Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar Pride (rapper)

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

Fails WP:BASIC not a notable rapper yet. Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Mississippi. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has a charted single and is covered in the Billboard link and XXL magazine. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It did documents the subject notability as per Wiki:criteria for musicians for it to be enwik must pass this following criteria guideline of which in it says any article that:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following, which are: •Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. •Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. •Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Teepain (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has had a single chart on a national chart for criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC as confirmed in Billboard and XXL sources in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Malcom Morgan

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

Curator and director of art nonprofit, fails WP:GNG coverage hyper-local, specialist and incidental mentions in coverage of Judy Chicago rather than Malcom-Morgan herself. Lacks SIGCOV, fails WP:NARTIST; WPNACADEMIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, Arts, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The creator of this article, User:Jerahcordova, is Jerah Cordova, the former mayor of Belen, New Mexico, the city where Megan Malcom Morgan is curator. I know this because he told me. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: ~~I am striking out your comment, as this falls under WP:OUTING.~~ Curiocurio (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Curiocurio: Yes..."unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information...on Wikipedia". User:Jerahcordova (aka, "Jerah Cordova"), the former mayor of Belen, left a message on my talk page saying "I'm the mayor of Belen, NM". Unless I'm missing something, please revert your edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the 2nd paragraph of WP:OUTING says that use of information that is self-disclosed on-wiki is not considered outing. That seems to cover the "former mayor" part. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Womanhouse, and include a sentence or two about the 2022 event at that article; or delete as an alternative to redirection. All of the coverage in the article concerns the single exhibition, and I didn't find much else out there. I think this falls under WP:BLP1E, at least in its current state. The name is relatively difficult to search for -- following this discussion in case better evidence of notability is found. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated !vote to clarify that deletion would be a sensible outcome. I still think redirection is slightly preferred per WP:ATD-R, but I don't think it matters very much either way. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changing my vote from redirect to delete. I never could figure out a way to include Megan Malcom Morgan in the information about Wo/manhouse 2022. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC) ~~Agree with Russ Woodroofe.~~ I have started a section at Womanhouse Womanhouse#50th Anniversary in 2022. ~~Don't quite see how to add Morgan to the entry though.~~ WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I think there is certainly a policy-based argument for deleting, I'm staying at the redirect !vote, since redirects are WP:CHEAP. I think it would be enough to mention that she curated. I agree that there's not much more than that to say -- the coverage of the revival seemed to be more interested in Judy Chicago's role. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the Womanhouse#50th Anniversary in 2022 entry but still I am not finding a reference to the assertion that Malcom Morgan was the curator. She was on the steering committee, but alas, I don't see that she was a curator. Have I missed a reference? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On looking at sources, I guess the statement directly supported by them would be something like "under gallery executive director Megan Malcom-Morgan" or similar. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Megan Malcom-Morgan, was executive director of TTF at that time" with citation to the Womanhouse#50th Anniversary in 2022 entry. I still think it is a delete rather than a redirect. Even if it is WP:CHEAP, she just not notable, yet. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had tagged this for notability concerns. Not enough in-depth coverage to show that she meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfa

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

This page appears to be solely sourced to religious websites, making its contents wholly unverifiable and functionally useless from the perspective of Wikipedia's content standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this nomination is flawed. We have many articles about Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox bishops which are sourced entirely to sources related to their respective denominations. There are a few companions of the prophet about whom very little is known today, but most have been discussed constantly in Islamic scholarship for more than 1400 years because of their critical role in the transmission of Hadith. In any case there are sufficient sources in English for this to be a GNG pass (Google book search) without even looking in Arabic or other languages. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google books shows two footnotes. Scholar hints at a few mentions, but the relevant passages are not apparent. There is nothing to currently indicate the presence of any non-trivial mentions of the subject in reliable sources. The page is just as poorly supported in its Arabic version. The other premise is also invalid. This individual did not play a major role in any tradition, because he ostensibly died in the Battle of Yamama, and thus was prevented from ever passing on whatever material he might have recollected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

simply false. I find multiple sources (not including the ones I enumerate below) citing him as the source of Hadith. You’re just making it up. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Battle of Yamama. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it’s not true that the subject appears only in a couple of footnotes in a google book search. In English I get multiple pieces of coverage, including 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, with other instances too. From this we learn that the subject, on account of his exceptional knowledge of the Quran, led the community in prayer in Medina before Muhammad himself arrived, and that the caliph Omar stated that, had he lived, he would have made him his successor. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in Arabic, setting aside explicitly religious sites and only looking for substantive coverage in general sources that editors can auto translate, coverage includes two extensive profiles in daily news sources, 6 and 7, and this from wikisource 8. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While some Arabic news sources are reasonably sound sources for local news, and Youm 7 is generally speaking a respected publication, I don't think Arabic news sources are realistically reliable sources for Islamic biographies, and that Wikisource text is a primary source, so not super useful in of itself without supporting coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, You may be right in your overall assessment, but you should get rid of the first book that you list above. It lists Lulu, a well known self-publishing outfit, as its publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you I didn’t spot that. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mccapra has shown that there are a number of sources. Furius (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be interesting to see the nominator respond to the newly identified sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Schiffmann

