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.

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

Please use on these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

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

People

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

The result was delete. Sock comments and comments about socks aside, there seems on balance to be more weight to deleting at this time. ansh 666 07:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitu Bhowmick Lange

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

~~This individual is clearly not notable and the page was made to self promote her. Iamricednous (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is just not there to say anything of substance about Lange.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator did not supply a reason for deletion. The article seems to be adequately referenced, although some links are dead. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The individual is non-notable this article seems to have been made clearly to promote the individual, which is a breach of Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film director with not enough sources to prove notability. This article is a example of pure self-promotion. Inightfox (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Inightfox has exactly 2 contributions to Wikipedia so far, both being "Delete" votes in AFDs opened by Iamricednous, who themself is likely a sockpuppet. SPI requested. --Doncram (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Would love to see you prove the false allegations you have made against me. Inightfox (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly Speedy Keep / Technical Keep. The nomination was by an editor now blocked as a sockpuppet, linked to other sockpuppet accounts which went on a deletion rampage. Unclear if this article was a real target or just a diversion to confuse matters about their real target. Not worth discussing the merits of the article topic. I suggest quick Keep without prejudice. --Doncram (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep editor who nominated is a blocked sock, and the article is sourced. Speedy Keep could be warranted here as well. Tillerh11 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having "sources" does not prove notability. We can find sources for thousands of individuals who are not notable. This is an overly promotional article on a minor figure in the film industry. Nothing comes even close to being the significant mentions in multiple reliable 3rd-party secondary sources that is needed to pass GNG. I still stand by my vote to delete this overly promotional article. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, it is not a place for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed a large amount of borderline-attack content both here and at Indian Film Festival of Melbourne. I'm also going to make an out-of-process relist on behalf of John Pack Lambert, in lieu of a speedy-keep-plus-renom. I'll remain neutral, the sourcing isn't great but there may be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Out-of-process relist after reverting changes to the page, in the form of personal attacks, made by a disruptive editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In light of continued IP disruption of the article, I've neutrally canvassed this AFD on IRC to aid in getting a consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~This is an attack article (as only includes accusations against Ms Lange, and not her responses).~~ I'm not convinced that the subject is notable for the purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia either. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Black Kite for removing the BLP violations - I've just struck this part of my vote. I don't think that the subject of the article meets WP:BIO though, particularly noting the presumption in favour of privacy for living people. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She does appear to be borderline notable. However, as Nick-D says, this is (or was) an attack article. I've removed all the section about people not being paid, as that was an issue for the group she worked for, rather than her (and it was sourced to a blog). I've also removed the whole attack section about the IFFM, as that's not about her either. I've removed the links from the bottom section, as they didn't mention her either, and were therefore BLP issues as well. I'm about to go to the IFFM article and remove the BLP violations there, as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Trivial routine coverage about someone whose films won some laurels.NOTNOW.∯WBG^converse 08:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Several of the sources contain a little bit of commentary on her. She's been noticed. "Weak" because the sources mostly contain interview material which often makes the sources non-independent, and because the award she won, the Jill Robb Award is a non-notable industry award. Preferably find a merge target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCREATIVE. She was a line producer. And then a co-producer in some (non Wikinotable) documentaries. We cannot make a mountain out of a molehill. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bishop

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

PR puffery. Only coverage is in press releases. Heliotom (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject has not received substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:BIO.Beth tils (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Doesn't meet Wikipedia standards either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 05:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christo Brand

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

Fails notability guidelines for people. Only covered in the context of his relationship with Mandela. Released a book in 2014, which sparked a small but not significant amount of additional coverage. Possibly BLP1E as well, but probably not a low-profile individual (from reading descriptions of Brand's behavior in the sources). Enterprisey (talk!) 19:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of substantial coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have any significant media coverage on the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 01:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Buford

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

Non notable media person who just thought that creating his own article on wikipedia may boost PR. He fails WP:GNG, so should be deleted. 2Joules (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find no substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources. At best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; a writer for notable publications has a fair chance of eventually becoming notable in his own right; but that certainly isn't the case at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A search for independent sources came up empty. The subject appears to be a relatively new sports writer. He does not, however, appear to write for mainstream publications and instead looks to be writing for promotional sports websites and blogs and an online magazine. No awards for the subject could be found. Also, citations for the article are mostly his own. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all journalist are notable. Currently they are one of the groups Wikipedia is plagued with articles on non-notable members of, although not nearly as bad as non-notable sportspeople and non-notable pornographic performer articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Afrânio Asconavieta da Silva

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

Not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this subject. It appears that virtually all coverage is published in primary sources, which does not establish notability, and none of the primary sources appear to constitute significant coverage either. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not enough media coverage on the individual itself besides being in articles which are to broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have other people with the position of Area Seventy been kept at AfD? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quick search, doesn't look like substantial RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TL;DR: fails GNG, etc. Traditionally, bishops of major denominations "are notable by virtue of their status", even if sourcing is from that denomination. LDS bishops are specifically excluded from that, however (disclaimer: not a Mormon, may contain inaccuracies):

Ref Priesthood (LDS Church), LDS bishops < area authorities (Quorums 3+) < general authorities (Quorums 1-2) < Apostles < First Presidency
The general authorities exercise administrative and ecclesiastical authority. Area presidents are general authorities
Seventies consist of Quorums of up to 70 members aged 55+. Members of Quorum 1 are appointed for life but may go emeritus at 70. Members of Quorum 2 serve until release (but generally for 5-7 years, which would take them into their 60s) -- but may be promoted from Quorum 2 to Quorum 1
The LDS currently has ~109 general authorities, at a ratio of ~1 for every 135K Mormons (about 15m LDS members). There's about 1 bishop for every 250K Catholics, or 1 bishop for every 100K Anglicans, so this is a comparable ratio for general authorities, but not for area authorities.
There's thus a case to be made that (while other denominations' bishops retain de-facto notability) some level of the LDS hierarchy should treated equitably and endowed with the same status. This is probably the general authorities of Quorum 1 and above, though perhaps Quorum 2 as well for simplicity.
The area authorities of Quorums 3+ and below, however, should be considered to have no presumed notability, and would need to demonstrate that they meet GNG or an SNG. No evidence has been provided or found that the article's subject does. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hydronium Hydroxide. The subject is not high up enough to rate as automatically notable, and there are zero sources otherwise. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulugbekhon Maksumov

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

Notability is not inherited. A company may be notable, but that does not make its CEO notable by default. This businessman is not notable enough to have a wikipedia article. Fails WP:GNG. 2Joules (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete Non-notable paid article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

~~Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.~~
blocked sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient or no coverage in secondary sources. Catrìona (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 08:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna McCarthy

