Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Kundan

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

Fails WP:NPOL where the article itself claims the subject person as a politician. WP:GNG can't surpass WP:NPOL criteria. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiel Meijering

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

Zero sources and nothing in a Before. Maybe notable for 117 bassoon concertos though. (Was BLPPRODed but removed because there were apparently sources though actually there was nothing but the composer's own sites and those not used as sources.) — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass of WP:CREATIVE #4c. Five critical reviews, much more than needed for CREATIVE #4c, are in the article. There is no shortage of many more. Should NEVER have been prodded per WP:PROD: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. Which part of "must" is unclear? gidonb (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was wrong to PROD — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources can be found by searching on the alternate spelling "Chiel Meyering." However, I am not finding WP:SIGCOV in the sources, just many WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Per gidonb, I am not sure he would pass WP:CREATIVE since the critical reviews available appear not be be of his compositions per se, but of performances of his music; is that sufficient? Moreover, as a composer he should be evaluated under WP:NMUSIC; composer is not a category available for CREATIVE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE is very clear: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Composers are other creative professionals. There's no exclusion for good reasons. Furthermore, this argument is also a non-argument in the sense that Meijering passes WP:NMUSIC just as well. This not a this or that but rather it is a this and that situation. There's an any easy pass of NMUSIC just as well. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew about that alternative spelling. The reviews under that spelling all seem to be about recordings rather than him or his music but that may not matter. If no one objects (I'll withdraw and see if the article can be expanded and better sourced. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. The article is already expanded and better sourced. Ernst Vermeulen is one of the Dutch prime contemporary classical music critics of all times. Nlwiki carries his entry. Please become a bit selective with nominations in the future. Especially with prods. AfD should not be used as a method to force others to reference articles. You can reference these just as well. All Wikipedians should be equal. gidonb (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971@Wcquidditch Do you object to my withdrawing? The article has been expanded and sourced and looks to be set for further work. — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator — Iadmc ♫^talk 01:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairoz Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

I wonder how it passes WP:NPOL to exist here and that a WP:AUTOBIO by user @Fairoz22khan. If this to be here then why we are declining Draft:Varun Choudhary. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Being accused of sexual crimes doesn't add to notability. I don't see the notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: more bugs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Kundan and similar. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: There is some coverage in WP:RS but it is not WP:SUSTAINED and no SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Nanda

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources available in the article only appear as simple mentions, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. And the history of contributions to the article assumes a WP:COI. Ciudatul (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Ciudatul (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi Morreale

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

Non-notable and poorly sourced BLP. The present sources barely mention him or are gossip about his wedding. Ditto any search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:GOSSIP, and WP:V. — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Popular culture, and American football. — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this man played minor-league American football for a few years and appeared on a bunch of TV shows of very little interest. White 720 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@White 720 Interesting change of heart by the creator — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. But only rarely so maybe don't rub it in. I thank White 720 for not using this forum to waste anyone's time where most others would. It's a kind gesture. So thanks White 720. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article 17 years ago after being curious about the subject's then-current project. I don't have any real attachment to the article subject, and while I can't resist a chance to save an article with last-ditch citation adding (I've succeeded before) there's no point in preserving an article for a person whose entertainment career never really took off. White 720 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I didn't mean any malice — Iadmc ♫^talk 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following this referral from WP:BLPN. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The sole extrinsic claim to N is WP:NACTOR. However, (the paucity of) BLP-worthy reliable sources underlying the claims to NACTOR makes it hard to support any particular prose or derivative filmography section. If we remove what is unreffed or supported only by the subject or allmusic, there is no encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found [[1]], but I was surprised of the lack of WP:SIGCOV considering this subject played at the highest level of college football. Let'srun (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An enormous number of people play division 1 college football — there are 134 teams, which have like 80 players each, and no one plays more than 4 years. So there are probably 3000 new players each year. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilco (musician)

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

An article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. I sat down for a while trying to find good sources for the individual but to no avail. There is also a close paraphrasing of copied content from a blog here. To crown it all, the article is a run-of-mill. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Africa. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes GNG. In 2019 here or here subject was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in the UMP Awards. In 2017 here again, subject was nominated in " Best Afro Pop Category of the Year" in the Nyasa Music Awards. Again, in 2018 here she was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in Nyasa Awards. I also found this published in 2018, in Nyasa Times, here too, and more here, here, here, another here, by Nthanda Times, again here by The Nation, which can be used to sustain an article (WP:NEXIST)-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may bear or consider the awards though they seem not to be a major musical award. The sources you cited doesn't meet WP:SIRS; they appear to be quotations of the singer or about a releasee of song, which normally gets handled by a PR. I will wait for more participation though. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe I don't think you really did a Google search properly because you said subject has no GNG. Now you say the awards mentioned are not the major awards, can you mention any of major award found in this country? Because those are the only major awards, among others. Again, you might wanna consider checking this for sources about the country. If you find sources that are not reliable there, please post them here for the community's input. Claiming that the awards (or something) is not major without researching is a big turn off as a new page reviewer. Again, some sources provided above such as The Nation here are considered reliable as the source (site) is one of the physical newspapers that started in early 1990s, and this is its online version. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Commenting on what's already out there, I don't see any awards listed in the article whatsoever. The use of tone, formatting, MOS, and writing is very poor and kind of promotional, meaning the article does not state how and why the subject is notable. "She was born on 14 February 1995 in a family of six children in Blantyre." that is really not necessary and the statement is cited to a non-reliable source. "Hilco has been featured by different artists in the country such as Saint on a track "wanga (mine)" and "Usanapite (Don't go) that features the voice of Dan Lufani." She may be featured by Jesus but still not be notable as notability is not inherent. The "See also" section is also unnecessary.
Now looking at the notability of the subject, I don't see anything claiming that she meets any of the criteria listed at WP:NSINGER and for what it's worth, the article is not convincing that they meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And looking at WP:WikiProject Malawi/Malawian sources, there is no claim that the listed sources are reliable as there is a goal to review the sources. The website may be notable but not its content, for example Sportskeeda, Sputnik and so on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Frankly, I do not blame the reviewer for seeking consensus here as there's not much in this article. dxneo (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, Tumbuka Arch, you are that guy I pleaded with to make sure their articles are cited to reliable sources before moving them to mainspace on this AfD. We can't keep discussing the same problem over and over and then you later decide to improve the article when it's on AfD. Please refrain from doing this and if there are more of your articles like this one and the aforementioned, please work on them before they get here too. dxneo (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent improvements. dxneo (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo, what improvement? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, the article was not like that when I first saw it. Honestly, it was a mess, but it is well formatted now. And the subject pass WP:MUSICBIO. Doesn't she? dxneo (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. withdrawn as keep per WP:HEY. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogo Blay