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

The individual allegedly created a project that was popular during the coronavirus pandemic, but the coverage is not significant enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page. There is one award, but I'm not too certain about the signficance of the award. Seems to fail WP:GNG requirements. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable guy. New refs need to be added tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassiJevenn (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on his notability? I see that you've contributed to the page in the past. A good chunk of the sources when you Google the individual (including WWF, MIT Technology Review, and the New Yorker) about him seem to be written by him or largely quotes from him which does not present significant and independent coverage. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guy has been featured in La Voix Du Nord (1), BFMTV (2), The Times Of Israel (3), Le Figaro (4), Web Foundation (5), CNEWS (6), Business Insider (7), The Times UK (8), Vanity Fair (9), ABC ES (10) and recently, in CNN (11)... the list goes beyond... I don't know how you can doubt he is still not notable ^^ CassiJevenn (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've attached a source assessment table below. Some of the sources you listed are on the table, and the rest have the same issues. I suspect some level of churnalism is involved, if not the individual or someone close to them reaching out to media sources. The development of a popular website is not enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page. Many creators of popular websites do not receive a Wikipedia page. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you include the CNN page in the table? That recent one is very clearly not churnalism. Furthermore, Avi is not just a creator of one popular website. In the CNN article (which, for some reason, you don't include in the table), you can see all about his company and new office in SF, multiple websites created for Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, and other areas in crisis. Pretty much all the sources you use in your table are very old. There are new sources that establish notability. CraigSut (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source assessment table generated below are from the currently posted article, not the sources listed above. That is why CNN is not included. The creation of a website or multiple does not convey notability, neither does the coverage of them. If you would like to generate your own table, please feel free. The sources I'm seeing for Schiffmann's work (including InternetActivism) tend to largely consist of direct and indirect quotes from him which isn't significant coverage. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't suggest a deletion of the page. The CNN article indicates notability for Schiffmann. Instead, add issue templates about sourcing, etc. — not about notability. As CassiJevenn said above, "new refs need to be added tho" and "I don't know how you can doubt he is still not notable." CraigSut (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2193300/8-17-year-old-creates-worlds-biggest-online-coronavirus-tracker/		? unsigned, churnalism?	mostly quotes	✘ No
https://www.essentiallysports.com/teenage-gamer-turns-down-8-million-for-coronavirus-tracking-website/		? moot	mostly indirect quotes	✘ No
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/30/the-high-schooler-who-became-a-covid-19-watchdog			majority quotes	✘ No
https://www.timesofisrael.com/updated-every-minute-17-year-old-whiz-kids-coronavirus-site-used-by-millions/			mostly quotes and filler	✘ No
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/avi-schiffmann-interview-the-teenage-tech-genius-who-built-a-coronavirus-tracking-website-78rvd093v			moot	✘ No
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/viral-sensation-seattle-kid-built-coronavirus-website-catches-eye-top-twitter-tastemaker/			? moot	? Unknown
https://www.webbyawards.com/press/press-releases/winners-announced-for-the-24th-annual-webby-awards/	awarding organization			✘ No
https://harvardindependent.com/2021/12/student-spotlights-avi-schiffman/	Student spotlight at Harvard, where Avi attends	?		✘ No
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}}.

I suspect there may be some level of churnalism involved here as well. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the source table above, it's much ado about nothing. I can't find anything else to support notability, it seems pretty clear to me. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Oaktree. Obvious lack of notability and fails WP:GNG. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rishab Jain

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

Though relatively accomplished for a high school student, I believe this article does not pass the notability test for people. Much of the sources do seem self-cited as noted in the talk page, and many IP edits originate from or near Portland, Oregon so it is likely it's written by someone close to this individual. The awards mentioned here are not "well-known and significant" enough to warrant the creation of a page. I believe this article fails WP:GNG guidelines. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I previously supported a Draftify action, I now oppose deletion. I have rehauled this page completely, removing primary sources and adding the subject's recent, note-worthy accomplishments. There was a significant amount of sockpuppetry as well as what appear to be advertisements that were included on this page. Un-notable references to the subject's "Discord" and "YouTube" were non-notable.

I have added more recent, notable achievements. These include a feature by the National Cancer Institute, winning the International Science and Engineering Fair, being named a TIME Magazine 25 Most Influential Teen, and more. The subject meets notability.

As per WP:GNG, notability guidelines are failed for pages that do not have "significant coverage." I would agree if the subject had no media appearance since the page was initially created in 2018. However, it seems since 2021 onwards, the subject has been featured in media quite frequently, by reputed sources like TIME Magazine, Teen Vogue, Insider, Yahoo News, uspto.gov, The Hindu, NPR's Science Friday, PBS, etc. Another common issue is with sources and independent of the subject works. I have removed the primary sources and added more objective secondary sources that establish notability. There were also some press releases that were used as references — again, that tied into what seemed to be an advertising/promotional tone. These have been removed and replaced with reputed sources. CraigSut (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just based on a quick search in the news using the 'find sources' feature above, the subject Rishab Jain seems to have been featured in/by the National Cancer Institute [1], Good News Network [2], The Times [3], PhysicsWorld [4][5], Pancreatic Cancer Action Network [6], Pioneer Press [7], TIME's Most Influential Teens List [8], Deccan Chronicle [9], USPTO [10], Indian Express [11], Business Insider [12], TIME Magazine [13], NPR's Science Friday [14], American Kahani [15], The Oregonian [16], PBS [17], Pamplin Media [18].

These are just some of the first ones that popped up. There seem to be plenty more. Not all of these are solid sources, obviously, and so only the secondary, credible ones should be included in the page. Take a look at PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and the Insider ones above. I think the page could use some work, but the subject is clearly notable. It's a keep. Side-note: It looks like you're also trying to delete Avi Schiffmann, another notable young person. Little bit confused how some of the most famous activists of Gen Z don't quality for notability. Gitanjali Rao (scientist) is even more notable, pretty much included in every media publication possible, having received numerous humanitarian, United Nations, etc. awards. Deleting on the basis of the 3M Young Scientist Challenge makes no sense here or there. CraigSut (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although when searching for his name you may find his YouTube channel regarding Discord content, he has become notable in multiple different occasions (see article). ImperialMajority (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems quite outdated, and there have been numerous primary sources and non-encyclopedic terminology added. It's clearly in need of an overhaul. I believe that the IP edits originated from Portland, Oregon, may not be an issue, however. I myself am from Portland, Oregon, yet have no connection to the subject — rather, I heard about their work from a local congresswoman, and decided to cover some of their news on this page about a year ago. With respect to the awards issue — I believe that Rishab Jain's 'TIME Magazine's 25 Most Influential Teens' is a well-known award. I did a quick check and it seems like almost all of the people on that list meet notability criteria. Furthermore, the 'Regeneron Young Scientist Award' and 'America's Top Young Scientist' award seem quite significant (see Jack Andraka and Gitanjali Rao). As per WP:GNG there seems to be significant coverage. In the past, I have noticed some articles failing WP:GNG due to most sources being primary in nature, as well as dependent on the subject (i.e. advertising, press releases, etc.). I think the page does pass notability, however, needs significant edits to remove the promotional tone, excessive primary sources, and to be quite frank, an 'ugly' page, that does not read cohesively. I recommend ~~Draftify~~ or a significant rewrite from an experienced/the original editor.