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

Delete An editor and literary agent, just doing her job, no indications of notability. Fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Minimal research shows this person has a long interesting history in science fiction book publishing. She worked closely with Isaac Asimov on his sci fi magazine and her role there seemed important to its historian: "While remaining a welcoming home for new writers, Shawna's Asimov's acquired an edgier and more literary and experimental tone. Shawna published much of Connie Willis's award-winning work as well as stories by Octavia E. Butler, Robert Silverberg, George R. R. Martin, Kim Stanley Robinson, Ursula K. Le Guin, Lucius Shepard, Karen Joy Fowler, John Varley, Nancy Kress, Bruce Sterling, Esther M. Friesner, James Patrick Kelly, Kit Reed, John Kessel, Michael Swanwick, Roger Zelazny, Pat Murphy, Gardner Dozois, and many others. Shawna won a Hugo for Best Professional Editor in 1984."[1] There is also a very interesting in-depth 2012 interview with her, which I had to pay 15 bucks to read, which describes her as follows: "Shawna McCarthy is a former assistant editor and later full editor of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. She also edited books for Bantam-Spectra, and edited the magazine Realms of Fantasy from its beginning in 1994 to its recent demise. She has been nominated for the Hugo for Best Professional Editor three times and won it once. She is active as a literary agent." [2]. Much of her notability likely dates from before the internet, however. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 1 of ANYBIO for winning a Hugo award. (The Hugo is considered to be one of the five major SF awards). Satisfies WP:CREATIVE. James500 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO, for winning and multinoms of hugo, also these from locus (may also be worth adding to her article) - "Short Fiction Awards Winners and their Editors", and table listing the hugo/nebula winners that she edited/coedited. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oops, in addition she was the coeditor of Full Spectrum 2 a 1990 locus anthology award nominee, and Full Spectrum a 1989 locus anthology award winner (both listed here). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Vermont (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McManus (journalist)

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

fails WP:PEOPLE – Lionel^(talk) 10:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 10:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I think this does meet the notability criteria - ie., Mike McManus is a notable Canadian journalist and television host who had a prominent TV show on Ontario television. On the show, he interviewed prominent Canadians including Margaret Atwood - the wiki article links to an online archive of his interviews. I was interested in learning more about him after watching a show that he hosted.

Amita 64.229.98.73 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say, looking at the notability criteria, that he is a journalist who "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." His television show, "The Education of Mike McManus" is significant, given that it presents a window into prominent Ontarians in the 70s. It has also been mentioned in two books: "Understanding Me: Lectures and Interviews" about Marshall McLuhan, and "Paikin and the Premiers: Personal Reflections on a Half Century of Ontario Premiers" by Steve Paikin. His show is also the subject of a post on Ted Barris's blog: http://tedbarris.com/2016/02/11/tried-by-judge/

Amita 64.229.98.73 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His program is listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TVOntario#Former_programming and all the other programs there have been suitable for entries in Wikipedia. Prowsej (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and lacks signs of notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hosting a TV show that was broadcast in only one province is not an automatic free pass over our notability criteria for media personalities — it would be enough if he could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not enough if you have to rely on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things as your sources. He has to be the subject of coverage about him in unaffiliated sources, not just have a content directory on the website of his own former employer or get passingly mentioned in coverage of other things, to establish notability. Our notability criteria are not passed by what an article says — they're passed by how well the article references what it says, but the sources here aren't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for this comment. I found it helpful. I added some links, in particular to one Globe and Mail article that focuses on him. Prowsej (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Whiteman

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

I'm struggling to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Seems to me to fail WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with your reasoning for deletion. Citing your own flickr account is a new one for me. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 04:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is a run-of-the-mill working journalist. Most of the references are things written by him, and none are to reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the subject appears to be a fine journalist with one AP award, the article fails notability criteria. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like it was created as promotion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially promotional, no evidence of notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Mason (disambiguation)

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

only one article Hhkohh (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easily. -The Gnome (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G6.Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary dab. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary, only links to one existing oage.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suhasini Haidar

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

Comfortably fails our notability guidelines.Near complete dearth of any substantial coverage about her and/or her works.Also, being invited to lit-fests do not contribute an iota to notability. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ @Winged Blades of Godric: Is the Prem Bhatia award a notable one? I see that it has been awarded for a while but can't figure out whether it is notable or not. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to delete per WBG's response. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have much/any reasons to believe that the award is any more notable than the host of awards showered upon themselves by the media-industry which constitutes a major part of theirs' scratching each other's back......~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and notabilty is not inherited.122.164.245.80 (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Noble (activist)

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

Basically a vanity autobiography. To give you some idea of the vanity, the subject also created Richard Noble Day, about a non-notable holiday about himself. His own article admits that no LGBT organization has given him an award. Calton | Talk 13:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More information on the NPOV noticeboard. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made up my mind about voting. While there may be notability if it is demonstrated that the subject was involved in the approval of laws, I think that WP:TNT may apply. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far the majority of sources seem to have COI themselves. There are a lot (overciting?), but the fact that everything I have checked does not pass muster makes be vote delete.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick look over the sources and most do not even mention Richard Noble. Instead talking about various events independent of the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is much too long, violates WP:PEACOCK, and is full of irrelevant references and non-independent sources. (I'll see if I can lop it back.) Nonetheless, articles by independent journalists published in the Florida Times-Union, Mountain Democrat, Washington Blade, and maybe the Windy City Times squeak past GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. FourViolas (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources collected here make it pretty clear that at least the cross-country "Walk for Equality" is notable. It may be that the article should be recast as about the event per WP:BLP1E, as Noble's other activism doesn't seem to have attracted as much RS attention. FourViolas (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally people are not notable for one event.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to have been impossible to keep the wording neutral and it would be better if the whole thing were re-started from scratch by an uninvolved contributor if there is evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:TNT. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sarto

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

Non-notable BLP; Village President does not automatically constitute political office inclusion at WP. Google search delivering YouTube videos does not make a notable BLP.

Delete village presidents are virtually never notable for being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references. There are a couple interesting articles on him, but they're not from reliable sources. SportingFlyer talk 05:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for being village presidents of small towns, but there's no evidence that he would clear WP:GNG on the sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Portrait of Lotte

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

"Viral" video that has not received sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Will work with main contributor CrayonS to improve the article. Vexations (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a notable page, if someone contributed instead of facing me with an AfD. 🖍S (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You've only slammed a notice for an entry without contributing in any way. This lemon needs to be squeezed, doesn't it now? It is notable to an extent, but we think not. So, please add more to it instead of trying to cause unwanted attention over a page that has just started. Thank you. 🖍S (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please. It has nearly 10 citations, with most being reliable sources, all with sufficient information for a page. 🖍S (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if you consider this a self-published short film, the coverage seems to be sufficient to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power, it's not me who did it. I just stumbled across it and found news about it. It's not self-published. From my perspective as an intermediate Wikipedian, the thing about Wikipedia is that it's not aimed at original research and it's a place for notable articles. For one, I am over (possibly about) a thousand miles away from the Netherlands, which is where the filmmaker originates. I agree on ~~Keep~~ but I just hope many other contributors help. Thank you for reading. 🖍S (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources

[3] This is Yahoo's Trending now. Claims that Hofmeester is a filmmaker and an artist. That's dubious. He makes corporate videos for businesses and organizations like a midewifery, he's not a filmmaker and an artist.
[4] consists almost entirely of statements by Hofmeester
[5] again, mostly (the same) statements by Hofmeester
[6] This Time piece is more in-depth, and makes an effort to explore the (super-creepy) reasons why a video of a pre-pubescent girl gets far more attention than a largely identical video of her brother.
[7] A larger piece, from a source I've only seen used once, in Hermes (missile), which rather looks like clickbait.
[8] This BoingBoing piece offers nothing that hasn't already been said, and is not much more than a repost of a yahoo piece.
[9] This offers absolutely nothing, except an opportunity to pretend that that there are lots of sources (without mentioning that they all repeat the same stuff.
[10] looks like a dead link from where I tried to access it.
[11] My Modern Met, a site "formed to create one big city that celebrates creativity" doesn't look like the kind of site that has editorial control and a policy on fact, checking, but has been used in Greg Gossel, Kalliope Amorphous, Shirin Abedinirad, Hendrik-Jan Grievink, COMBO, Land art, Neo-Futurists,Michael Murphy (sculptor), Street art. I don't think its any good as a source, and evry article of theirs that we've ever used is supperficial clickbaity feelgood stuff.