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

An article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. The reality show he won wasn't notable as it would have been redirected there. After accessing the sources, I can say this article's context, and sourcing is not enough for our general notability guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails MUSICIAN and GNG. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator, as the musician is only visible in his own social media and self-uploading sites, and the reality show victory is insignificant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrio Cortes

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

Does not have references even though it is a biography, the only thing I could find were news outlets talking about his son, Demetrio Cortes Jr. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found a couple passing mentions in books, but nothing to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olfat Berro

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

Non-notable business executive Runmastery (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Bibliographies. Runmastery (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items about this person's appointment to various positions. Not meeting notability and lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Created by now-blocked User:Content.Media2023 (Spams / advertising-only account). The only other article this user created is declined Draft:Hassan Ezzeldine, which also needs to be deleted. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Censorship in Turkey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Tema

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

Non-notable YouTuber Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bibliographies, and Webcomics. Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Tema is a well-known YouTuber and writer in Turkey. She has been featured on all major news channels and websites such as TRT. See the references in the article. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per the other commenters, like Kerim Demirkaynak, I'd vote weak keep in this discussion and hope that the sourcing is improved. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)~~ Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Censorship in Turkey: This article was created after a recent controversy. I can't find much coverage of him in the news prior to that. There isn't anything that contributes to his wikinotability on Google Books as far as I can see. Current coverage appears to be largely of the arrest warrant, so if there should be a standalone article, it should be of the event rather than his biography, but I'm not sure about that as well. Unless an editor demonstrates its notability through WP:NEVENT, it may be considered routine news coverage. By the way, self-published and primary sources such as Twitter, Youtube, his books do not determine his notability and should probably be left out when merging. Aintabli (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge: Coverage is significant but there is not that much of it. Seems likely there will not be much lasting coverage, and the event would probably benefit from context. The Censorship in Turkey article is very long already but if it has to be split it can be (and hopefully will be). Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a rough consensus here to Keep this article. The deletion rationale doesn't mention any factors that can't be improved through careful editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten

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

WP:BLP issues - there are too many dubious and poorly-sourced claims in this article for an article about a living person. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, China, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tracked down a number of claims - service in Chinese parliament, involvement in Iran talks, chairing the East-West strategic studies institute, which are sourced and seem to raise at least a colorable claim of notability. The claim to serve in parliament is supported by The Diplomat article, but is probably misstated as it seems he took part in a Jilin Municipal level CPPCC meeting[2])] as opposed to service at the national level. Other claims like buying the palace, and testimony before parliament, are not very notable but are verifiable. And some other facts, like his history as a diplomat, are not well sourced although I haven't done searches to see if they are hoaxes. Why is this not a situation where the article can be edited rather than deleted? Oblivy (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of issues with this article that have concerned me for some time. They are most obvious when you consider it in conjunction with a group of related articles: Institute for East West Strategic Studies, Pfetten's foundation; Apethorpe Palace, his home and the foundation's office; Owen Matthews, the foundation's vice-chair; and the International Foxhound Association - currently also up for deletion - which Pfetten chairs.

Promotional content - the content these editors add tends to be highly promotional. Counter wise, repeated efforts are made to remove anything they consider "negative";

Authorship and COI - User talk:Prinkipo71 is the major contributor to this article, and its originator. They are also the major contributor to, and originator of, the Matthews article. User talk:Baronpfetten has also edited this. Prinkipo71 is also the second major contributor to the Apethorpe Palace article. They have described themselves as "Apethope's archivist and historian",[3]. The first contributor to the Institute article is an IP, the second, and its originator, is User talk:Baronpfetten, a user name which suggests an obvious COI. Baronpfetten is also the major contributor to, and the originator of, the International Foxhound Association article. Both Prinkipo71 and Baronpfetten are broadly single-purpose accounts, in that they only edit this group of articles. I think it highly likely there is a bunch of undeclared COI. It is also worth noting the contributions of User talk:StevenGui/User talk:GeorgeThuiller, to these articles and to that on Tactical nuclear weapon, [4]. After an initial denial Gui acknowledged they were employed by the Chinese government, to which Pfetten has close links. Oddly, Thuiller - an editor with 11 edits - took it upon themselves to edit a comment made by Gui, on Gui's own Talkpage, to amend Gui's acknowledgement that they work "for" the Chinese Government, to suggest that they work "with" it, [5]. Apart from Gui, none of the other editors has made any Conflict of Interest declarations regarding these articles.

SPA/IP editing - this is very common to all of the above, and I strongly suspect Checkuser would find connections. See, as one example, these edits, [6] to the IFA deletion discussion by User:Tintin2004123 who joined two days ago, specifically to try to stop the deletion, the only edits they have ever made.

In short, I think these articles are a mess of promotional editing from editors/IPs, all certainly connected and all with undeclared COIs. I have previously flagged it with ARBs, but it has not been taken forward, as far as I am aware. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my questions. I'm not sure this is something that falls within a deletion category, other than the catch-all not suitable tag (which is pretty weak sauce IMHO). OK, it's a coatrack, and it has assertions that are questionably supported by citations, and the language is promotional (although many biographies paint a positive picture of a person, particularly if they are not notorious for some bad thing). In my opinion, these content issues need to be worked out on article pages and talk pages, and not at AfD.

