to dismissing someone's notability because they have famous parents, since it suggests, without evidence, that the coverage is based on the fame of her parents. How exactly is she supposed to ever be notable if all coverage of her is immediately assumed to be because of her parents, which is what the other person assumed? Can anybody here furnish evidence proving that the Philippine Star, Inquirer, or CNN coverage was only due to the fact that AJ Raval has parents that are famous actors? Koikefan (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the rationale for this conclusion? As stated prior, the individual has received media coverage from a number of reliable media sources. How can you then conclude she's not notable? Koikefan (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but I hope whichever admin closes this discussion considers these sorts of votes to be votes without rationale. Merely saying someone is not notable enough, without explication, when at least 11 different reliable sources have been presented about her is quite something. May I remind: ""Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin." Koikefan (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources in the article seem reliable. Sources 1, 2 and 5 talk about her. Sources 5 to 7 talks about her role in certain movies. I also found some reliable sources about her and her career: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] and [53]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This article: [54], in combination with the articles I've linked to, now means that AJ Raval has been referred to in nearly a dozen different reliable media sources, covering 2 lead roles and 1 supporting role, in three different movies. This goes above and beyond the three sources that is standard for rebutting challenges to notability. WP: Multiple sources: "based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." Koikefan (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*:Keep Please keep this page because she is notable as an actress even though there aren't too many movies as the main role but she is still famous because in all her movies she is always the one to be noticed even if she is not the main star. and when it comes to being her influencer and being a youtuber, she is very noticeable. I always see the teenage girls who are my neighbors here in the computer shop watching Aj's vlog because the type they admire seems to want to imitate the beauty and sexiness of Aj. and at the tip, she's also very famous on tiktok, so I think she has a blue badge check on the tip. so maybe that's enough to be notable as an Actress and Influencer." Steezy Krazy (talk) 4:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC) strike sock vote-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:34, 19 August 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 11:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Balmori

Elena Balmori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as per article. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:00, 15 August 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. Michig (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Tingting

Ai Tingting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable news reporter, fails WP:BIO. No relevant results when searched on Google. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article completely fails to make any plausible claim of notability for this person. All we know is that she is a reporter but there are hundreds of thousands of reporters worldwide. Is every reporter notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography? No. Only those who have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The current references are passing mentions, not significant coverage, and in a source that shows no indications of reliability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7, no indication or claim of importance; completely non-notable ROTM reporter. The source cited provides no coverage of this person, not to mention that it's obviously non-RS (WordPress blog site of some sort?). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 15 August 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. Seddon talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Capozzi

Louis Capozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Oleaginous CV, dubiously referenced, for somebody who doesn't appear to meet WP:PERSON. -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fast work, McMatter! -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm surprised to see a mention of journalism (immediately above); but because of it, this discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions too. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I found this article but took it to a Teahouse question as I wasn't experienced enough to know what to do; @Hoary kindly brought it here. My feeling is that Capozzi is probably only marginally notable once all the publicity traced to himself and PRSA (of which he served as president) has been stripped away. But in any case, the article is so awful in its current form of a congratulatory CV that I'd go for complete deletion and start again even if he is notable. Also the article was written by an editor whose sole work was this article and that of the PRSA, suggesting the whole thing might have a big conflict of interest. Elemimele (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Ideally, the article should be blown up and started over, but there appears to be a kernel of notability. Cleaned it up a bit. Actually there were TWO editors (Himehdi12 (creator) and Eagerbeaver150 (2017-19)) who did not declare COI or PAID, but had a focus only on Lou or PRSA Foundation (the latter not being the same as PRSA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 30 August 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. ✗plicit 10:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onuzulike Okonkwo

Onuzulike Okonkwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this here not just because of notability concerns, but also in the hope of attracting some more eyes. I've done my best to clean this up somewhat, but the lack of sources remains glaring. The article does make one possible claim of significance – "First Secretary of the Nigerian High Commission in London, England", but I'm not so sure whether that's synonymous with the actual role of High Commissioner, and have been unable to find any sources to that extent, anyway. As it stands, this individual looks like one of those cases where the subject, despite having lived an interesting life, does not quite make it past any SNG (I guess mainly NPOL in this case), and has also not been active during a time where active press coverage may have lifted him past GNG. AngryHarpy‍talk 08:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍talk 08:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍talk 08:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍talk 08:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍talk 08:56, 14 August 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) 04:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Powers (doctor)