Not mentioned in the article is the Guardian Piece that Hofmeester himself wrote, [12] and which, to a degree, all the source above appear to have used. There isn't anything in those sources that Hofmeester hasn't said. In summary: All the source are not dependent upon the primary source and have not conducted their own investigation, they merely repeat an unreliable source. The subject has been shared a lot on social and other web-based media, and garnered many views. That's the definition of a viral video. Is this anything but a viral video? Not according to the sources. Do we cover viral videos? I don't think we should, so that's why this has been nominated for deletion. Vexations (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia cares about reliable sources. It doesn't mean that you can't use reliable sources that have "most of its information from an unreliable source". Why don't you help?! Thank you for The Guardian one by the way. 🖍S (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why do you want to analyse every single source it uses? Vexations, clickbait? Well, I've been forced to get as many sources as possible because of your AfD entry. To be quite honest, some of your pages aren't that good. You've hardly got much opinion to even back you on this one. 🖍S (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks. Discuss the argument, not the editor, that you disagree with. Vexations (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it and I'm sorry if I personally attacked you. To be quite honest, it's not like I called you a troll. We are like the only ones in this AfD discussion. It is quite notable. Not perfect but it will survive. 🖍S (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ will be my conclusion. ~~Weak keep~~ for Power and for Vexations, someone who doesn't even bother contributing to my article unless it's an AfD entry, ~~Delete~~. OK. So, this discussion has been on for 7 days (1 week). Guys, should we get the administrator? 🖍S (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the insults. Vexations (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulting you! I'm just saying you're not bothering to contribute to what I've made. Why don't you contribute? I would really appreciate it. Please can you. 🖍S (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contributors are reminded to !vote only once and instead of attacking the nom, show us why and how this meets WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @RandyKitty. Sorry about my insults towards you, @Vexations. I was only frustrated on why you don't contribute. I just think this article does comply with WP:N and definitely WP:V. It will never be a featured article but it is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Just because these sources have roughly the same information, more or less, they still give and provide notability. 🖍S (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talk page, CrayonS Vexations (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you very much, Vexations. 🖍S (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel J. Seymour

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

PROD declined, so let's have a discussion. Subject fails WP:BIO1E. He was "involved" in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, but only insomuch as he was present at Ford's Theater and, as he was five years old at the time, was the last surviving person in attendance. His role in the event is trivial (it's not like he's the physician treating the president) and is too insignificant for the encyclopedia. BIO1E states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"; his role was basically nonexistent other than... existing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Only real notability is actually his appearance on "I've Got a Secret"; otherwise, nobody would remember him at all. Could possibly be redirected to the appropriate section of the latter. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator should have read farther in WP:BIO1E: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. His experience is described (briefly) in We Saw Lincoln Shot: One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts and a Smithsonian.com piece, and there's just enough known about him to fill out a small article, which could easily be expanded with further detail of what he saw (as related in his own account [13]). EEng 18:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @EEng: I read where it says "may". I take this as too minor and not enough coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline doesn't care how significant or insignificant his role was -- it cares about the coverage, and there's certainly that. There's too much to say about him to integrate into the main Lincoln assassination article, so that leaves two choices: either a separate article or maybe some kind of Witness accounts of Lincoln assassination article, which doesn't exist. E Eng 22:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been covered in independent sources over the years for his recollections. Meets notability criteria and passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm having trouble seeing his notability since this seems like a case of WP:BIO1E. He had no role in the actual event and I'm not sure merely being at an event is ever indicative of notability. According to the Sentinel article he didn't see the actual shooting and had so little understanding of what had happened that he wanted to "help the poor man who fell down" (aka, John Wilkes Booth). Appearing on a game show is insufficient to show notability and I don't believe that the coverage meets WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect might be appropriate, but I'm not sure to where. Papaursa (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't read the discussion so far. I'll quote:

WP:BIO1E: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
The notability guideline doesn't care how significant or insignificant his role was -- it cares about the coverage

E Eng 00:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the discussion and I would question the claim that he was a "participant" at all. Perhaps your definition of that word is different from mine (or the dictionary's which says "a person who takes part in something"). Surely you aren't claiming he took part in Lincoln's assassination. No matter how many times he tells his story, or to whom, he doesn't get more notable than he was at the first telling. It's not like any new information is being uncovered or remembered. I didn't vote, but I remain unconvinced that he's a notable individual. Papaursa (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you haven't read Howard Brennan either, 'cause nobody's claiming he took part in Kennedy's assassination either.
No matter how many times he tells his story, or to whom, he doesn't get more notable than he was at the first telling – Sure, but the more times it's reported, the more notable he gets. Coverage is what counts for notability.

E Eng 01:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Brennan was an eye witness who testified before the Warren Commission. Seymour was five years old. Comparing Brennan to Seymour is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. As the text you quoted says, it's not about specific role but about coverage. Brennan has coverage. Seymour barely has any. 01:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You said that Seymour didn't "take part" in Lincoln's assassination, as if that was somehow an argument against his notability, which it's not. To illustrate that, I simply pointed out that Brennan didn't "take part" in Kennedy's assassination either. That's nothing like an OTHERSTUFF argument. Anyway, I'm glad you now see that coverage is all that matters. Seymour has it -- not a lot, but certainly enough. E Eng 03:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - written about in The Daily Telegraph & Tablet (magazine) & HuffPost Joaomufc (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hs was what now would be called a reality show contestant. He's a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if there's thing we love here at Wikipedia, it's footnotes. E Eng 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should he be notable? Maybe not (but this is better than yet another YouTube personality or model) - and this is not a vital article by any stretch. However - coverage of this individual (due to being the last surviving witness - and even speaking about this in the early TV age) - clearly pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple reliable sources writing about him in the past. Besides, the person is dead now. had he been still living it could fall under BLP promotion but it is not the case anymore as it is not a biography of Living Person. This article enriches the encyclopedia without jeopardizing its integrity. So yeah, keep. Dial911 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz Thazinkoko (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 18:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiazai

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier version of the article [14] states that the tribe is also known as Muhammad Hassani. Our article Mohammad Hassani lists "Khiyyazai" as one of the subtribes. None of these are sourced. – Uanfala (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google books show that the Kiazi exist, and that they are a part of a larger tribe. Here are some specific mentions: [15] [16]. From what I've found it doesn't look like the Kiazai meet notability requirements, although its possible they may have gotten coverage in some really obscure sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malek Sitez

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

Non notable "expert". A promotional mishmash article that is borderline CSD worthy. There are enough peacocks used to prop this up to fill a large zoo. For an expert he is a very low tendency to appear in the new; I could find only 6 mentions. 2Joules (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is not unknown in Danish media as an expert on Afghanistan ("Malek Sitez" site:.dk) but there is a definitive lack of significant coverage about him, hence GNG/BASIC is not met and for now it is delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Hammadeh (lawyer)

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

Being a lawyer for a powerful company does not make a person notable. Notability is not inherited. 2Joules (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can't vote for deletion at present, but I see the signs of a promotional intent. Deb (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:AUTHOR; lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Just a promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill lawyer who doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Reads like a resume. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Jennings