I'm also troubled that much of what you describe is based on suspicions of the editors, their conduct and their motives, rather than identifying notability issues with the article. AfD is not for conduct issues either. Surely if someone is being disruptive or displaying ownership behavior, there's a conduct guideline that can be invoked at ANI. Also, no policy says someone can't be an SPA, and AFAIK there's no policy saying you can't edit while under a COI (policy says "discouraged" and "should" regarding COI, disclosure is "must" for paid editing). Oblivy (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that you are procedurally right, and that AfD isn’t the best venue to address a lot of this. I would say that I have tried both the Talkpage discussion route, getting mostly silence or obfuscation; and the conduct reporting route, again getting silence. My concern is that what I am quite certain we have in these articles are editors writing about themselves/their interests, without being at all transparent as to their connections to the article subjects. For me, that fundamentally conflicts with our aim of being a reliable encyclopaedia, and does a grave disservice to our readers. KJP1 (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the article has a section for Academic career, the subject seems to have published very few articles or books. I see little to no sign of WP:NPROF notability. I am skeptical of GNG. His house does appear to possibly be notable, and I suppose that redirection to a stub about the house would be an option. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be a way forward. I am very confident that Apethorpe Palace is notable, per Wikipedia:NBUILDING. It's a Grade I listed building, has a long and illustrious history, with notable owners/visitors, and it has been very extensively covered, in architectural publications, in historical journals and in the media. I'd certainly support a re-direct, which could also cover the Institute. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Leclair De Marco, Stéphanie (2007-10-01). "Jean-Christophe Iseux : Le mandarin de la Loire" [Jean-Christophe Iseux: The mandarin of the Loire]. Les Echos (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "A tout juste 40 ans, après une décennie passée en Chine, Jean-Christophe Iseux a décidé de revenir en France. Avec un projet en tête : faire de son château de la Loire un lieu de rencontre « personnel, élitiste et confidentiel, avec pas plus de 200 personnes ! » Sa cible ? Des leaders occidentaux et leurs homologues chinois et asiatiques. Ambitieux. Mais son excellente connaissance de la Chine et de ses gouvernants devrait lui permettre de réussir son projet. Son histoire d'amour avec l'empire du Milieu commence en 1996. Ingénieur géophysicien de formation, il oublie les sciences de la Terre pour celles de l'économie. Chercheur spécialisé dans la privatisation des entreprises d'Etat, passé par Oxford où, MBA en poche, il se concocte un remarquable carnet d'adresses, il devient le plus jeune représentant permanent aux Nations unies."
  From Google Translate: "At just 40 years old, after a decade spent in China, Jean-Christophe Iseux decided to return to France. With a project in mind: to make his Loire castle a “personal, elitist and confidential” meeting place, with no more than 200 people! » His target? Western leaders and their Chinese and Asian counterparts. Ambitious. But his excellent knowledge of China and its leaders should enable him to succeed in his project. His love affair with the Middle Kingdom began in 1996. A geophysicist engineer by training, he forgot Earth sciences for those of the economy. A researcher specializing in the privatisation of state enterprises, he went to Oxford where, with an MBA in hand, he built up a remarkable address book and became the youngest permanent representative to the United Nations."
2. Yu, Ying 余颖; Zhao, Xinyi 赵欣怡 (2021-09-22). Wu, Yidan 武一丹; Yu, Ying 余颖 (eds.). ""在英国重新发现中国：红色男爵的中国故事"讲座成功举办" ["Rediscovering China in the UK: The Red Baron's Chinese Story" Lecture Successfully Held]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "据介绍，易思男爵为法国贵族后裔，其家族与中国有深厚渊源。毕业于牛津大学坦普顿学院，曾任塞舌尔驻世贸组织代表、驻日内瓦裁军谈判会议代表、牛津大学管理学中心研究员、牛津大学赫特福德学院政策研究所中国研究中心主任等。从1997年起，易思男爵频繁赴华工作，先后担任清华大学访问学者、讲师、中国人民大学客座教授等，"
  From Google Translate: "According to reports, Baron Eise is a descendant of the French nobility, and his family has deep roots in China. He graduated from Templeton College, Oxford University, and has served as the Seychelles representative to the WTO, the representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a researcher at the Oxford University Management Center, and the director of the China Research Center of the Hertford College Policy Institute, Oxford University. Since 1997, Baron Eise has frequently traveled to China for work, and has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at Tsinghua University, and a visiting professor at Renmin University of China."
3. Kennedy, Maev (2016-06-13). "Red Baron's Jacobean Apethorpe Palace marks its rebirth with party". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Just 18 months after Jean Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, spent £2.5m on a house with 48 bedrooms but no running water, he has decided to give a little party. ... Von Pfetten, a diplomat, Oxford academic and champion foxhound breeder, has been nicknamed “the Red Baron” for his years as an adviser to the Chinese government on everything from inward investment to Iran’s nuclear programme; the Chinese guests will include a government member and the head of an oil company."
4. Bruce, Rory Knight (2005-10-29). "Vive la différence! With full government support, hunting is thriving in France". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "I recently attended a weekend in Burgundy hosted by Jean Christophe Iseux, 37, a hunt master and special adviser to the Chinese government, who styles himself "The Red Baron". A fellow guest was Bob Hawke, the former trade unionist and Labour prime minister of Australia. ... said Iseux, referring to the pre-Revolutionary finery of dress that all hunts adopt. An aristocrat by birth, living in a family chateau near Macon, his great-uncle was a radical socialist MP for Burgundy. Oxford-educated Iseux believes that there is nothing incompatible about his love of la chasse and his work as a professor at the People's University of China in Beijing, an MP in the Chinese parliament and consultant to the Chinese government. ... Over the years, Iseux has hunted with an eclectic mixture of European ministers, aristocrats, writers, painters and even the female head of the French prison service."
5. Han, Baoyi (2019-06-14). "'Sweetener' strategy on trade dispute set to fail". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "... said Jean Christophe Iseux, a former European diplomat. ... Iseux came to China the first time in 1997 as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He traveled all around China and did case studies of state-owned enterprise reform and issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents in China. These issues became top priorities of China's reform and opening-up policy."
6. "Explainer: A glimpse of Chinese democracy through lens of 'two sessions'". China Daily. Xinhua News Agency. 2023-03-07. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "In 2001, a man with a pointy nose and a pair of sunken eyes arrived in northeast China's Changchun City. The man, with the name Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, turned out to be the first ever non-Chinese member of the CPPCC. He was in Changchun not for travelling, but for attending its city-level CPPCC. "This was an amazing opportunity in 2001 to be invited by the then a mayor of Changchun to be a special invited member of CPPCC. But it was also a very important element of my learning curve on how the democratic system in China did work," said Pfetten, now president of the Institute for East-West Strategic Studies in Britain."
7. Hamid, Hamisah (2005-07-30). "'China wants Malaysia's main trade partner'". Business Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Special adviser to central and local governments of China, Jean-Christophe Iseux, said ... Iseux, a Frenchman fluent in English and Mandarin, said many Malaysian investors in China have benefited from their investments. ... Iseux himself is the first and only Caucasian ever as Specially Invited Member of the Chinese Upper House of Parliament and has been ChangChun delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) since December 2002. ... Iseux, who is currently an adviser on Foreign Economic Cooperation to the PCC central committee ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about the article's neutrality can be dealt with through editing as advised at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Conflict of interest editing can be dealt with by following the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. I don't think deletion is the right approach. Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. "BLP Issues" does not represent such a rationale.