Will Powers (doctor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An interesting combination of an advertisement for a physician sourced to press releases, and a tragic account of the death of two cats. Neither half is encyclopedic. Originally submitted as draft with the title Will Powers (physician), and quite reasonably declined twice by two different reviewers. Resubmitted a third term (with a slightly variant title) and also entered directly into mainspace. The photo was taken by the contributor of the article. NOT ADVERTISEMENT and NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing notability guidelines, as well as per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hi I created the page after attempting to create a draft and feeling that the draft got unfairly declined. I don't believe I used any press releases in this article, only sources considered reputable on Wikipedia. Please explain which sources are inappropriate for Wikipedia, and which aspects of the page are not notable? I believe all the sources indicate notability. I have no conflict of interest other than personal interest in the topic of transgender healthcare. Like the underrepresentation of women on Wikipedia, transgender topics are also underrepresented. I also want to clarify that I used a public domain image, not a photo taken by myself. Please assume good faith. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an article after the draft has been declined multiple times is not acceptable, period. First and foremost, the doctor is not notable, even if the sources are reliable. And no, a supposed underrepresentation of transgender topics is not an excuse for dodging or ignoring notability guidelines. There is nothing that sets this doctor apart from any other conscientious citizen who does something for his or her community. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that the individual meets GNG, and while I have no doubt that the creator acted in good faith, the only sources available resulted in the article taking a tone that could be seen as promotional. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:07, 21 August 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 1960 New York mid-air collision. If the merge is attempted and there is a clear consensus at the target to reject mentioning his name, then this page may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 as an implementation of the RfD consensus that we shouldn't redirect to a page which doesn't mention the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baltz

AfDs for this article:
Stephen Baltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is mostly a procedural listing following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#Stephen Baltz. Baltz was the sole survivor of the 1960 New York mid-air collision, but died from his injuries the following day. He is mentioned in the article, but not by name, per an apparently firm consensus against listing such survivors of air disasters. Given this unclear connection, the redirect came up at RfD. I don't necessarily favor deletion; I just oppose reverting this to an undiscussed redirect. BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging the RfD participants 108.41.60.144, Thryduulf, WilliamJE, Oiyarbepsy, Joseph2302, PEIsquirrel, Tavix. Jay (Talk) 09:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep or merge with a mention of Baltz to 1960 New York mid-air collision, per Ivanvector in the RfD (coverage in a major publication 40+ years after the incident ([55]) and the existence of a memorial plaque ([56]) demonstrate notability). The sources make clear that there is still interest in him, so this information needs to exist somewhere. I'm fine with keeping a separate article if that's what it takes to satisfy having him named in the collision article, otherwise I lean more towards a merge (keeping WP:1E in mind). -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without a merge. This is a classic case of a person known only for a single event, who has no other claim to notability. It is impossible to write an article on this person without the additional context of the plane crash. That said, the content in this article is excessively detailed for an article on the plane crash. Now, while the article doesn't currently give his name, I think that is acceptable in this case, as long as the redirect points to the section that describes him as the lone "survivor" (which I put in quotes because dying the next day instead of at the scene does not make someone a survivor). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose this is better than a non-section redirect, since readers will probably be able to put two and two together. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If readers have to "put two and two together" to get information, then we're not doing our job as an encyclopedia. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - in the RfD a point was raised about a manual of style forbidding mentioning non-notable victims of aviation accidents. Baltz is notable in that context, as evidenced by ongoing coverage half a century later (per Tavix, and per my comments in the RfD), and he should be mentioned there. I don't see any reason for there to be a separate article, as Baltz's notability cannot be separated from the accident. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:08, 16 August 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. ✗plicit 12:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geert R. A. Kliphuis

Geert R. A. Kliphuis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV on his career to determine notability; no chart information for his music to satisfy WP:NSINGER; does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NAUTHOR either. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I'm struggling to find anything about him at all. Unless I'm really bad at Google searches (which is quite possible) it's going to be a real stretch to establish any notability whatsoever. The book "Dutch guitarists" which pops up in Google as available from Amazon has a disclaimer that it is made up of Wikipedia articles; all the other things I found were WP articles or mirrors of them; he seems to have called himself Jay Conrad when writing lyrics for an album 'Steeltown girls', in which he hasn't done us any favours as a Google search for 'Jay Conrad' turns up mostly Jay Conrad Levinson (someone else). Rarely has a potentially-notable person managed to remain so firmly below Google's radar. Can anyone find anything Dutch? Elemimele (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Elemimele, I could find a Dutch-language column that Kliphuis wrote for the distinguished NRC Handelsblad. I have added it as a reference, unformatted as this this article most likely will go do the drain. As far as I can tell, Kliphuis made a decent contribution to several media products and services, still fails the WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. WP:NOTINHERETED also applies to this article in its current state. gidonb (talk) 23:04, 14 August 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. ✗plicit 12:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh King (television producer)