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:NBIO. All references have been removed by user presumed to be article subject, who has edited the page extensively (and appears to be the original page creator under a different account), but even prior to this user's contributions there were only ever two sources in the article, both articles written by the subject. I'm not seeing enough coverage outside of his own work to warrant keeping this page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom; just not notable for stand alone article; reads like a press release. A colonel in rank, but nothing of real notability while in the military. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently un-sourced BLP. Does seem to pass any PROF or SOLDIER criteria. BEFORE doesn't bring up much.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 02:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rosen

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

Fails WP:BASIC, no in-depth coverage. Linked-in is not a reliable source. Also, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his father. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sports caster. We have way too many articles on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability extremely doubtful. Deb (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Klitenic

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

Lawyer with virtually no coverage outside trade press and where the sourcing isn't independent. Being general counsel for a government agency doesn't make one notable. Likely commissioned spam excluded by WP:NOTSPAM as a type of native advertising, so notability is a secondary concern anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE: as blatant PROMOTIONALISM, whether by individual himself or someone in his orbit with a COI. Quis separabit? 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet either general notability or notability for politicians. The position he holds, while doubtless important, is not even in the line of succession for the DNI, so it probably doesn't qualify him under NPOL. The majority of the source citations on the page are not to reliable, third-party sources, and the ones that are reliable are mostly just brief name checks saying who he is and that he is being appointed; not the significant coverage needed for notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Roman

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

WP:BLP1E scenario. There is coverage about him, but it all relates to him having some unclear position in the Trump campaign. Being appointed a special assistant to the president does not confer notability, especially when in an all but undefined position, and if you read the Politico piece, it more discusses his role on the campaign than anything else (hence the BLP1E issue). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may in fact be enough WP:SIGCOV to keep this one. I added a couple of INDEPTH articles about him to the page, and here is a gNews search on "Mike Roman" + Trump [17]. Keywords are useful since "Mike Roman" turns out to be the name of a number of other men who are in the news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I did that too. 100% a case of BLP1E. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - I'd like to see an intro that actually says who he is and what his profession actually is. Deb (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding material about who is is and what he does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for being campaign operatives, but this is not sourced well enough to move him from WP:BLP1E into ten-year test-passing notability. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he attains a stronger notability claim, but nothing present here is convincing evidence of permanent notability as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think articles like The mysterious oppo researcher working in the White House lawyer's office in Politico this spring put him over the top. Do note that he doesn't give interviews, doesn't want to be in the papers, and that the Trump administration won't talk about him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per TonyBallioni.Clear-cut BLP1E.And, our job is not to shine spotlight on person(s) who have chosen to evade coverage by altering (lowering) our inclusion-requirements.That's nonsense.∯WBG^converse 13:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't WP:BLP1E. There's coverage of his work for the Koch's, his work for the Trump campaign, and his job at the White House.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that his activities have covered in books at least as far back as the 2004 Bush campaign. Have added a book and a scholarly article, each taking a close look at a single event in his career as a Party operative, both instances related to his blog, a blog that was not on the page when I began editing this morning. We may still missing a lot of coverage of his pre-Trump career. It is understandable that Nom and many of the editors above have not found sources; Mike Roman is a frustratingly common name. It's just the sort of name an oppo research might make up if he didn't want to come up in google searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN. Updated article; Politico says he left the White House job in April. I'm out of time, even though I have not finished adding books and scholarly articles that already exist. After a couple of hours googling him, my WP:CRYSTAL ball tells me that more books and journal articles will appear as scholars and journalists chew their way through the event-rich turf of the Trump administration. But I think that there is now more than enough WP:SIGCOV published over the course of 2 decades (albeit, he didn't begin get INDEPTH until the 2004 Bush campaign.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough sources here to support an article. Just because he doesn't give interviews and generally stays out of the limelight doesn't mean we can't have an article on him. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That actually is what that means, because there isn’t enough sourcing despite claims otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the 2016 Ben Jacobs (journalist) story in The Guardian: Controversial Republican Mike Roman to run Donald Trump's 'election protection' , it quotes Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Irvine, : “It was one of the most retold stories on Fox News and the right for years and took on almost mythical status as evidence of thuggery by Democrats to harm the voting process.” on a 2004 Campaign strategy by Roman that is also explored in a book by Hansen already on the page. The argument that this was BLP1E does not wash, bu the argument that there is inadequate coverage is odd given that Roman has gotten WP:SIGCOV in books, academic journals, and newspapers since 2004. E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Baum

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

Acting directors of US agencies are not notable (it is usually a sign of lack of notability if anything else unless it is acting for a senior cabinet post). Searches turn up virtually nothing that meets WP:N (all local, press release repeats, trivial, etc.) and even if it did, it wouldn't matter in this case as the article is likely commissioned native advertising, and is thus excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being acting director of a government agency can certainly count as a notability claim if the person can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for it — but nominator is correct that holding the role isn't an automatic guarantee of a Wikipedia article in and of itself. But far more than half the references here are non-notability assisting primary sources, and the ones that are actually GNG-worthy media coverage are just namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over GNG as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Scott (News 12)

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

Regional cable news anchor, fails WP:BASIC. For purposes of notability Newsday references in this article should not be considered independent since News12 and Newsday have the same owner. Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local TV reporter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a rough consensus that there is something of value here, but not on what should be done with the page. I would perhaps have relisted but, after this AfD was opened, the article was moved to a new title and significantly rewritten, which arguably rendered the initial discussion moot. So I'm closing, but without prejudice if anybody wants to re-nominate or move it to draft. – Joe (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historic families of Ghana