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just taken a look at all the sources on the page, as well as some new sources online. It seems like the subject was recognized by the NIH and/or National Cancer Institute. This meets notability guidelines. Based on this additional info, I am in favor of ~~Draftify~~ and will begin a rewrite myself. If another editor wishes to draft this article, I would recommend them doing so. —CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor changed their !vote in a separate comment locate further up the page dated after this one. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CraigSut! Thank you for your thoughtful response and efforts to rewrite.

In regards to the IP, one of the edits came from an IP address in Beaverton where the individual is from. I haven't looked too deep into this. You mention that a local congresswoman mentioned this individual's work which prompted your involvement, but there's a lot here that doesn't necessarily merit the creation of a page. For Gitanjali Rao (scientist) (see Talk:Gitanjali Rao (scientist)) and Jack Andraka (less so), the awards in question are not as significant as you might think. They may be relatively significant for younger audiences, perhaps, but the recipients of the 3M Young Scientist award are students in grades 5 through 8. With no disrespect towards their work, the work done by a student at age 14 will most likely not make an impact in the field the world was done in, if at all recognized. I cannot find any mention of "PCDLS Net" in scientific journals or reviews. If we consider the 3M Young Scientist notable, every 11-14 year old who wins could have their own Wikipedia page containing their aspirations of going to some prestigious higher education institution. In regards to the TIME's list, it could be considered somewhat significant on its own, but the notability of the work that warranted the award seems rather weak.

There is also the Coca-Cola Scholars award now listed on the page, which on its own is not notable. In the selection process, much of it is done on an algorithmic basis where you must have some amount of volunteering and some academic threshold. Research Science Institute is a summer program for high school students to conduct research at MIT, this doesn't warrant a page either as countless students go through the program. Much of the research made in that program also does not leave a mark in their respective fields either. There is also a mention of a TEDxGateway event that Rishab spoke at. TEDx speakers can be anyone, so this also not convey any significance or notability.

The recognition by the National Cancer Institute is a quick spotlight mention on one of their news/press releases. This spotlight also again brings up the 3M Young Scientist award. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Qx.est (Suufi)!

Based on the page itself, the individual is from Portland — not the same as Beaverton. Nonetheless, this is not really important as I'm sure numerous individuals in the community/town could have made edits to the page, as I am. I just looked through the edits, and there have been vandalism edits from Portland IPs as well.

You point out the 3M Young Scientist Award work as not being notable, with your main argument being that: then every 11-14 year old "who wins would have their own page." I don't think this is the case. The only past winners from this program who have their page are Rishab Jain, Gitanjali Rao (scientist), and Deepika Kurup. The program has been going on for what seems like 16 years. The very fact that the others did not have pages created indicates that the award by itself is not enough for notability. As such, only the most notable alumni (like Rishab Jain, Gitanjali Rao, and Deepika Kurup) have had Wikipedia pages written about them. Gitanjali Rao (scientist) had the 3M award along with a major recognition as TIME's Kid of the Year. Deepika Kurup had the 3M award alongside being named Forbes 30 Under 30. Rishab Jain has had the 3M award along with a major recognition on the TIME Magazine list, Regeneron Young Scientist Award, featured by the National Cancer Institute, etc.

As Wikipedians, it is a little presumptuous for you to assume that the TIME list is only 'somewhat significant' and the work is not notable. After all, TIME is one of the most reputed news magazines that we could possible include as a source on Wikipedia. There are also news articles about the subject in Teen Vogue, Insider, NPR's Science Friday, The Hindu, Times of India, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and more. There are mentions in Forbes, The Times, PBS, etc. -- however, we must consider that there are actual articles solely written about the subject's work. Your other evidence behind this is that the subject is not making an impact on the field yet. By that logic, pretty much every youth inventor (Gitanjali Rao (scientist), Jack Andraka, Shree Bose, and countless others) would have to have their pages deleted? Further, Jain actually does seem to have some work in review (see [19]) which the other youth inventors do not. Jain seems to have the 3M Award, TIME Magazine Award, some reviews in Nature Scientific Data etc. etc. along with the Regeneron Young Scientist Award in the International Science and Engineering Fair, inclusion in The Times as well as Insider's lists, and further recognition. Even if we exclude all of the older TIME Magazine, Business Insider, Yahoo News, etc. mentions, the subject does still meet notability for the more recent awards. The recent Regeneron Young Scientist Award is very similar in class to the one for Jack Andraka. There is also an induction into the National Museum of Education's National Gallery for America's Young Inventors. Even by News [20] and Scholar [] there are several mentions to the subject (several within the last year).

Furthermore, it is not our ability as Wikipedians, and yourself as a student (as per talk page), to adjudicate whether or not a subject's work/accomplishments are not going to have an impact on science. Unless an editor here on Wikipedia is an established scientist/researcher in the field, and can provide critique, it does not make sense for us to argue on whether or not this subject's work is going to do anything. Instead, the only thing we can do, is look at secondary sources. Jain's work was literally featured by TIME Magazine and the National Cancer Institute. It was also recognized by the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and interviewed by Allison Rosenzweig, PhD, who writes frequently about pancreatic cancer. This is already far more coverage than is needed to establish notability. Although a less reliable source, the challenge has had their own PhD scientists review Jain's work. His other cancer work seems to have been published in Frontiers in Oncology, Nature Scientific Data, and the International Journal of Radiology. He was also invited as a course teacher, where he spoke about his 'PCDLS Net' work at the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology — one of the world's leading conferences in this area. Jain has plenty of backing on his work in the media — we can safely assume the subject achieves notability this way. Some of the above is not included in the page. As such, the page does need to be revised. However, deletion is completely unnecessary. We just need to add more sources and more information, while maintaining a non-biased tone.

The Coca-Cola Scholars and Research Science Institute are clearly listed in the personal life section of the page. I agree with you that these are not notable on their own. I am not claiming that Jain deserves notability for these awards, and you debunking notability for these does not prove anything. These awards are only mentioned in the personal life category for a reason. Many notable figures have went to the Research Science Institute, and so it makes perfect sense to include this in the personal life section as it is clearly a central experience for these scientists.

I remain with an oppose-ing viewpoint on this matter. I would like to mention that I have already spent a significant amount of time rehauling this page and would appreciate others editing it further.