Hugh King (television producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have multiple significant production roles and does not satisfy WP:BASIC. No WP:SIGCOV on his career. – DarkGlow • 11:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:38, 13 August 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. ✗plicit 12:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seann Branchfield

Seann Branchfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN. No charting information or significant coverage on their career. – DarkGlow • 11:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:28, 13 August 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. However, any future recreation would do well to tone down the promotional tone of this article as it stands. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Jones (chief executive)

Ellis Jones (chief executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BASIC/GNG. Has no WP:SIGCOV. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - 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.
Logs: 2013-03 ↻ restored ← 2013-03 ✗ G6
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 August 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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Parker (model)

Cheyenne Parker (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged for not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline since 2018 -- there does not appear to have been an attempt to burnish the article further since then. Individual has appeared on two reality TV shows and does not appear to be notable otherwise. Fixer23 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what he's received coverage for, at least not for a few years. Stuff like this moves past his reality TV work in the first line. St★lwart111 07:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interview and the text is garnered from his responses. This not secondary independent sourcing. This is coverage about subject by the subject and written down. This is the same as self promotion. This kind of article is great for a celebrity-gossip site, it sells clicks and magazines. But it is does not help with determining notability. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of it are not secondary, of course, but he didn't interview himself. In fact, it wasn't an interview. Someone independent has pulled together material from multiple sources (including different interviews by different publications), presented it with editorial, and has included quotes from the subject. That's fairly textbook journalism. Its positive, yes, but not self-promotional. Is there any evidence this article was created by the subject, or someone close to the subject? St★lwart111 23:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is easy to see the entire article is based on comments and opinions offered by Cheyenne Parker himself. And a large portion of this source is quoted material - quoting Cheyenne Parker. This is not considered independent sourcing on Wikipedia. This is considered to be information recounted from a person directly involved with the topic - which in this case is the person himself.
It may take place in a web magazine, but there is no independence between the subject and himself from which the information is delivered to the reader. Fails BASIC and ANYBIO. And I will add, this topic is probably WP:TOOSOON. I will acknowledge that the first paragraph might be independent journalism, but this does not constitute significant coverage (in a secondary source).---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the article is presented in that style (in the subject's voice) does not mean there was not independent editorial oversight of the material and independent decisions made about what should be included and what should not. Again, this is an article made up of pieces of multiple interviews and someone independent of the subject has made editorial decisions about the nature of that coverage. It's not based, for example, on a press-release or even a press statement, where the subject decides what should be covered and that is repeated, verbatim, by the publisher. St★lwart111 00:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "notable coverage" is supposed to mean, but the sources listed above include a detailed 800+ word account of his activities since his appearances on reality television. Or are you suggesting its not a reliable source? St★lwart111 03:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for snark and being confrontational. I already discounted that particular source above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no snark here. Your opinion of that source is noted, but its not really based in policy. St★lwart111 23:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but my opinion is based on policy - and guidelines. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very minor celebrity and not notable. Fails BASIC, ANYBIO. Subject has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion (including self-promotion). ---Steve Quinn (talk)
  • Keep the sources found do seem to meet requirements regardless of whether this guy seems important. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely can, its just that nobody has bothered to do so yet. In fact, it should have been done before the article was nominated for deletion. St★lwart111 02:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the article can be expanded beyond listings of a very short filmography pleases do so. Please show that it can be done. A general assertion that BEFORE wasn't done is not proof there is more that is worthy for inclusion. Otherwise it seems independent reliable sourcing does not support inclusion for this topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you have that process backwards. It's called "BEFORE" for a reason; those are things that should happen before an article is nominated for deletion. St★lwart111 00:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Quinn, I have now done so. St★lwart111 12:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 17:01, 4 September 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 as all votes were for Keep/Strong Keep or either comments per WP:SIGCOV also clearly passed WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close vacacted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 26. New close is procedural no consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athar Aamir Khan