Nobody has said the article as it stands is inadequately sourced for WP:BASIC. On my review it does cite substantial coverage of this individual (although, as I point out above, there may be some verifiability issues and one of the claims to fame seems to be overstated). Once the additional sources identified by @Cunard are taken into consideration, a notability-based rationale is even harder to maintain.

@KJP1 has made a good argument that there are conduct issues related to the page. However, as they concede, this is not the place for such arguments. Oblivy (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you see any BLP issues remove them, don't take it to AfD. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, no reason for deletion on the typical deletion guidelines has been found.

However, on a separate note, I am curious if anyone has an actual (rather than potentially circular) source for his title being "Baron von Pfetten zu St. Mariakirchen". For instance, in a lot of press he is reported as Jean-Cristophe Iseux (no von Pfetten). I believe this may be his original name?

For instance, the Catholic Herald is very careful about his titling (not so for Lord Bamford), although the description for him seems perhaps self-sourced, here: https://catholicherald.co.uk/uk-catholic-leaders-of-today-2022-business-and-philanthropy/

And, the article on the noble family suggests the von Pfetten zu Mariakirchen line died out: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfetten

EPEAviator (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Speedy Keep’’’sufficient reliable external sources from reputable news media (FT, WSJ, Guardian, Spiegel, etc.) to warrant retention of this page. No valid justification for deletion provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep: per Oblivy, WP:CSK#1. If there are BLP concerns about unsourced content or ambiguity of his title, those should be raised in the talk page instead of filing for deletion. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and I do not find this case to be necessary of WP:TNT. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Thibaut

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

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [7]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a promotion for his business, with no in-depth coverage that would support GNG, neither in the article nor found elsewhere. It doesn't help that two of the three footnotes have the same url and that the further reading links are all deadlink copies of press coverage selected for display by the same business. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacking significant coverage and as such fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Malcolm (composer)

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

Two different Carlos Malcolms, the other of whom invented Ska music, make it hard to source this one. Doesn't seem very notable though. — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article currently cites two sources. I think this article provides significant coverage. The book Cuban Music from A to Z has a passing mention on page 65 and a one-paragraph description on page 129. I can provide the excerpt if needed. I think it could be given similar weight to a dictionary of national biography, where inclusion alone indicates notability. I also found this, a statement from a Cuban embassy, and this SPS (possible from a subject-matter expert), which don't count for much. This isn't a lot, but he's definitely a real musician who's composed some stuff and has probably had some musical impact. Toadspike [Talk] 19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More marginally helpful sources: [8] (kinda self-published, again might be a SME), this (not sure if it's about the right guy). Toadspike [Talk] 19:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found two mentions in this book chapter, one of which cites a paper as "Brouwer, “La vanguardia en la música cubana,” Boletín Música no. 1 (1970): 3". I cannot find that paper anywhere. Although these are just passing mentions, they confirm that Malcolm was part of the "1960s Cuban musical vanguardia" and moved to Poland (which was apparently common for Cuban musicians, as Poland was less "conservative" than alternatives in socialist Eastern Europe). Toadspike [Talk] 10:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Toadspike. Not sure how helpful these are as they are just passing mentions. Keep looking though! — Iadmc ♫^talk 10:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Figueiras

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

Seems non-notable. I didn't PROD as I'm finding some stuff in Spanish. Only fair to allow people to debate this. — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hopefully, these new sources can find their way into the article, at least the ones that are reliable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manyiel Wugol

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

I don’t see how this subject article is notable. Not by anyway meeting the WP:GNG. On the reference section number 5. Instagram reels cannot be use as a source. His just an upcoming basketball player yet to gain fame and notability that meets the general notability guideline. Even the biography there’s no reference to back them up after making my research on Google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Basketball. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sudan and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG: The only potentially reliable source, the Herald sun article, does not mention his name. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant independent coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Changing to weak keep per the sources below. A couple of major Australian news outlets wrote articles on Wugol, which is good enough for me. I still think the article needs those references incorporated as in-line citations, not as a vague external link dump. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete

I found over 5 reliable sources and news article about Manyiel Wugol which shows he’s a well known basketball in Australia . See below

https://pickandroll.com.au/p/bigger-than-basketball-manyiel-wugols

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8102113/sudanese-refugee-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/unstoppable-african-australian-athletes-smashing-through-the-barriers/97b7l6fjq

https://thewest.com.au/sport/basketball/sudanese-refugee-manyiel-wugol-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia-after-death-of-close-friend-alier-riak-c-9888802 SportsFanatic220 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further review of new soources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for a review of newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus supports retention. There's no argument that the article is in a sorry state, but a common theme among contributions to this AfD was that there are multiple reliable sources with sufficient coverage of Long to meet GNG. Hopefully their presentation in this AfD will encourage a rewrite to expand this beyond the current uninformative stub. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Long (white supremacist)