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

This article says effectively nothing of value on its topic, and the list of families is unsourced and few of the links are to families of Ghana. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ power~enwiki: Opposed to deletion of article - I'm honestly quite baffled that you say the article offers nothing in value in relation to its topic. The well-referenced article is about intellectual families that made pioneering contributions to the socioeconomic development of Ghana. This article is analogous to the articles on Boston Brahmin and Old Philadelphians. You may check the books referenced if you have time. I've removed any unsourced family names. If you want to discuss, please let me know.Kandymotownie (π, ν) 12:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be too harsh an assessment, but content like participation in ... academia, architecture, church development, civil service, education, engineering, health services, journalism, law, medicine, natural sciences, public administration, public health, public policy and urban planning. ... contributed to arts and crafts, producing artisans in pottery, basket and mat weaving, carpentry, shoe-making, masonry, joinery, hat-making and black-smithing. is so far past indiscriminate as to be of no value to the reader. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:power~enwiki I removed the listing of the fields. I urge you you to at least read the books referenced before any deletion. This is not original research as information is sourced from the bibliography. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Delete per WP:NOTESSAY.Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Moving this to Draft is also possible - there might be an article to be salvaged here.Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kandymotownie: Please try to refrain from WP:MOVEing this article any more until this AfD is resolved. The multiple moves you’ve made so far might create some unnecessary problems as explained in bullet #4 in WP:EDITATAFD. The page can be always be moved if necessary after the AfD has benn closed. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Kandymotownie: can you point to any one source that discusses Gold Coast families in depth and directly as a subject. The first sentence of the page, which establishes the topic of the article, is referenced to three sources. The first one is Encounters in Quest of Christian Womanhood. The title does not seem likely for this subject, and I am not seeing anywhere where Gold Coast families are discussed as a group. Can you offer a page number? (lack of page numbers is a big failing of your referencing). The other two sources seem to be on one particular family, or even just one individual, so not verifying the opening sentence. Without a source directly addressing the subject, I'm afraid the page amounts to original research. It may be true, it may even be important, but if Wikipedia is the first to discuss this, then it is still WP:OR and not within our inclusion criteria. SpinningSpark 22:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpinningSpark@ power~enwiki @Marchjuly Please see pages 132-135; 147; 174 in Encounters in Quest of Christian Womanhood. This book was a doctoral dissertation of the author, Ulrike Sill before being published into a book. See pages 35-36 of Recovery of the West African Past. Also see The Pen-pictures of Modern Africans and African Celebrities by Charles Francis Hutchison: A Collective Biography of Elite Society in the Gold Coast Colony. This book has several examples on the topic. The Wiki article is about families that lived on the coast of Ghana and had certain characteristics that influenced everyday life in that period, all covered in the literature. Gold Coast was the name of the coastal part of the country in the pre-colonial period. I urge all of you to take time and do due diligence before rushing to reject a well-researched article under the pretext of “original research”. To get a better idea on this topic, the pages must be read in context and not just book titles which may not tell you the whole picture of historiography relating to 19th century West Africa. You might also want to take some time to learn about general colonial history in Anglophone West Africa. Let’s create an environment where people can share their expertise in our collective quest to expand human knowledge. Thank you. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 01:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment was only about moving articles during an ongoing AfD discussion; it was not a comment on whether the article should be kept or deleted. However, your statement Let’s create an environment where people can share their expertise in our collective quest to expand human knowledge. does give the impression that you might misunderstand WP:OR. Wikipedia role is not to create an enviroment where people can share their expertise per se; editors who are experts in a particular subject matter are of course welcome to edit just like everyone else, but they need to also be aware of WP:EXPERT. Wikipedia role is basically only to summarize content found in reliable sources and support said content with citations so that it can be verified; it's purpose isn't to interpret what is found in external sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Marchjuly, I perfectly understand that Wiki articles are summaries of topics based on reliable sources. My comment is in connection to the fact that in general, those summaries based on reliable sources are indeed a way to expand human knowledge i.e. access to said knowledge for all. My article isn't an interpretation though or a creation of any new idea. Everything is already available in existing literature and not original research. I haven't re-invented the wheel, here. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 09:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I asked you for a single source discussing the subject in depth. A link to the passage in gbooks would have been helpful. Instead, you have referred to multiple pages in multiple books which only give passing mentions of "coastal families" at best. It is too much hard work to go through all of your references in depth so I've only looked at the first ref you gave. Page 147 was not available in preview, but I read all the other pages you indicated. This material is largely about women working as missionaries or the wives of missionaries. Their coastal background is occassionally mentioned in passing. It is about specific individuals, not about a particular social group, and not in the context of Gold Coast families per se. The closest this comes to discussing a group is the sentence "Regina Hesse was born in 1832, her parentage typical for many of the influential Euro-African families of the coast." That is very far from discussion of the subject directly and in depth. So I ask you again, can you link to a single source that discusses the subject of "Gold Coast families" directly and in depth? ~~Failing that, my recommendation is unfortunately delete as OR~~ (EDIT:striking my delete, the user seems willing to work on this in draft). I do this reluctantly because you seem to have an interesting subject here, but you are just not demonstrating the notability required by Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SpinningSpark Like I mentioned earlier, for a broader overview, you can also see pages 35-36 of Recovery of the West African Past. Also see The Pen-pictures of Modern Africans and African Celebrities by Charles Francis Hutchison: A Collective Biography of Elite Society in the Gold Coast Colony. For a specific link: See here and here The Gold Coast Euro-African families discussed are "Gold Coast families" who have the genealogy and characteristics discussed in the article. Alternatively, if you prefer, I could rename the page "Gold Coast Euro-African families" which would meet all the criteria. This topic has been studied extensively by historians that I'm actually really surprised you say it doesn't meet notability per Wikipedia's own standards. "Gold Coast families", "Euro-African Gold Coast families" "coastal families" "Euro-African families of the Gold Coast" "Gold Coast Euro-Africans" are all the same thing per the literature in the field. If you feel strongly about deletion, then can you please give me an actual reason as this article meets the notability and is not original research-it meets reliable sources criterion. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 18:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well that first source is more like the coverage we need (you should have led with that the first time), but it shows the page is still problematic. The impression I get from the source is radically different from the article. First of all, there is the name. The source nowhere uses the phrase Gold Coast families or anything like it. The group name it uses is owulai. However, as this is also applied to Europeans, I guess the article is about Euro-African owulai. More importantly, the article is unremittingly positive about this group. Assuming the source is talking about the same group, things like "Many were prone...to hard drinking, gambling and occassional outbursts of violent behaviour" conveys a rather different impression. The article talks at length about their Christianity, but the source says that "most Euro-African men were little more than nominal Christians", apparently, mostly for the commercial advantages it offered. The article suggests that these families were influential continuously right up to the present day. The source says that they were "systematically excluded" by the colonial power by the 1880s. In short, my impression is that this article has not been written from the sources. Rather, sources have been sought to back up the POV of an essay. This is not the right way to write Wikipedia articles. I think the best thing you can do with this is move it into draft space and entirely rework it, starting with what the sources actually say. SpinningSpark 21:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @SpinningSpark Thanks! I think that's a very good suggestion. I'll be moving the article into the draft space and totally rework/overhaul based on the historiographical sources to present a more balanced or nuanced view and not just positive aspects of this demographic. I believe this discussion has been quite constructive.@ power~enwiki @Marchjuly, I'm moving this article to the draft space per SpinningSpark's suggestion to completely rework over the next few days. The new article will be renamed "Gold Coast Euro-Africans" to accurately reflect the academic literature. Thank you all for the feedback. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 1:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
        @Kandymotownie: Moving the article to the draft namespace so that you can continue working on it seems fine, but whatever move you tried to make seems to have been reverted for some reason. My suggestion to you is still the same as before in that you probably should not try to continue to move the article while this AfD is ongoing. If the consensus is to return the article back to draft status, then the closing administrator will do all the moving that needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Marchjuly: OK, thank you for the heads up. I guess I'd just have to wait until the administrator moves the page if it's the final resolution to this AfD. Thanks. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 5:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Potential keep -- It is a horrid article on what may well be a notable subject. There is a community of mixed race descent, as a result of liaisons between European men and local women. Such mixed race people seem to have held a particular place in the commercial life of the colony. The present "Gold Coast" title is to be preferred to the previous Ghana one, as this relates mainly to the coast. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The article's creator seems to be willing to have this moved back to the draft namespace, so that they can address the issues raised in this AfD and work on making other improvements as needed. That seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion per WP:DRAFTIFY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gemar Mills

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

I'm really not seeing significant coverage for this one, beyond some one-off localised coverage, and a few other passing mentions where he is a spokesperson for a school. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered by The Atlantic & Fortune.com Joaomufc (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established through coverage about Mills already in the article, particularly in The Atlantic, plus coverage elsewhere, including here. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources provided to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A big paragraph in the article was copyvio case. I removed it and now it seems to be okay to remain on Wikipedia as references have some reliable sources. Dial911 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji. MER-C 09:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jhonny Salomon

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

I don't see any notability factor in this article. He is a plastic surgeon just like thousands of others. 2Joules (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing seems to highlight him from his peers. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 06:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pass GNG, He has been covered by numerous news and mainstream media coverage such as Haute Living, U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, Faro de Vigo and many more. Raksha Rajput (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. bd2412 T 22:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ikoku