Athar Aamir Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Being a commissioner of a city doe not make anyone notable. Fails WP:GNG. Moreover 2nd runner of IAS Entrance Exam also not sufficient to make him Noable. DMySon (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Strong keep - The article passes WP:GNG. Kindly perform a WP:BEFORE, you can find enough to pass GNG. --Sreeram Dilak (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - although the article is copiously referenced (its creator, @Sreeram Dilak, has certainly found plenty of good press mentions) the question to me is whether his current career posts, although well-referenced, are sufficiently notable to make him notable. I do not know. Also being a CEO of a company does not automatically make someone notable. It may be Too Soon. Certainly the number of times he took a civil service exam, and his exact marks, are not relevant to an encyclopaedia article, and I'm not sure all the family details are appropriate. If the article survives, it probably needs editing to concentrate on more on his notable achievements and less on his personal life. Elemimele (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have enough coverage to meet notability. Alice Jason (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Uncertain if hte position is intrinsically notable. But most of the references and text in the original version was PR, self-praise, and gossip. To give the article a chance, I removed those sections. The principles for doing so are NOT TABLOID and NOT AUTOBIOGRAPHY. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:03, 26 August 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. ✗plicit 13:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Tantillo

AfDs for this article:
John Tantillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG notability. Even with a WP:BEFORE, coverage of him is either non-independent, or non-substantial (passing mentions).

For some additional background/context: This was originally soft-deleted in a previous AFD I opened in November 2020, and was requested for undeletion in December 2020 by a user stating they would "add verifiable sources" and "readdress any concerns". Since nothing in the article's body has been changed (and since the undeletion request only pointed out the existence of sources that are either non-independent or unsubstantial), I'm opening this for discussion again. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:00, 2 September 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) Jack Frost (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Golden

Jerry Golden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being the person on a particular radio station who was the first on that radio station to report the Kennedy assasination is not a sign of notability. The one source is a caption to a picture in a books that is exhaustively about the radio station he worked for. I searched for additional sources in all the listed possible source leads connected with the 10-year-old notice on the page of being of unquestioned notability, but I did not find any other sources. Everything else that showed up was about other Jerry Golden's in other places and times. This guy was a local radio personality who is just plain not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The characterization of Golden as an announcer "on one local station in one local market" is misleading. He was one of the leading personalities on WLS, a 50,000 watt megastation whose signal covered five states and much of the Midwest. Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the best I could find is this, which isn't enough on its own. (Multiple sources are needed, and it's arguably too local to be significant.) I don't think a redirect would be helpful given that Golden played no noteworthy role in the assassination and isn't mentioned in the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm somewhat chagrined to see how many sources I failed to find. The coverage below is more than adequate to meet WP:BASIC, particularly considering that "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The first and second sources below each constitute sigcov on their own, and the third, fourth, and fifth ones are easily enough to push Golden over the notability finish line. Good work, Cbl62. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:19, 20 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Ellis (actor)

AfDs for this article:
William Ellis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor has only been in smaller playhouse renditions of notable stories but not been part of notable stage productions. They have only had minors roles on any television and movie roles. The references that mention him are either a listing, profile or mentions in the reviews of the plays, therefore fails WP:NACTOR. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet the notability guidelines. Like I mentioned on the talk page, it is not to be confused with the Canadian actor (which the first deletion nomination was about). I know that I shouldn’t compare articles but look at Ben Lloyd-Hughes compared to this article. Both the actors were in Great Expectations (2012 film). Are you going to delete that article? Sahaib (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused are you saying they meet the criteria because they aren't Canadian and shared screen time with someone else that has a poorly referenced article? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Significant roles: Main character (Anlance) in Dragon Quest Swords, Compeyson in Great Expectations (2012 film), Peck in How I Learned to Drive, Wiktor in The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler, Earl of Chester in Queen of the Desert (film), Aubrey in Parade's End (TV series), etc.Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. He has had multiple credited roles in notable films which, while not leading roles, are significant supporting characters (Compeyson being particularly important). That along with voicing the main character is a notable video game seems to put him on the keep side of the fence. I wish there were better sources to demonstrate SIGCOV which is why I voted weak keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I am the original author of the piece, and I am grateful for all your comments. Just FYI, Ellis UK Theatre is definitely not "smaller playhouse renditions of notable stories but not been part of notable stage productions" - he was a leading man at Vaudeville Theatre (West End London), and played at Royal National Theatre / Theatre Royal, Bath etc... All his stage roles have been in major UK venues, not what I would call non-notable stage productions in the slightest. Film roles have been both significant and also smaller parts. I feel he is significant enough to be here although I'm relatively new to this space and I am unsure if I am allowed to say keep or not as, of course, I am the original author of the page. BarracudaBaby1980 22:18 (UTC)
  • I have had a little redraft and inputted some of the theatre credits into the relevant pages. The Importance of Being Earnest in which Ellis played a lead has been added to that page's production history as it is of worthy note. Similarly, I have added Prayer Room in which Ellis had a notable part that was critically written about, that has some wiki listed mentionable actors in it along side him.BarracudaBaby1980 16:24 (UTC)
  • I have also added a new reference for Ellis Video Game in which he voiced the lead character for English speaking version: Dragon Quest Swords for the Nintendo Wii. BarracudaBaby1980 16:49 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate improvements made to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep - I'm convinced by the arguments put forward above and while the article itself still needs more work (it's not quite a matter of WP:HEY) I think there's probably enough to get the subject over the line (just). His role as the "main antagonist" in a high-quality film production of Charles Dickens' Great Expectations lends this argument weight, as do the multiple stage roles which include a number of leading roles. St★lwart111 09:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has appeared in multiple notable filmsJackattack1597 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 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. ✗plicit 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Bigham