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

I could not find in-depth coverage. He ran for public office but does not meet WP:NPOL nor WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Politics, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that he doesn't pass NPOL or NBIO, but does clear WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in Atkins, Kinsella, Bartley, Sherren, and Perry and Scrivens, plus newspaper coverage. His notability seems to go beyond a single event so WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and RS guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens. Some of the books linked go into a decent amount of detail. A non insignificant figure in Canadian white supremacist groups it seems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source (Washington Post coverage syndicated in the International Herald Tribune) has been added to validate this claim, @Maile66. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't even see coverage in Canadian sources. What's used now seem to be trivial mentions. Lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted. Flatthew (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is a mess. I believe the subject is probably notable, but I could make a case for good old TNT without prejudice towards recreation. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in TNTing a stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review sources brought up in this discussion along with any in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with some of the keeps; it doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources are reliable sources, and there's no significant coverage in any of them. The first mentions the subject, not what he's about, when he was born, what he did in his life, and none of that (which should be a common start in a Wikipedia article). The second one links you to a Google book without telling you what it's about. There is no significant coverage in sight in that link. The third source is not specific; it just points to a list of books without telling you what the subject is about, like all others. Based on what I've viewed with the links and research, there aren't enough sources to meet WP:BLPS; since the person is living, precise sources are needed. Have a look at WP:NPF and WP:PROVEIT. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

*:Also, all of the links Dclemens1971 has sent are all broad, they don't really lead anywhere specifically and I think since this person is living, more precise sources are needed. Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Normanhunter2 They're books. You can't upload full copies of books online, as that is a copyright violation. I accessed them and determined most of them constitute SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand they're books, but WP:BLPS have strict sourcing when it comes to living persons, and as I said in my vote, I don't think I am comfortable with this article on Wikipedia. Normanhunter2 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 Your argument makes no sense. Most of the provided sources are high quality academic books - what exactly is unreliable about them? They're far more reliable than say, newspaper articles. Those are the best kinds of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a link to a cover of a book, not whats within it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2....??? Do you expect people to commit copyright violations to prove it to you? I checked the books myself, they contain sigcov. You can't link anything else besides say, Google Book listings, or you would be committing a crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to a limited extent, you can search within the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, you would know WP:DBTN wouldn't you? I'm merely suggesting that since it's a link to a cover of the book, it wouldn't be considered a source because to me, it's not reliable and it clearly says in there that the piece of work itself can affect reliability, which is my main argument here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 Those are all links to Google Book listings for the page that 1) show you what book exists, who published it, when, enabling someone to search it out 2) a searchable version of the book's contents, which can verify the information. What is your issue with it?

The link doesn't matter. Offline sources are perfectly fine. The Google Books link is merely a helpful way to find if a book discusses a topic: I have verified that at least three of them do. This is enough for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @PARAKANYAA for doing the source analysis below. I'll be honest, @Normanhunter2, your assertion that the "none of the sources are reliable sources" is quite strange. The Atkins book is a standard reference work on extremist organizations published by Bloomsbury Academic, a major academic press. The Kinsella book is published by Harper Collins. Both contain significant coverage of Long, which you can see with the in-text search. Bartley is a respected professor at a major Canadian university and his book has sigcov of Long on pages 248-271. Sherren is a prominent journalist who discusses Long in his memoir. And Perry & Scrivens mention Long on four different pages of a book from a respected academic press. Telling us that "they don't really lead anywhere specifically" and that "it's just a link to a cover of a book" suggests that you didn't bother to evaluate the sources. Finally, no one here is attempting to bite the newcomers. I've been active on Wikipedia for years but started engaging in AfDs only about six months ago, and I spent a lot of time observing and learning. I made some mistakes along the way, and I still do now and again, but learning from other participants and taking their proposed sources and analysis seriously has made me a much better editor. For a new editor who's very, very quickly gotten involved in AfD discussions, I would invite you to be a little less dogmatic and a little more open to the sources that your fellow editors turn up as part of this process. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's significant coverage in the books you're researching, then there should be no problem gathering the information off of the book and placing it into the article. Now, I've scanned through the sources, and find it strange that most of the sources come from books, which are written by ideas of people. As for the articles content, I suggest going over WP:ONEVENT, some text inside of it states: 1. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." 2. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed." You might ask me, what are you trying to prove here? The answer is, the amount of content on the page, and the single event on the article, I don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. In the simplest terms possible, if the article has only one notable, highly significant event possible, then the article should be included. In this case, looking at the event in the article, there is a tiny, minuscule event there without any information. I know the Wikipedia guidelines are different then what other people think when they read the article, but to me, when I am viewing the article, In the 1980s and early 1990s, he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta. doesnt..quite make sense to me. There is no aftermath of the rally, no pictures of the rally or the person either. We only know this person exists through text. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about WP:CONTN, disregard the message where it includes the articles content. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start with all these ideas!?
There is nothing that requires an editor to add the content to the article if he or she supplies it in an AfD as evidence of notability. (I have my own editorial priorities and limited time to participate in Wikipedia.)

You "find it strange that most of the sources come from books." Read WP:RS -- the kinds of books I have suggested here (academic books and books published by major publishing houses) are, depending on the context, generally considered high-quality sources. Plus, I have mentioned newspaper sources (several in the article and more here along with book texts you can evaluate with a free archive.org account: https://archive.org/details/texts?tab=collection&query=%22terry+long%22+%22provost%2C+alberta%22&sin=TXT.

The presence of pictures is not an indicator or notability, nor is their absence evidence of non-notability.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned the guideline WP:RS, what inside of the section should I be looking at here to get a better understanding of your argument here? I'm sure you know that there needs to be multiple, reliable sources on here. Could you explain how the book sources are reliable? It would be helpful if you provided enough information on the books to establish readability on the sources to make sure they're books, otherwise, it could potentially be deleted. Could you also explain to me how those sources fit into the article, and also reliable as well? I'm still sticking to my WP:ONEEVENT point, because it is true that there's only one event on that article (unless if you find another event). Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 Why is any source reliable? They're published from qualified major publishers with a reputation for fact checking. What information do you have that they're unreliable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are usually significantly worse sources than books, FWIW: if there's a reliable book source I would almost always rather use that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you've answered your own question at the first part of your sentence. What information do you have that they're reliable? I should be asking you that contradictory question here.