I am happy to edit the page a little more to add more of these details and backing, however, it would be great if you/other editors could suggest/contribute some revisions as well :) CraigSut (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the response. A quick Google search of the keywords "Rishab Jain" and "Beaverton" yield a result showing that the individual is indeed from Beaverton, Oregon. I do recognize that there are some vandalism edits from these IPs, likely from someone who knows Jain. Some other edits by IPs from the same geographic region are done in good-faith.

The articles you mention are an example of WP:WAX. Anyone can write an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't necessarily mean the article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, Gitanjali Rao (scientist) also has the same notice this article had in regards to sources. This isn't marked on Deepika Kurup, but the Personal Life section indicates self-promotion/conflict of interest and bears the same issues as the other articles. Same goes for Jack Andraka (see Talk Page). These three articles can be proposed for deletion under the same points made under these one. These aren't very popular articles (relatively speaking) on Wikipedia, so they've been overlooked for some time. My argument is not to discredit these young inventors. They are accomplished for their age, but they are not notable enough now to have a Wikipedia page focused on their work which isn't considered significant in realm of academia.

The reason I mentioned TIME as "somewhat significant" is because the TIME article that seems to have resulted in Jain's listing refers to his 3M award, not his work. In regards to the work Jain is doing now, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Specifically, "having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." The Museum entry is an interesting one, but the induction into the museum involves submitting an application of your work and being voted on by fellow high school students. The entire museum is dedicated to young students in grades K-12.

The link of the Google search you have provided lists 10 results, 8 of which refer to his 3M award in 2018. My argument is not that his work will not make an impact on science, but that rather, as of right now, has not made an impact in the field. We cannot create articles on the future/potential notability of an individual. The featuring of Jain on National Cancer Institute also references the 2018 3M award. The backing of Jain in media primarily revolves around Jain's awards, not his work which is the issue at hand here.

Going back to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), criteria 2 mentions that

Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.

Jain is currently tagged with Category:American medical researchers and Category:Scientists from Portland, Oregon and based on the above, he does not bear academic notability either so that point cannot be made either.

I do want to thank you for your extensive work on this page. Your work is not unrecognized, and it is appreciated. However, respectfully, I would like to point out that this article has been your only source of contributions on Wikipedia, so I would understand the reluctancy of having your work deleted. Jain does have a lot of potential, but as of right now, I do not believe his accomplishments at this time warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page hence why I am still in favor of delete. If Jain does reach a level of notability in the future, this page can be reintroduced, but as of right now, I don't think what we have here is enough. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've only shown that Jain does not meet Notability for academics and completely dodge the extensive sourcing that I provided, focusing solely on the 3M Award. You're also showing initiative to delete Gitanjali Rao (scientist) who is a very notable figure. I'd like to defer to the community on this to see what people think — if these Gen Z changemakers are indeed notable. CraigSut (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gen Z subjects in question are actually quote a good argument for inclusionism. I'm keen to see how this plays out. CraigSut (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to respond to the great point you brought up about categories. Jain is definitely not notable for academics, and so feel free to remove the categories of American researcher and scientists, etc.

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people): he still meets the general Notability criteria for people, and so it's a keep for me.

-----

Context from the notability criteria:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." — hence the multiple independent sources utilized in the context.

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." CraigSut (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about that. I did not see the sourcings you provided as these were introduced via edit after I had replied. The multiple "secondary" sources you seem to describe largely consist of quotes from Jain with little to no analysis from the authors. Secondary sources should contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" as per WP:SECONDARY. The articles you have sent above seem to mostly lack the synthesis/analysis aspect needed in secondary sources. This seems to largely be the issue with the sources.

It's a bit late for me where I am right now, but here's a quick list of issues I found with having these as sources:

National Cancer Institute [1], just largely mentioning of facts, no analysis
Good News Network [2], no analysis or interpretation by the author, primarily quotes Jain and describes the award.
The Times [3], 3 sentence long reference, only 1 of which briefly mentions his work.
PhysicsWorld [4][5], podcast interview with Jain (primary) and mostly quotes from Jain
Pancreatic Cancer Action Network [6], largely quotes from Jain, no analysis
Pioneer Press [7], possibly secondary? but very little content here
TIME's Most Influential Teens List [8], not much content here other than a listing for the award and a brief discussion of Jain's work
Deccan Chronicle [9], two sentences on Jain, no analysis
USPTO [10], could possibly argue secondary, but this seems like a biography about the speaker for the event (which tends to involve input from the individual)
Indian Express [11], brief listing of Jain and his work, just lists the facts known about Jain
Business Insider [12], a short video documentary of Jain (primary)
TIME Magazine [13], mostly quotes and indirect quotes from Jain, no analysis
NPR's Science Friday [14], largely a video presentation from Jain, very little content
American Kahani [15], mentioning of facts (who Jain is and winning ISEF), no analysis/synthesis
The Oregonian [16], largely direct and indirect quotes about Jain, little to no analysis/synthesis
PBS [17], listing of Jain largely consisting of direct quotes
Pamplin Media [18], largely just mentioning facts about Jain and his work with some quotes from him and his parent

I hope this helps to explain where I am coming from. I do believe it's best for the community to decide on these articles, and I appreciate your thoughtful responses. It is true I am showing initiative to delete some other articles, but this is not because of their status as members of generation Z or their activism. There are articles on Wikipedia of generation Z activists that are perfectly fine given that they adhere to WP:GNG. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a conceptual issue here in what you believe are primary/secondary sources.

You state that PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and many more are just "mostly quotes" and thereby secondary sources yet very conveniently ignore MULTIPLE analytic/contextualizing paragraphs, i.e.:

An inherent challenge of radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer is accurately targeting the pancreas, which is often obscured by the stomach or other nearby organs, making it difficult to locate. In addition, breathing and other anatomical changes may cause the pancreas to move around in the abdominal area. As a result, radiotherapy can inadvertently target healthy tissue.
Doing so can be difficult, since the pancreas is often obscured by other organs, and since breathing and other bodily processes can cause it to move around the abdominal area. As a result, doctors sometimes need to deploy radiation treatment with an “error circle” that ensures they’ll hit the pancreas, but that may kill some healthy cells as collateral damage.

Just because an article includes quotes does not make it primary! As per WP:SECONDARY, secondary sources "...rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." I think the table on Woodbury.edu [21] does a good job of illustrating this.