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

Local coverage, not notable enough for wikipedia. 2Joules (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Before now like i stated in the speedy delete of which i tagged and believed declined, This is just another self promotion page by someone related to subject or paid by subject to create a page. Sources provided to be "reliable sources" are not reliable. There's nothing In depth from a reliable source like Vanguard (Nigeria) or other similar sites citing or covering him. Edidiong (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep billionaire founder of numerous businesses and head of tourist board seems a high profile figure in Nigeria with coverage in reliable sources such as Encomium Magazine and other magazines and press already included in the article. Passes WP:GNG, thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Atlantic306 he is a former chairman. Which reliable sources mention him as a billionaire? Even if they did, being a billionaire is no claim to significance. If being an ex chairman of tourism board and wealth are his only claims, he might be a candidate for CSD. 2Joules (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Encomium magazine states billionaire, he has enough coverage for an article Atlantic306 (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then the Encomium article goes against Forbes. Forbes does not recognize him as a billionaire. This casts even more doubt on the Encomium article and makes it even more unworthy as a source. Aside from puffery, there is marginal coverage. 2Joules (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes gives billionaire list in dollars, Encomium Magazine is a notable Nigerian magazine that recognizes billionaires in naira. While Forbes is clearly the most credible for financial information on people, I find your comments overly critical of the magazine. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well billionaires in naira are even less worthy of inclusion. If the magazine is a local one, then it is even more worthless as a source. 2Joules (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the current exchange rate 1 billion naira is only about 2.8 million USD, that's far from being anywhere near a billionaire or notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is sources with many independent articles about the subject. That alone is enough reason. Whether he is a billionaire or not is irrelevant. I would dread to think this wikipedia had a policy where the wealth of someone made them more or less notable.Egaoblai (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Egaoblai there are no news articles about this subject, and no web articles from reliable sources either. Where are these independant articles located exactly? At least not in the newspapers. 2Joules (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the reference section and all the articles where the subject is even part of the article. I'm not sure why you're implying that only newspapers are allowed for sources here. And even still, there are both magazine and news media sources there like All Africa. Egaoblai (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Egaoblai That is exactly why the article should be deleted. Trivial mentions do not count, being a part of an article is not enough. Although news is not the only reliable source, but having zero mentions in the news is a sure sign of being non-notable. 2Joules (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are they trivial mentions when the subject is literally the headline of the articles. Egaoblai (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the reliability of these sources, but you can't call the coverage trivial mentions, and you can't call the coverage "local", unless you say it is local because it only covers Nigeria. Which only covers 923,768 km2 and 185 million people. I guess USA Today is also "local" by that criteria. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- his notability as a billionaire has been debunked (see above) and the article lacks reliable source coverage. The Encomium article is actually an interview, so its primary, the rest of the sources are even weaker.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a tricky one, and I can see why people are !voting on both sides. There is coverage in sources, but these are dismissed as local, and that Michael/Mike/Myke Ikoku is only of local interest. But "local" in this case depends on a world view which sees Nigeria as a small community. However, Nigeria is the leading country in Africa, and is the seventh largest country in the world by population. We are troubled on Wikipedia by Systemic bias which leads us to see events and people and sources in the West as more reliable and important than those in Second or Third world countries. We do struggle with sources that are based in Africa and India, even though they may be comparable with Western sources. Ikoku is mentioned in a range of Nigerian publications in a familiar manner to suggest he is a notable figure there. One of his companies is a leading hotel listed on TripAdvisor. In terms of Nigeria he is notable. As Nigeria is not a small backward village, but a significant country with a significant population, he meets WP:BASIC. SilkTork (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this individual has received sufficient cover in Nigerian sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. He is spoken of with great familiarity in the sources used in the article, and if he is known to the Nigerian populace, he must be notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft that reads like an autobiography or COI-based writing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I did a little cleanup and read the sources, and they don't seem very journalistic. I'm also not seeing any notability in the various businesses he started, of which there are several. The flagship hotel of his group doesn't look very impressive. I certainly don't want to contribute to anti-Nigerian bias, but there just doesn't seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Kanoria

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

Nothing in the news, books or the web that sets him apart from thousands of other similar health care CEOs. 2Joules (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of other health care CEOs also regularly conduct 9 hour liver transplant operations (see Forbes link on page)? And own a bank in Austria, have a family foundation worth $10bn, and are trialling the use of robots for looking after old people? He's clearly not he same as "thousands of other similar health care CEOs" - whatever you think of whether he deserves an entry or not. User:213.122.163.234 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgletonc (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note to administrators: Higgletonc is a vandal/troll, therefore his trolling should be ignored. 2Joules (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it vandalism or trolling to point out a difference of opinion with you 2Joules? One to which you answer not by disputing the facts but with an ad hominem attack? Need I remind you of WP:5P4? Or should I point to your own colourful history on wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2Joules ? Let's keep to the matter at hand, hey? ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgletonc (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Higgletonc colorful history? WTH are you blabbering about? I have zero assumption of good faith for people who make edits like this 2Joules (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So doing something stupid when you're young, which you regret, many years ago is beyond the pale but current accusations of sock puppetry and paid editing mean you're blameless? And still your focus is not on the matter at hand - it's the content that counts on wikipedia, not the contributor. I maintain Sanjeev Kanoria is worth of inclusion for the reasons outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgletonc (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Higgletonc You have made like 10 edits, and you found your way to AFD, which is not easy to find. And you were able to learn how to add links to discussion as well. All without a single constructive edit to mainspace. Bravo! Good trolling. 2Joules (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to AFD right at the top of Sanjeev Kanoria - not that tricky to find. Adding links to discussions - I just copied you! You know when you click edit, you can see stuff like that? And, as any one who is interested can see, I've made two constructive edits to mainspace in the last week. You've been busy since March I notice, quite a lot of your moves have been contentious. But that isn't why we're here, is it? Please can we just get back to the matter at hand and drop all this childish mud-slinging? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgletonc (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References from reliable sources such as this one are sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Eastmain "On Wikipedia the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for someone to have written something about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.163.234 (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole Keep fails to make a clear argument based on WP:PAG while the OP and supporting pro-Delete commentor do. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Schratter

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Doable, but the way the article is currently written is unencyclopedic. Hazax (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 04:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Leonard Johnson

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

I cannot find any verification that this person existed, much less meets the threshold of notability. The article seems compiled by a family member interested in genealogy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the face, this fails WP:V/WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Smells like a hoax - I don't think the OSS was involved in the Manhattan project (it was involved in sniffing out the German project - but not stateside AFAIK). The name seems odd, Little Boy was also not an implosion device, and in general imploding a plutonium core is not a matter of the steel case, but rather of the explosive lenses.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a bad article, but I am not sure that it is a hoax. It says far too much about his ancestry and college career and far too little about his adult career, particularly after the war. "Implosion" is clearly wrong, but there would have been a bomb casing, probably of steel for the 1st nukes. The Manhattan Project was highly covert. I suspect that the Project engineers ordered US Steel to provide a steel casing to direct the explosion inwards. He might have led the team that created this, probably without knowing what it was for. Googling produces some newspaper links that lead towards a paywall, but a couple of items look as if they may be verifiable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. According to Manhattan Project, over 130,000 people were involved. Being one of them does not automatically confer notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clarke (advertising executive)