Lexie Bigham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor actor who played small forgettable roles with the exception of one larger supporting role (but still not a leading role) in South Central. Fails the multiple significant roles portion of criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Does not meet any other notability criteria for actors or at WP:ANYBIO. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable references. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:00, 21 August 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. MBisanz talk 18:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sean Winters

Michael Sean Winters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third party talks about him, so he has no notability. The uscatholic.org link is not a third party, it is Winters' biography because he is one of the authors who published on the website. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
notability means coverage not achievements, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been improved since nomination with the inclusion of references showing reviews of his work in ten publications including reliable sources such as Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Library Journal and others including scholarly journals. These references show that the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 4 as his works have received significant critical attention so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: And what do we say about the subject of the article? Do you have a RS for his date of birth, his education, etc.? Veverve (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: None of that stuff is necessary to be notable. Sometimes authors lead private lives, or don't talk to press or write under assumed identities. What matters is whether people write about and notice their work. I made a page about a fanfiction by an anonymous author that ended up on the front page because it met that criteria. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 25 August 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. This seems to be a borderline case, as the less cursory contributions to this discussions indicate. A talk page merger discussion is a possibility for a follow-up. Sandstein 15:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian A. M. Fuller

Ian A. M. Fuller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability as an individual. References are not enough to prove notability of the subject. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG DMySon (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak-keep but it's a tricky one. Breeding freshwater catfish is a niche hobby, but quite a large niche so far as its occupiers are concerned, and clearly Fuller is a big fish in the pond he's decided to cultivate. The trouble is, if your area is niche, it will only get published in niche places, so a person like Fuller is never going to appear in the Times or Guardian, it's always going to be in WeirdFishMagazine and CoryBreedersMag or wherever. I'd go for a weak-keep because (1) he's had a species named after him, which is quite an accolade; (2) it's impossible to find any website or fish magazine mentioning Corydoras without it mentioning Fuller's name (i.e. there are no independent sources because anyone who knows anything about Corydoras is a friend of Fuller's, but this very fact argues his relevance, if we consider freshwater catfish breeding to be notable); and (3) the alternatives of merging into Corydoras generally or Corydoras fulleri would unbalance those articles by putting too much Fuller-information into what should have been a Fish-article. I don't think Fuller is going to be easy to classify using WP's normal notability guidelines, because he's not quite a businessman, not quite an author, and not quite an academic; he's occupying a unique spot with a foot (fin?) in each. Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 00:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:13, 16 August 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) 06:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Dev

Vinayak Dev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sockpuppet creation. Subject did exist, but contents of article is fabricated from the sources. None of the text matches the attributions. Possibly can be cleaned up and would be willing to withdraw the nomination, but should not be in main space in present condition since bordering on hoax. I don't believe draftifying is appropriate here (not the purpose of draft space, misuses AfC and the sockpuppet creator is indef blocked). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 14:06, 15 August 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) 21:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Banks

Rick Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has some coverage, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:35, 13 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People&oldid=1039726268"