"News article quoting excerpts from the interview" are considered secondary sources

This is precisely what the TIME list, etc. are doing. They rely on primary source interviews with the subject, and interpret this information in context. The main "issue" (which is not actually an issue) you have with most of these sources is that they include quotes from the subject. That doesn't disqualify them from being a secondary source... primary sources will typically be the interviews themselves. Secondary sources may include some quotes, which is what many of the sources you cite above do.

The U.S. has some of the highest prescription drug prices in the world, which can push patients into bankruptcy over medications they cannot afford. More than three in four American adults think the prices of prescription drugs are unaffordable, prompting the Senate to recently pass a bill intended to help lower prescription drug costs for seniors. One young innovator set out to find his own solution. 17 year-old Rishab Jain developed ICOR, a tool to improve the rapid production of drugs like COVID-19 vaccines.

Another excerpt from a source:

What makes Rishab’s algorithm so important is that pancreas are difficult to spot as they move around. Currently doctors target radiation in the area they believe pancreas are, in the process also killing other healthy cells. Pancreatic cancer is the 13th most common cancer worldwide, according to a Lancet study from October 2015. With an unusually high mortality rate, it is the eight most common cause of death from cancer. Over a quarter million people worldwide have lost their lives to it. What makes pancreatic cancer so deadly is the lack of symptoms during early stages when it is most treatable, reports CNN. Experts say, there are no screening tools specific to this kind of cancer. As a result, in many cases, the discovery of the disease gets delayed. The detection is often confined to distinct symptoms like abdominal pain and jaundice. Dr Shubham Pant, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at Houston, Texas, explains the disease in the video below.

Take for instance, this source about Jain (RadiologyToday Magazine). This source is by Pamela Q. Fernandes, MD, is a doctor, author, and medical writer who specializes in new breakthroughs in medicine.

Machine Learning: Fresh Perspective \ By Pamela Q. Fernandes, MD \ Radiology Today \ Vol. 20 No. 7 P. 8
A major concern when it comes to AI in the medical field is replicability. Jain believes the best way to address that concern is to share the research.
Although AI does show much promise, there are challenges in creating a tool like his.

Are these not contextualizing statements? Do these not provide some level of analysis? This is clearly not a primary source. These secondary sources should be added to the article, which I can do, but the issue about notability is clear — there are secondary sources that exist about Jain. Your interpretation of what a secondary source is muddled. If each source is doing 'a little analysis' that adds up to quite a bit of analysis about Jain.

There are quite frankly so many secondary sources, that I am finding it a bit unbelievable that you are trying to pin it on this point. Let's keep in mind that Jain also qualifies for notability through the honor criteria on WP:GNG for people. CraigSut (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is a conceptual issue of what I believe to be primary/secondary sources. I am following the guidelines listed on Wikipedia and precedence you can find it other articles flagged for deletion.

In much of these cases, these are entirely interviews, not excerpts of the interview interwoven with the author's thoughts. From Wikipedia:Interviews, "[t]he general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material." You argue that secondary sources may include some quotes, and that is true. But the keyword is some, and these sources are largely indirect and direct quotes of Jain.

In many of these articles, that is the case. I did not say the articles are primary simply because they quote Jain, but because they do not offer enough analysis by the author to be considered secondary. For example, the journal article by Dr. Pamela Fernandes is pretty much an interview with Jain. Every paragraph starts with some sentence or question that segues into Jain's own words. There is no synthesis here. The quote that you provided contextualized looks like this:

A major concern when it comes to AI in the medical field is replicability. Jain believes the best way to address that concern is to share the research. “I can write a research paper, display how the architecture works—how it takes an input and the various layers I used in between—and how I fine-tuned it,” he says. “AI is having a huge boom in medicine, but there’s not a lot of documentation and research right now. More research papers would be helpful for those replicating and improving the results.” [...] Although AI does show much promise, there are challenges in creating a tool like his. “It does take a lot of time, resources, and effort,” Jain says. “After three years of research, I’ve come this far. I’ve created a five-year plan to continue working on the clinical technology and bring it to application in a clinical study but, in the end, it will take a decade to perfect it and bring this technology to the market. A lot of these problems require research, and that takes a lot of time and resources. It’s frightening for those who want to conduct new research. Everything comes with such a cost and possible implications.”

The synthesis is not done by the author, it is done by Jain. These sources are not intellectually independent of the source.

That one sentence at the start could be considered secondary, yes, but in the context of the entire piece, the source is not a secondary article and the line likely isn't either. Some possible questions Fernandes could've asked during this interview are "what do you think the biggest concern is to AI in the medical field?" or "what are challenges in making a tool like this?" After all, this is an interview and these are very typical questions. If Fernandes did contextualize what the issues to AI in medicine were in her own words and thoughts, that would be secondary. I unfortunately do not see any interpretation done here. In regards to your other quotes, they could be said to be secondary, but to a large extent, these sources lack Wikipedia:Notability (events). If anything, these are descriptions of facts about pancreatic cancer, not the role Jain's work plays in combatting pancreatic cancer. Again, that explanation comes from Jain in following paragraphs.

These articles mostly coincide with the occurrence of the event where Jain won the award, they are too close to the individual and the award so their independence on the matter is questionable. As per Wikipedia:Primary sources, "[p]rimary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Furthemore, "The TIME magazine article is one of the articles that occur right after Jain won the award. From what I have seen, there is little to no depth in the reporting of how Jain's work affects the field by any of the authors I have seen.

The ICOR excerpt comes from an interview with Jain and does not describe Jain's connection to the work, just simply that he has developed a tool to combat skyrocketing prices. The only possible secondary source I see is fourth quote you have provided which comes from [22]. However, at the very bottom of this article, it says that the "[t]his story was auto-published from a syndicated feed. No part of the story has been edited by The Quint." This falls under non-independent sources in Wikipedia:SYNDICATED.

I have refreshed the page as I wrote this and I will now address your second comment. It is unfair to compare this article to that of athletes. We cannot compare apples to oranges. Athletes tend to follow Wikipedia:NSPORTS, and Jain is not an athlete. Jain is very accomplished young man, but Jain's status a "young scientist" is not enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia article as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Additionally, please take another look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Having an honor alone does confer notablility and not having one doesn't make you not notable. Additionally, the academic awards (3M and ISEF, in particular) won by Jain aren't considered notable or significant as per my previous statement.