1. For this sentence "Terry Long (born May 1, 1946) is the former leader of Aryan Nations in Canada" there's 3 sources that apparently connect to the source, almost a WP:CITEKILL and a WP:REFBOMB.

2. For the sake of it, I did some research on the authors (obviously using google), and i found some that are deemed not notable. See here, and here.

3. For the 4th footnote I couldn't find anything about that, and no link has been provided for the newspaper source, that's a little problem here. (If you could provide me the link to that newspaper link then I would go over and read it, but otherwise I wouldn't consider that a source at all).

4. I went to archive.org and looked at the sources, turns out that it does mention the subject. But still, based on what I've seen here, it's not a notable event. Read WP:BLP1E, it states: "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", which it does on the newspaper article here. The second reason according to the guideline The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". As mentioned on the article, the person is only recognized for one event, which kind of makes this a low-profile individual. Last one here: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." On the newspaper article, it does not thoroughly explain his mention of organizing a white-supremacist group and what he did specifically in that event. All it says is In 1990, the Canadian Aryan Nations’ leader, then Terry Long, organized a white-supremacist gathering in rural Provost, Alberta, that made for the first time that Canadians felt that hate was sprouting from their soil. (it also briely explained that they burnt down a cross and displayed swastikas at non-racism protesters) So this also fails WP:BLP1E too, not enough in-depth coverage at all. In fact, this event has very little significance.

5. Just a side note here, I would vote on even a weak keep here, but I think delete is the best option here. If the article had more information about the event, I'd gladly change my vote here. But otherwise, I am sticking to my nomination here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 The NOTABILITY of an article topic is unrelated to the state of the article. Sourcing exists. I volunteer to improve the article should it be kept with the available sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the "one event"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. That is irrelevant to the general notability of the article: notability does not depend on the current state of the article, it depends on the existences of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think they're reliable sources? Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because they're published by reliable authors and publishers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they reliable when I couldn't find them by doing a simple google search? Even on the books section too. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2

"how are they reliable when i couldn't find them on google"

oh my god.

Google is bad. Google has no determination on source reliability. Google does not show you the most reliable sources. Most of what you find on Google nowadays is AI generated spam nonsense that is less than worthless.

Best sources are academic books and journals, neither of which you will find on Google. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if Google is bad, then wouldn't Google Books or Google Scholar be bad too because they branch off of it? There's also AI generated spam for books and even scholars too, it's everywhere. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google, the search engine, is not good for searching for serious academic treatment of topics. Google Books and Google Scholar aren't perfect but are OK for books and journal articles respectively. They contain some garbage but good stuff too. Google, be it books/scholar or the search engine is nothing but a venue for which to search for sources. Source reliability does not depend on popularity - the Daily Mail is plenty popular, but is one of the least reliable sources imaginable, but a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They never sourced the Daily Mail on the article. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 ... I don't even know what to say at this point I think this might be a CIR issue PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a CIR issue, and you probably knew I was kidding about that. If you didn't, I apologize for that. On the article though, they sourced The Ottowan Citizen but I can't find the page or the year of the release where it says that information. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 The sources currently in the article don't matter. IIRC the Ottawa Citizen is on newspapers.com so I can go check that later. We have plenty of book sources listed below that are much more reliable and significant than what newspaper coverage is there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E, there's only one event on the article. I'm not saying "significant event' because it barely has any coverage of it right now. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 What is in the article right now has no bearing on notability. That is not what BLP1E means. Read WP:NEXIST PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one small event exists in the article, that's my problem here. Not enough significant coverage on it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 What exists in the article at the moment is completely unrelated to its notability, given the capacity for improvement with existing sources. WP:NPOSSIBLE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's based on it's reliability. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 ... of the sources that exist, yes? Which we have repeatedly established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well..I mean the reliability of the source. If it's a strong one, or a weak source, or a source that doesn't related to the subject at all. That's why I did my inital research of the sources on the article to make sure they were correct.

Even if they were correct, they still are written by people with their own ideas and perspectives of things in the real world. I believe that only notable authors can be accepted as reliable and not unknown authors. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 The idea that only notable authors are allowed as reliable sources is absolutely ludicrous and under this standard 90% of articles on wiki are not notable. There is not a single aspect of policy that reflects this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I've said enough about this nomination. We'll see what people think about this. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I've blocked Normanhunter2 as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Source analysis, since no one else felt like doing it:

Atkins: This is an encyclopedia of the far right, contains a full length entry on Long. Describes him as "one of Canada's leading" far right figures.

That Wasn't The Plan, couldn't find a copy of this, but from the Google Books preview it seems to discuss Long in depth, going into his plans for racist groups in Alberta in some detail.

Perry & Scrivens seems to be passing mentions

Kinsella seems to have at least two pages of coverage on him on 135-136, as well as 158-159.

Bartley contains sigcov throughout the book, describing Long as a "huge benefit" to recruiters for the KKK, and generally his involvement in these circles.

In conclusion, he passes the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bartley book has a couple of dozen pages on him, as listed in the index. Ditto Perry and Scrivens - see pg 273 of the index which shows extensive coverage. Lamona (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971's review of RS coverage. Seems like the subject has a notable nasty streak. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cartwright (poker player)

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Only notable for a single event, so WP:BIO1E applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; an unremarkable professional poker player who has not been the subject of substantial press coverage other than routine coverage of tournaments he placed in. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodge

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

WP:BLP about the leader of an organization, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for leaders of organizations. As always, just having a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but the content here is strictly on the level of "he is a person who has a job, the end", with absolutely no content about any specific things he did in the job, and the "referencing" consists entirely of his primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage about his work in media or books. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out the sources added by Uhooep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources available. They give significant coverage and are from reliable sources. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything here that isn't already included into International Seabed Authority. I only find one source that is specifically about him, which is the NY Times article about the criticism of his leadership. Everything else is about the organization, naming him as the director. Being the director is not itself notable, as Bearcat states above, as is evident from the paucity of information about him. I should note that the UN and WEF sources are not independent; bios in such sites are almost always provided by the subject of the bio. And the Q&A article is also not independent as that is him speaking about himself. Lamona (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Q&A article also includes prose at the beginning which was written by the journalist, not the subject. Uhooep (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Seabed Authority. I agree with Lamona's categorization of the sources; he isn't the focus of them, but appears in them as a source of quotes for an article on the organization or on the topic of deep-sea mining more generally. -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing is sufficient. Oppose a redirect; if he isn't "notable" enough for a stand-alone article we don't need a mini-biography in the organization's article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Barrett (rock climber)