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

Lacks evidence of notability. All the references that I am able to access are based on press releases. Maproom (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not ALL but most. The Ad Week articles are legit, but may be behind pay walls. Without regard to the source quality, the article is more about various corporate transactions which I believe belong on the pages dedicated to those companies. Unless there is an article about Clarke himself doing anything notable, and I'm not aware of such information. NYFly (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the idea of creating a for-profit company that feeds kids in Africa is, IMO, notable even if it did not work. Perhaps there should be an article about the creation of and subsequent successes and failures of Pure Growth Partners. (Actually, a casual search comes up with very little 3rd party information about them). Or perhaps the existing Street King article should be improved and linked from the article for 50 Cent. I'll take the lead from more experienced editors on this. NYFly (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy promotional bio. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill businessman who fails WP:BIO. Note many of the sources only mention Clarke as an investor or company head, while the articles themselves focus on companies (much more coverage and text is devoted to Pure Growth Partners than to Clarke, for example). Thus, I would posit that the article subject does not have a claim to significance, as Wikipedia does not hold CEO's to be inherently notable and Clarke does not (per WP:NOTINHERITED) inherit notability from companies he serves as CEO of.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Sexton

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

No notable secondary coverage by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ withdraw with apologies, there were so many hits, several interviews with him that were about him, not about a security or political topic, that I assumed a bio could be sourced. perhaps someone may do so. I couldn't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC) after finding this at AFD, I ran a quick search to see who he is and quickly saw enough to persuade me that he's a notable politics and security pundit. So I figured that the page must not be sources, and went to the page to add an Interview with Buck Sexton on The Kelly File. The page already had a lot of references, enough that it would have persuaded me to just tag it for improvement and move on. I also ran a gNews search on his current gig, a show calledThe Buck Sexton Show, got a lot of solid hits [18]. Just keep it and tag for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but every hit for a RS in that Google search is for op-eds authored by Buck Sexton. That's why there are so many hits. "The Buck Sexton Show" is mentioned in the author biography snippet. It's not that RS are covering him or his show. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you're wrong. scroll. also, the first search I ran was a Proquest news archive search, I often start with a Proquest search on contemporary topics, because if a subject doesn't turn up there, it's unlikely to be worth bothering with. but Sexton is clearly notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I scrolled through all the pages and the hits to RS (CNN, the Hill) all look like op-eds to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he's been a regular on CNN, The Hill, but you skipped stuff like The Blaze’s Buck Sexton In Explosive Exchange With Boston Suspects’ Aunt: ‘Two Terrorists: One Down, One To Go’; Newsmax's Top 50 Conservative Podcasts; iHeart Boston Moves Conservative Talkers To Bigger Stick.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links are RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Reads like an attempt at promotion more than anything. -The Gnome (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on the additional sources discovered by E.M. Gregory. These new sources combined with those extant in the article establish Notability. Great job!– Lionel^(talk) 11:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be any notable secondary coverage by reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to hosting the nationally syndicated, eponymous The Buck Sexton Show. After years as a talking head at CNN, as of this month he is co-host with Krystal Ball of new a podcast on The Hill (newspaper), called Rising [19]. WP:JOURNALIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete this article has many of the signs in WP:Identifying PR. Things like interviews are not independent and do not count toward N. There are too few sources about him to generate an article. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 10:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost all of the available sources are unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes, including for establishing notability per WP:BASIC.- Mr X 🖋 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prinye Jaja

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

I declined an A7 request because based on what I can find on GNews ([20] [21]), I cannot rule out her being significant or important enough to pass A7, like due to her association with MC Galaxy, especially considering that Nigerian sources are likely harder to find for Westeners like myself.

However, I did look for sources and except the two I mentioned, I could not find any, so she fails WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO/WP:GNG. I briefly considered merging to Jaja of Opobo but I did not see the point since the connection is weak at best. Regards So Why 09:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norm. She fails WP:NARTIST and WP:BASIC. Merging with Jaja of Opobo is not advised, apart from mention from [22] about being related to Jaja of Okpobo there's nothing or any source from GBOOKS dating back to time of Jaja that can also support that, usually in cases like this i use GBOOKS and there should be a few mentions but nothing of such in this case. Edidiong (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly too soon for her own WP article. In addition to the sources found by the previous editors in this debate, I also found this rather shallow interview: [23]. She has gotten some media coverage, most likely due to her notable relative, but her music has not yet been noticed beyond the usual self-promotional and MP3/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DOOMSDAYER520. Stanleytux (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ferris

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

I am unable to find any substantial of the subject in reliable sources. Neither WP:BIO or WP:PROF appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for keeping Christopher Ferris: Spohrer (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Improved the article with additional CACM publication and OASIS document reference to add more evidence that WW:BIO is met.
- Note: 3 of 10 news stories were about Chris Ferris and HyperLedger (see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Also WP References are about Chris Ferris and HyperLedger. All this in spite of the fact that Chris Ferris is a common name, and there is a prolific author of non-technical writing with the name Chris Ferris.
- Note: I have added a reference indicating that Chris Ferris is an important person to the HyperLedger Project of the Linux Foundation, as Chair of the Technical Steering Committee. I also added a reference to the importance of the HyperLedger Project to the Linux Foundation. Ferris (as can be verified by his GitHub profile) has made substantial contributions to an important open community project used by 200 members and associates. Not sure how to add the significance of Chris Ferris' GitHub contributes to the article - but working on that... but he is a technically eminent and famous person because of that.
- Note: Hyperledger refers to Christopher Ferris.
Spohrer (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Polyamorph: Thank-you for reviewing the page for Christopher Ferris. Spohrer (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument for not deleting: Christopher Ferris is an important and famous member of the "Open source advocates" category. Spohrer (talk) 2:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Argument for not deleting, as well as expanding WP:AUTHOR for WP:CREATIVE to include mention of creative people who are significant open source coders/programmers, contributors, committers, maintainers, and governance board members of open communities as notable people WP:BIO who are worthy of having a biography [WP:BIO] on Wikipedia. Last week, Microsoft offered $7B for GitHub, and this event is an indication of the economic significance of open source community work, and how it has grown to the point that an early enemy of open source now embraces it. Another example - Wiki is another example of the significance of open source work and community collaboration. Wikipedians and editor should rally to this cause, and expand WP:AUTHOR to include a line that goes beyond books, movies, and include open source software contributions as a creative act with great economic significance. Christopher Ferris article is a good article to have forced this discussion. Thanks to SmartSE for providing the starting point for this discussion here. Spohrer (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartse:, @The Mighty Glen:, @Polyamorph:, and @Daviding: please consider argument above for expanding WP:AUTHOR for WP:CREATIVE to include mention of creative people who are significant open source coders/programmers, contributors, committers, maintainers, and governance board members of open communities as notable people WP:BIO who are worthy of having a biography [WP:BIO] on Wikipedia. Also per WP:BIO "Special Cases" instructions, I am adding request for "cleanup biography" and more "expert needed" to Christopher Ferris article to continue improving it. Spohrer (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for keeping Christopher Ferris: Daviding (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ferris sufficiently notable within the blockchain community to be giving a keynote at the 2017 Open Source Leadership Summit (which I added to the entry) Daviding (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching Google Scholar, Ferris and Farrell (2003) is cited 321 times, see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16816122887588808031&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 ; W3C Working Group notes including Ferris as author are cited 220 times (for the 2002 draft) and 222 times (for the 2004 working group notes) Daviding (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartse: and @The Mighty Glen: The page for Christopher Ferris should not be speedily deleted because the figure is a significant leader in the blockchain technology standards leadership, and blockchain is a fast-moving world. In the edits above, @Spohrer: has attempted some revisions. Are these sufficient? If not, please advise what else is required. (This is my first time contesting a speedy deletion, please advise if I'm not doing it right). Daviding (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two of you, please let others participate.......
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. He seems to be successful in his field, but I can't find significant coverage of him, independently of his projects, to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, with only passing mentions in WP:Secondary sources. TMG^talk 07:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is who I think it might be, then he is probably notable. A search of GScholar indicates that Chris Ferris has papers with 507, 407, 249, 164, 158, 88, 76, 39 and 25 cites. There is also a paper on Web Architecture that is listed so many times I can't tell you how many cites it has. Several highly cited papers with 100+ cites (let alone 500+) should probably satisfy PROF. James500 (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate a third relist but given the sheer volume of nonsense prior to the first relist and James500's salient argumentation, this needs some more discussion.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets criteria #1 of WP:PROF where it states “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” In addition, the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Mr. Ferris more than qualifies as demonstrated by cites to his papers as shown here at Google Scholar [24]. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet WP:NPROF. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Maher (lawyer)