I again do believe this is best left for other Wikipedians to decide. I believe I have made my point extensively here, and my goal is not to persuade you. You do have a vested interest in keeping the article you have worked extensively on, and that is perfectly understand. I am looking to solely state the facts as to why I do not believe Jain's article meets Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). This AfD article has gotten very long and major apologies to anyone who stumbles here. If you would like to continue this debate, the Talk Page might be the best place. Thank you. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position and the arguments you have made, however, my position is still a keep — I think this article should not be deleted.

In my view, a lot of the sources are indeed synthesizing and analyzing. Comparisons to existing research and other figures are essentially synthesis and analysis. Your definition of a secondary source is clearly different than what most people view it as.

You continue to intentionally make hasty generalizations so I don't see any point in continuing to argue here. After this comment, I will not engage on this page anymore unless other Wikipedians contribute. You intentionally ignore the TIME 25 Most Influential list, National Cancer Institute feature, being added to the National Museum of Education's gallery, Insider List, Giuseppe Sciacca International Award, and much much more, and instead default to the (3m) "America's Top Young Scientist" and (ISEF) "Regeneron Young Scientist" awards, since you can attack those easily as being simple academic awards. Just because two awards Jain has received do not give notability by themselves, it does not automatically disprove the others???

The continued, intentional generalizations you make on this page (and at Avi Schiffmann makes me think that you have some external motive/bias here. It is interesting that your deletion flag also was created DURING the timeframe of extensive vandalism attacks on the article. I see that this is the same date that Jain posted a YouTube video about Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (Redacted). It is interesting that you also then proposed/encouraged deletion for Gitanjali Rao, another Gen Z activist who is a researcher at MIT. Since Rao and Jain will be students at MIT, I see a clear COI here.

I agree that The Quint article is syndicated, however, I am unable to find the original source of the article. It is possible that The Quint accidentally labeled its article as auto-syndicated, as:

Dr Shubham Pant, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at Houston, Texas, explains the disease in the video below.

This type of external analysis/context that The Quint provides is not seen elsewhere online (at least indexed by Google) which leads me to think that the article was labeled as syndicated, when it may not have actually been.

You also go in-depth to label Fernandes as a primary source. Even if it is, there are still PLENTY of secondary sources. See what I wrote in my previous response:

"You state that PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and many more are just "mostly quotes" and thereby secondary sources yet very conveniently ignore MULTIPLE analytic/contextualizing paragraphs"

You are doing this once again. I don't see any point of debating with someone who clearly wishes to strawman this argument to discredit others' positions. Instead of going extensively to disprove this article, we could have instead improved the article & added more secondary sources.

Even for sports/athletes, you still need secondary sources. Yes, there are different notability criteria, but my point about secondary sourcing still stands. The majority of the articles we see do not have any secondary sources by your logic, and therefore none should exist on Wikipedia. This would result in a huge number of articles being deleted.

In my eyes, this is a clear meta issue of inclusion.

My extensive defense of this page should warrant at least a community discussion as I believe this (and Gitanjali Rao & Avi Schiffmann, two others that you wish to have deleted) are important articles for Gen Z activism. Even on Avi Schiffmann's page, you completely ignore the sources that have pages and pages of independent analysis and synthesis, so it's clear you are intent on deletion even after additional evidence has been brought up. For example, you labelled these multiple CNN articles not conveying notability as well??? [23] [24]

If NONE of these articles for Schiffmann, and now Jain, convey notability in your eyes, I am at a loss of words for what does? If these articles are primary sources then every article that is not a critique or review of a person will be primary, in your eyes. It is a definition debate here: what is primary and what is secondary? As per the Woodbury.edu page I gave above, along with Wikipedia's own tables, many of Jain's sources do indeed qualify as secondary sources.

keep. I'll keep any future discussions on this article's talk page, or the main article's talk page. If any other Wikipedians want to weigh in, it would be much appreciated as well. CraigSut (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at any article, i.e. Orlando Brown Jr., you will see that nearly all of the 'secondary sources' utilized are majority quotes: [25]. By your logic, nearly every source on nearly NFL player's Wikipedia page is not a secondary source, because it is quotes?

I find it interesting that we are debating on the notability of someone who has been interviewed and written about extensively and is far more notable than hundreds of current and historical NFL players. Wikipedia already lacks pages about scientists, especially those of color and in minority groups (which youth/young scientists are a part of!)

This page is also a matter of meta:Inclusionism. The article is factual and retains merit and usefulness. With my recent improvements, I think it deserves a keep.

Furthermore, the iterative nature of Wikipedia will help us add more secondary sources, solving your concerns. I will take a look at this once more tomorrow, and add additional secondary sources that contain significant analysis and synthesis. CraigSut (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have pretty much finished rehauling this page -- no longer in favor of Draftify. I have removed all primary sources from the page, including references to the subject's LinkedIn and Twitter. This page seems to receive occasional low-quality edits, in which such primary sources keep getting added. I first removed any of these primary sources, then attempted to find additional sourcing for the information. If no sources were available, the edits were removed. With the subject's more recent recognition, such as the international awards and feature by the National Cancer Institute, I think it is clear that they meet notability guidelines. The page also previously had issues with promotional content, and biased points of views. I have attempted to bring in neutral language and an encyclopedic tone. I now OPPOSE the deletion as the page and subject meet WP:GNG guidelines. —CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the deletion, please keep. 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON as he does not yet pass WP:NPROF. He has an impressive GS citation profile for his age, but not something that is currently sufficient to pass NPROF. --hroest 17:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Kindly retain this page as it contains erroneous allegations about a deserving researcher. I reside in Portland where the Rishab is well known researcher in the community, and it wouldn't be astonishing if the town's residents contribute to his cause. Rishab's achievements have been corroborated by independent third parties, while on the other hand, there have been several instances in the past where jealous parents and negative elements in society have questioned his integrity. Nevertheless, every time, his accomplishments have been verified by independent third parties. Rishab has inspired so many kids younger and older to get excited about science and research. 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inquire about the individuals who are requesting deletion. Are they from Portland or are they possibly relatives of students who may be envious of Rishab's success and are now attempting to undermine it?