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

notable only because of a single event, WP:BLP1E should apply, wp is not a news site Artem.G (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting criminal notability, and the pro rock climbing career is rather non-notable. I don't see the required level of notability to have an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had tagged this page as a WP:BLP1E while patrolling and planned to circle back to it. This subject has zero notability as a climber (i.e. nothing in mainstream climbing media per WP:NCLIMBER), and outside of this case, has no notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is a case of WP:BLP1E, subject lacks previous coverage before the 1E. Let'srun (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny with the history preserved if someone wants to enact a merger. Star Mississippi 00:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ocheretny

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

notable only from a single event, his marriage to Putin's ex-wife; WP:BLP1E applies Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument in favor of keeping the article:

- I found this deletion request because I was interested in learning more about Ocheretny, I presume others may also be interested Blaadjes (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally submitted before I was done, sorry, new to this!

Another reason:

He has been investigated and had properties seized, possibly he and his wife receive millions of dollars from Putin, which might make him more interesting to the public. The article could use some work, but I think it should stay. Blaadjes (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even the article you linked says that he's notable only because of his marriage: A villa belonging to Russian national Artur Ocheretny, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife's new husband. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to page Lyudmila Putina. He is not notable by himself. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny. Procyon117 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per previous votes. He doesn't seem to be notable on his own. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ace-Liam

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

The subject of this article is only known for a single event. He isn't notable outside of this event and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article at this time. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, list of Artists-related deletion discussions, and Ghana. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only known for the one event, does not meet WP:ARTIST. Previously deleted three weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ace-Liam_Nana_Sam_Ankrah. No significant change since then. Elspea756 (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608 How can you say his not notable and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article ?

Notability is a criterion used to determine whether a subject warrants its own article or entry in reference works like Wikipedia. Generally, notability is defined by the subject's significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It assesses whether the subject has received enough attention and acknowledgment from reputable sources to be considered of interest or importance to a broader audience. ok i just did

Significant Coverage: The subject must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. This means in-depth articles, features, or stories that go beyond trivial mentions.
- Independent and Reliable Sources: The sources providing coverage should be reputable and independent of the subject. This includes news organizations, academic publications, or other third-party sources that adhere to journalistic or scholarly standards.
- Sustained Interest: Notability often includes sustained interest over time, not just fleeting or sensational coverage. This shows that the subject has ongoing relevance or impact.
- Media Coverage: If a child, even as young as one year old, has been featured by several media powerhouses and notable platforms, it indicates significant coverage. This media attention shows that there is a broad interest and that the subject has made a notable impact, even if for a single event.
- Notable Platforms: The involvement of prominent media outlets suggests that the coverage is not trivial. If respected news sources are discussing the child, it indicates that the subject meets the criteria of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.
- Age and Achievement: Expecting a one-year-old to achieve typical milestones such as scoring free kicks is unrealistic and irrelevant to notability criteria. What matters is the level of attention and the significance of the event or context in which the child is known. If the coverage highlights something extraordinary or widely recognized, it justifies notability regardless of age.
- Precedents: There are precedents where individuals known for a single significant event have stand-alone articles. These cases show that notability can be achieved through a noteworthy impact, even if it is centered around one event. The key is the coverage's depth and the subject's impact, not the breadth of their accomplishments.

the child's notability is supported by the criteria of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The media attention from notable platforms demonstrates that the subject has captured public interest and has made a noteworthy impact. The argument against the child's notability due to being known for a single event does not hold when considering the quality and significance of the coverage. Therefore, the child deserves a stand-alone article based on the established criteria for notability.

There have been several media power house notable platforms talking about the same kid or what do you expect from a one-year-old??? to score freekicks? lol sorry if i sounded rude am just trying so hard to see how he fails meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST when they clearly stated that he has sold 26 piece of art and even got commisioned by the countries First lady common man

Also there have been other media coverage about him [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Afrowriter (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E applies. Tacyarg (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Tecyarg dxneo (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Tecyarg, it seems like there is nothing notable outside of his single event Wiiformii (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still non notable. Deleted 21 May 2024 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace-Liam Nana Sam Ankrah. No significant accomplishments since then. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calabar Chic

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

Fails WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.

Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sourcing is fine, [17] as well. Most is celebrity coverage articles, but they give background and some context into tragic and not-so-tragic events in this person's life as of late. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet, just arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing is fine but they’re mostly interviews (save for this one here). She has featured in some movie but not in a major role. Probably too early for an entry. Best, Reading Beans 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of interviews by reliable sources, which is a potential indication of (future) notability, but they don't offer enough secondary journalistic coverage outside of the transcript to meet GNG. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. I imagine the subject will be notable in a year or two. C F A 💬 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sepiol

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete sourcing depth just isn't there for a biography IMO. It might just scoot over WP:N, but I really don't think we have enough for a biography. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the current sources, the only one I'd say meets the WP:GNG (marginally) is the first one from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which does delve into a significant event. The remaining sources are of the routine coverage variety with little in the way of actual in-depth coverage needed to meet notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Arnon Zamora

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

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

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

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

WP:BIO1E says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just checking; the 84000 pageviews is for the target article, not for the article at AfD. And your numbers for the United States occupation of Veracruz are way off, it gets 300 pageviews per day[18], not your claimed "116 views in the last year". Even the redirect Occupation of Veracruz got 943 views last year, so no idea what you were looking at. The comparison is completely irrelevant, things in the news always get more views, but if you want to make such a comparison, at least make sure that your numbers are correct. You were nearly a factor 1,000 off[19]... Fram (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. Clear consensus to keep from all participants other than the nominator. (non-admin closure) Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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