Every year Rishab is delivering new research results to the world. Let us support this deserving researcher to continue on his mission! 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure of what errgenous allegations are being made here. In your argument, you are suggesting we retain this page about a "deserving researcher", but the matter of fact is that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as mentioned by hroest. This point is also supported by CraigSut who has contributed heavily to this article. Being a well-known research within a community isn't enough to meet the guidelines listed there, and the achievements you're mentioning are explicitly said to not count towards meeting those guidelines. While it is unfortunate that his accomplishments and integrity have been questioned by jealous parents and negative elements in society, it doesn't change the issue at hand here. In regards to your inquiry, I am neither from Portland nor related to Rishab Jain in any way. I am not a relative of any student who knows Rishab as far as I know. But, I do need to point out that Wikipedia article are not meant to "support" researchers on their mission. You seem to be hinting towards what may be a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that in my discussion with Qx.est, we agree that the subject should not be classified as an academic. His notability should be weighed under general Notability guidelines. CraigSut (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rishab Jain, a proven child prodigy researcher, visited Dublin a few years ago. I attended his lecture, and since then, I occasionally track his and other researcher pages, particularly after the passing of my family member with pancreatic cancer. Jain's sources are credible, and he has been working in research for 5 years, receiving recognition every year. He generates over 15K-20K hits on search engines, and his latest paper publications on Sarcopenia and Recombinant vaccination are published in academic journals. His Time magazine, Planet named after him, attests to his recognition. Unfortunately, our media doesn't cover scientists with same vigor as other disciplines like sports or music or politics. But Jain got fame as researcher and deserves to keep it! We should encourage researchers to focus on research instead of getting famous in media. His page inspires so many youngsters.
Jain deserves to be tracked on Wikipedia for his research, Discord work, and Youtube work. His biography seems to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Comments above about a request for deletion due to a Gen Z/ Qx.est show Conflict of interest for request to delete other student pages. I looked through their work and this seems to be the first page requested by them like this. Two years ago, Jain's page was vandalized with inappropriate comments from other students, which were stopped. Jains wikipage has been up for at least 4-5 years now. I disagree with the requestor's arguments and support keeping the page. Oliver1981161 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) — Oliver1981161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi Oliver! I'm sorry to hear about your family member's passing. This was mentioned earlier, but Rishab's work does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines. I cannot find evidence of the 15-20K search engine hits, and the recent publication you are mentioning does not have a significant enough citation rate as mentioned by criteria 1. The recognitions you are also mentioning have mostly, if not all, been "victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements" which also do not count towards criteria 2. These are the only two criteria which might be relevant for Jain's status as a researcher. Jain's Discord work and YouTube work do not appear to be substantial enough to have a page created as a Wikipedia:CREATIVE which deviates far from the sources about Rishab and his work. On a semantic note, I would like to point out is that an asteroid (considered a minor planet) was named after Rishab, not a major planet, because he was "a finalist in the 2019 Broadcom MASTERS, a math and science competition for middle-school students, for his medicine and health sciences project."[26] The WGSBN consistently names asteroids after finalists in Broadcom MASTERS and Regeneron Science Talent in nearly every bulletin, so I do not think this conveys notability on its own.

Given the millions of pages on Wikipedia, the amount of time a page has been up does not indicate if it does or does not meet notability. It's very easy for anyone to create a Wikipedia article about anything. Additionally, my affiliation or not affiliation with generation Z does not present a conflict of interest with this article. That's not what Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CraigSut, do you realize you have !voted multiple times? You are only permitted one !vote, yet you continue to add the word K**p in bold. Also see WP:BLUDGEON. Allow the discussion to unfold naturally and please stop with the huge walls of text. Closing administrator please take notice. Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is, frankly, a mess of multiple !votes and SPAs. —C.Fred (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrator, please take notice. The user ImperialMajority has been blocked as a sock puppet. Their !vote should probably be disregarded. There are multiple !voters, SPAs and sockpuppets involved in this AfD. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 134.134.139.78, you have !voted twice. Closing admin, please take notice. Netherzone (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT due to sock puppetry, SPAs and other shenanigans; and also per WP:TOOSOON; failure of WP:NPROF and possible COI/UPE. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. CajunDiscordian (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom's rationale. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duffie Stone

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

Soilicitors are equivalent of locally elected district attorney. Per WP:POLITICIAN, locally elected officials are not inherently notable. Searching for this person and excluding the Murdaugh name, which this person is attached to, returns no significant coverage. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Run-of-the-mill public official. BD2412 T 00:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. DrowssapSMM (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Turner

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed candidate, only RS relate to campaign and do not provide sigcov. No sources in article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much reference to support the articcle . nothing showing up in google search too Christopheronthemove (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo and unsourced. Nothing found for this businessman and not meeting POL or even GNG. Is likely OR as you can't possibly get this much info from one source, unless it's a copyvio. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a native New Mexican who has worked at the highest levels of state government, U.S. military, business and higher education. I am aware of Mr. Turner’s prolific work in politics, policy, public affairs, communications, and national security. He is an entrepreneur, strategist, and high-level thinker who has advised at the highest levels of state government, national and international politics, and international and national security for entities such as NATO. His page doesn’t scratch the surface of his work and engagement. I suggest that his page needs serious updating with links to articles, commentary, and public recognition rather than be deleted. 2601:8C0:D01:3AC0:FCD1:E8D8:FC98:6DD2 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New here, and full transparency as my current job is as this mans executive assistant. Forgive me if there are parts of this process I don't understand fully.

I have found plenty of articles on Doug relating to his republican campaign, but more so to Agenda. I think the article needs editing, seems the tags , and

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

would be appropriate to work on. There are good edits to be made to make the article less a promotion and more informational. How long does the deletion process take if I take steps to make edits? NoSirNoceur (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process for info about timelines, however you did just admit you have a huge COI in writing this article. Do you have sources that meet WP:GNG? Please share if you do. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to keep everything above board, as I do not want my COI to, well, conflict. Here are articles I found on Doug Turner, though I am having trouble understanding which of these would be primary or secondary sources.

https://www.bizjournals.com/profile/company/org_ch_6cbb147c80de37e100354ab4c170d316

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/fashion/weddings/mala-htun-and-douglas-turner.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/26254/one-on-one-with-doug-turner.html

https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/14410-beep-beep-strategic-communications-firm-dw-turner-thwarts-hunger-in-partnership-with-roadrunner-food-bank

https://www.krqe.com/news/business/city-projects-aim-to-fix-up-historic-neighborhood/

https://intpolicydigest.org/author/doug-turner/

https://www.pr.com/press-release/841504 NoSirNoceur (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet inclusion criteria as a businessman. As politician, he did not make it past the primary so far from elected to office. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Doyle

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

United States magistrate judges are hired functionaries, and are not inherently notable. In this case, the article appears to be a run-of-the-mill resume for a person in such a position, with no independent sources. BD2412 T 12:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 12:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Wikipedia:GNG as having no independent sources Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 13:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Vermont. Skynxnex (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 15:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Wikipedia:BIO. Only biographical sources approaching independence I see are the brief bios from Bloomberg and ALI (probably not an RS), neither of which is in-depth in any meaning of the phrase. Most news coverage is of a different individual in the midwestern US with the same name who went missing and died after falling through ice with his two dogs, another individual with the same name who was wanted for a crime, or entirely routine coverage of cases where the was the magistrate a person in the news was scheduled to appear before. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An ophaned CV-style article with LinkedIn page as one of the sources. Also, created by an SPA with self-moving from the draft. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin

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

Non-notable religious figure. Entire article is based on a single source, and a search finds nothing more. (Would have draftified this, but that has been done before already.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Indonesia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, single source (which appears to consist in the main of lists of charismatic preachers), nothing else out there: 5 search results. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is substantial coverage in the main source used, and evidence of other mentions on google books, including in reference to his playing of the gambus (a musical instrument). Much of the material on the page is poorly unsubstantiated and undue (the family stuff in particular), but I think there is enough to maintain a stub. It would be worthwhile to see what someone Indonesian might be able to find in historical sources dating to the Dutch period in some of the various scripts that could well be relevant here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: the 'main source used' is still just a single source, and as such not enough to establish notability. Likewise 'other mentions', unless they measure up to sigcov. And notability, which is what's on trial here, is required of stubs just as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: I can't !v Keep because it only has one source. I can't !v Delete because I think there is probably IS RS out there. I this is a good case for Draft; if its not improved with additional sources, it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 11:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like a lot of work has been done on this since the 14 March, when it was initially nominated, and it now has a second published book source. And we now have a newspaper death certificate, which is a source of sorts. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google books shows other sources talking about him, his music, his son. The second one I added speaks about an Indonesian book profiles him. He seems clearly notable, and I am certain that only translation issues prevent that from being clear to us. WP:NEXIST CT55555(talk) 16:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than taking a hajj, I don't see what he did that was unusual for his day. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Choose Love (organisation). Article history remains if anyone wants to selectively merge any well-sourced content. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lliana Bird

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

This article is about Noel Fielding's partner. She has presented a few radio shows, and appeared in a few plays, and been a guest on a few TV newscasts, and writes for a blog or two, but there's nothing in this article or its references to suggest that she has any particular notability. Suggest a merge to Choose Love, the charity founded by the subject. Flip Format (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Radio, Television, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the charity seems like a fine option, otherwise coverage is celebrity fluff articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, this is Lliana...s i prepare for the publication of my second book and have been asked by various publications interviewing me to share my wikipedia page and i was a little saddened to see that my page had been deleted, and that all i had worked so hard for had been seemingly erased and reduced to "celebrity fluff". I have to defend this, but what was discussed felt reductive of my achievements and life's work...

I hold the honour of being the longest standing female DJ on Xfm/ Radio X (one of the most known/loved stations in the UK). I was on air on this station every week, twice weekly, nationally for over 16 years. I was the first female DJ to hold the post for longer than a decade. I was the last ever DJ to close the much beloved Xfm, as it ended before its relaunch as Radio X.

I have published a science book (under Little Brown/ Hatchet) and am now preparing my second book to be published under Rocket Bird (part of Harper Collins) this Autumn.

I co-founded Choose Love, which is today the largest grassroots charity working with refugees. Through this work i have been the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including Liberty's Jo Cox Award.

I was named as Foreign Policy's top 100 thinkers. I was named as one of NESTA's New Radicals.

I was invited to host the London Peace talks as a result of my work, and have toured the country speaking out about my work, both in activism and in film.

I have written and directed my own short films, including 'Snapshots' which one 6 awards at film festivals.

I created and hosted two podcasts, one of which won several awards.

I have been interviewed across the press about my work, and appeared on the front cover of The Observer magazine (The New Review).

It is fine if you think this work does not make me notable enough for a wikipedia page, however i find the insinuation that my life's work is "celebrity fluff" hard to accept. 82.3.12.222 (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Choose Love. The merge could be a problem because of the lack of IS RS in this article. If any new content can be properly sourced, no objection to merging that, but improperly sourced BLP content should not be merged. // Timothy :: talk 03:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flip Format, as i prepare for the publication of my second book and have been asked by various publications interviewing me to share my wikipedia page i was a little saddened to see that you had requested my page be deleted. More so that the reason you suggest is that i as just the partner of someone famous, and have not done much myself. I did not set up my wikipedia page, and so feel sad i have to defend this, but what you have stated feels somewhat reductive of my achievements...

I was the longest standing female DJ on Xfm/ Radio X (one of the most known/loved stations in the UK). I was on air on this station every week, twice weekly, nationally for over 16 years. I was the first female DJ to hold the post for over a decade. I was the last ever DJ to close the much beloved Xfm, as it ended before its relaunch as Radio X.

I have published a science book (under Little Brown/ Hatchet) and am now preparing my second book to be published under Rocket Bird (part of Harper Collins) this Autumn.

I co-founded Choose Love, which is today the largest grassroots charity working with refugees. Through this work i have been the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including Liberty's Jo Cox Award.

I was named as Foreign Policy's top 100 thinkers. I was named as one of NESTA's New Radicals.

I was invited to host the London Peace talks as a result of my work, and have toured the country speaking out about my work, both in activism and in film.

I have written and directed my own short films, including 'Snapshots' which one 6 awards at film festivals.

I created and hosted two podcasts, one of which won several awards.

I have been interviewed across the press about my work, and appeared on the front cover of The Observer magazine (The New Review).

It is fine if you think this work does not make me notable enough for a wikipedia page, however i find the implication that i am just someone's partner, and that i have done "a few radio shows" quite insulting, and even a little misogynistic.

I would ask that perhaps you reconsider. Llianabird (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]