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

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

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

Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these[20][21][22][23][24]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
- Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
- Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
- The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
- Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
- The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. — Saqib (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. — Saqib (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GM Dogar has obtained significant media courage on various matters. Someone has added links to media coverage given to him below. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. Asadwarraich (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Sylvia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanasis Kaproulias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. Weak Keeps and Weakish Delete but reviews tilt it over to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Lynn

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: The Guardian review and [25], Kirkus reviews. We should have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Guardian being on another continent counters the argument about local press, though I did find yet another local review: https://www.austinchronicle.com/arts/2015-12-11/rules-for-werewolves/ . Furthermore, the writeup in a year-end list by Anna Wiener at Longreads seems like editorial content. Would this summary at NPR count as secondary comment? This is more passing than significant coverage. I would not be opposed to transform this into an article about the book, where the film also would be covered. Geschichte (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Kyazze

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The award from the EU seems notable [26] and [27]. I'm ok with the sources given. At least enough for BASIC Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, EU human rights award is nothing but a less major award. Though must have come from a notable form EU, but the article bearer was a nominee and was only once. How does that satisfy WP:BASIC? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find coverage [28], [29], [30] and [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oaktree b, the sources you listed all were independent of the Ugandan academic Spire or nearer to that. However, one nominated award is never enough for a career that isn't established. For example, a writer that has written extensively and appeared in reaserch paper may be considered even with the writing and more when nominated for an award like this. In this context, however, the article doesn't meet GNG of her career or any significant impact or SIGCOV of her advocacy ad work. Arguing about an award that is not even won is likely biased for me. It's simply a reminder! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: From the source presented, I don't see how this person won this award. She seem to be a runner up which didn't mean she won a significant award or has been invited for it many times (stated in WP:ANYBIO). While the sources listed by Oaktree b is about the announcement of the award, source 3 and source 4 still were about Dr. Spire who won the award, and little coverage of the runners up. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, and nom's further comments. I find I can add nothing to those 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Masake

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. I can find several sources where he has a non-trivial mention, but all of these are simply related to his role at Chapter Four Uganda. https://www.pulse.ug/news/chapter-four-resumes-operations-appoints-ag-executive-director/bms1s5p https://nilepost.co.ug/news/147338/poor-cultural-practices-violence-hindering-africas-development https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422020935790 I would suggest Redirect to Chapter Four Uganda- he does not need his own article in my opinion.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiralwidget, the Chapter Four Uganda doesn't seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT and has been tagged for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter Four Uganda, with possible redirect to Opoyo of thereabout. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swatting of American politicians (2023–2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basanth Sadasivan

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and the existenc of List of heaviest people article is evidence that there is notability to those people demonstrating this condition which is documented by reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Tiongco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [32] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

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

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

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

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

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

Delete: I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your reasons? See the note on your talk page by Liz. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The delete !votes further up are heavily focused on evaluation per PROF, but, as I said above, foreign policy and/or govt/ngo analysts do not fit neatly under this heading. Much of their work is not circulated publicly like academic work, so tends not to have the same citation statistics, and may even be classified in certain instances. Most of these folks would not be notable under PROF, though Cooper arguably is. Here, I think further weight should be put on the article creator's record as an expert in this area, the high-level positions this person has held at DoD etal, and the fact that in several other WP articles in this space refer to him by name. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am 128.252.210.1 above. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an interesting policy question. We have policies for WP:ANYBIO, which requires evidence that the person has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". It isn't clear to me how we would determine that. Assuming that we don't look at this as a WP:NPROF then we have WP:AUTHOR. That has "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and then "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique...". Unfortunately it doesn't say how we determine that the person has had the requisite impact on their field. One way is to look for citations, another would be awards. The only other way to determine this, AFAIK, would be if there are articles about the person in reliable sources that make this case. With this person, what evidence do we have to make this determination? Lamona (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as someone who can make a prima facie claim to being regarded as an important figure and/or has published impactful publications. Also it's good the article doesn't suffer too badly from hype language. Trying to measure impact by citation count, asking whether co-publications count the same, etc., runs the risk of driving the discussion into a kind of pseudo-empiricism that masks the larger question of whether he has enough notable real-world activity that the encyclopedia benefits from having verifiable information about him. I'd rather this close as keep than no consensus, as NC tends to invite do-overs and the way forward will be no more clear nxzt time (unless he gets a named chair or something)Oblivy (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

James Sunter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Malek

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Newton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Stein

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and American football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stein meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources such as [[33]], [[34]] and [[35]]. This is also WP:SIGCOV but is not independent: [[36]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yinglan

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Singapore. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/singapore-s-insignia-ventures-intensifies-push-into-healthtech, https://www.ft.com/content/8c484648-f4b7-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654, https://www.reuters.com/technology/insignia-ventures-raises-516-mln-bets-southeast-asian-tech-firms-2022-08-01/, https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/insignia-venture-partners-fund-25-million-yinglan-tan/. There is also coverage in New Straits Times [37][38]. 182.190.216.63 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/singapore-s-insignia-ventures-intensifies-push-into-healthtech – free version here[39] just regurgitating information from the company
https://www.ft.com/content/8c484648-f4b7-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654 - paywalled, can’t access
https://www.reuters.com/technology/insignia-ventures-raises-516-mln-bets-southeast-asian-tech-firms-2022-08-01/ this is regurgitating information from the company with a tiny bit of commentary on the market as a while; no bio on Tan
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/insignia-venture-partners-fund-25-million-yinglan-tan/ - could be significant coverage with some biographical details; even though this is a capital-raise article it seems to be drawing on other editorial resources for the info on Tan
New Straits Times - paywalled, can’t access

Oblivy (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Discarding canvassed votes and views not based on P&G, there is rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [40] and [41] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [42], [43], [44], and [45]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.

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

Older articles about him also show his prominence.

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

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

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

DELETE Not notable enough for Wikipedia standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After four consecutive AFDs, the article mostly survives on Wikipedia. Still, there is a stir among editors. Mainly his being a YouTuber, but he has also worked in drama and music which makes him notable under WP:ENT. Mafmes (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

People proposed deletions

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

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

[3] "Daily Cuts - Destination Everywhere".

[1]

[2]

[3]