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

No significant notability, outside perhaps of legal trade press. Article is (self?) promo bumpf. Heliotom (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - disclaimer, I saw the article because I was responding to a request for protection as anonymous users were removing the AFD template. I think there's enough referencing and independent sources (including The Times, Legal500, and Legal Business) to establish notability. Fish+Karate 12:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned the article up and removed the most egregious bumpf. I still don't think he really passes GNG, there's only one non trade press article, but as nearly every source referenced is behind a paywall it's hard to tell for sure. It still reads like a CV, which ain't a good sign.Heliotom (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Satisfies GNG. There is no "legal trade press". Law is an academic discipline studied at universities and the Inns of Court, and a function of government performed by Parliament and the courts. Neither could be described as a trade. A solicitor is a court officer (ie a government official) [25], not a tradesman. Further, there is no sharp distinction between practioners and academics in this field because they are all "learned" and competent to write works of scholarship (at least in theory). Hence the textbooks are largely written by judges and advocates. Further, legal publications are aimed at university professors and students, and at judges and other government officials, litigants and anyone potentially affected by the law (which is probably everyone eventually) as much as at advocates. Traditionally they have been aimed at the educated lay public who happen to be interested as well. In any event "trade press" is not a valid argument against notability. Nothing in GNG or BIO supports this concept, which happens to be nonsense and clearly has a tendency to "smear" valid scholarly sources and is therefore a menace to the project. There are other s′′ources in GBooks and elsewhere (search for eg "Paul Maher"+solicitor), not presently included in the article. In any event, The Times is such an exalted source that it normally suffices by itself. James500 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is a legal trade press, even if you're too pompous to acknowledge it. https://www.google.ae/search?q="legal+trade+press"&oq="legal+trade+press"&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7215j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8.

The idea that a single mention in the Times qualifies a subject automatically for GNG is laughable. Heliotom (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The number of sources that contain the words "legal trade press" is very small for this purpose. If a "legal trade press" really existed, we would expect a much larger number of sources, since there is a large body of literature on this area of bibliography. At best, this looks like a very small minority viewpoint. (2) Those sources don't look particularly reliable. There is nothing there by, for example, law librarians who are recognised as experts in legal bibliography, as far as I can see. Moreover, the sources are generally passing comments of a kind that don't look like they were intended to be particularly precise, much less to assert the existence of a major phenomena in a rigorous way that we could take seriously. There is very little by way of attempts at a definition, and no definition that includes biography. It is generally not even clear exactly what these sources are talking about. (3) The expression "legal trade press" seems to be a neologism that lacks sufficient sources to prove that such a thing really exists or even to establish what the expression means with a tolerable degree of precision. (4) This neologism appears to me to be a self-contradiction. The law is not a trade: [26] In fact, there are a stack of really convincing first rate sources saying that a profession is not a trade: [27]. Accordingly, there cannot be a "legal trade" to possess its own press. The neologism is nonsense. QED. (5) Ultimately, all of this is academic. "Trade press" is not a valid argument for deletion. There is nothing in the relevant notability guidelines to support such an argument. It has no basis in policy or guideline and this nomination is a waste of time. James500 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, from such an exalted source as The Times. That's all you need apparently. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/law-firm-set-for-collapse-after-troubled-takeover-x5xpp7xfh

all the article suggest at the moment is that he holds or has held a couple of senior positions in a couple of law firms. That does not make an individual notable

Heliotom (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Also, for fun, here are some famously unreliable sources. You're right, it clearly doesn't exist[reply]

The New York Times [28]

Bloomberg [29]

The American Bar Association [30]

The University of Law [31]

The mere appearance of an expression in a tiny number of sources does not prove anything. Especially when there are other sources that disagree, and provide detailed explanations as to why they disagree. Some people speak very loosely and vaguely, and it is not even clear that the tiny number of sources that use that expression are talking about the same thing. The way in which you are conflating those sources is precisely the sort of "original synthesis" that we don't allow on this project. If all those sources referred to someone called "John Smith" without giving any further explanation, the fact they use the same name would not prove they were talking about the same person. "Legal trade press" is a perfect example of an expression that is so vague that it is almost gibberish. The NYT and Bloomberg are not particularly compelling sources for this. They are not as reliable for this as, for example, a medical, legal or library science publication. The University of Law is a blog (that my browser will not load). The ABA Journal is just one article of the many articles by different authors in that periodical, and in several other articles authors writing in the ABA Journal say that the law is not a trade: [32]. In other articles they say the law is a profession: [33] (meaning I may now be able to invoke other sources that say professions generally are not trades). I could explain each of your sources away as a "slip of the pen". None of them attempts a justification or explanation of their use of the word "trade". They just name drop. And since there are lots of sources that contradict yours, the most you are doing is proving the existence of a (POV) body of opinion, that is not even established to be the majority opinion. James500 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denying the existence of something does cause it to cease to exist. Especially when what you’re essentially trading in is semantics from a past age where people cared much more about the difference between a profession and a trade. You’ll note everything from the ABA you cite comes from the 50s to 70s.

what you’ve not done while getting your knickers in a twist about the legal trade press is shown any real reason why Maher is notable. I don’t see much depth of coverage beyond saying he hold a senior positions in a law firm. That is not inherently notable.Heliotom (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past age? No, not true. Here's one from 2015. James500 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've found the trade press article, so hopefully we can get back to the actual point.Heliotom (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes I wouldn't have said I'd have taken James5000' argument. In any case, Industry publications make up a high proportion here. Working out which ones are posher versions of trade magazines and which ones are closer of focused news/journals (if any) is fairly important. This is particularly difficult without access to any of the sources. The Times source does read as if it is launching into SIGCOV rather than a summary piece, so AGF-ing that seems like a good source. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete misconception. Most legal periodicals are essentially scholarly publications that are primarily interested in the law itself (eg legislation and case law). Dismissing legal periodicals as "industry publications" would involve dismissing publications such as the Cambridge Law Journal, published by the University of Cambridge. That is what is being collaterally attacked here. James500 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I think I should also point out again that "trade press" is not a valid argument for deletion. Trade magazines are reliable independent secondary sources for the purpose of GNG. There is nothing in GNG that allows them to be rejected. Nothing. And that is the bottom line. James500 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you can only claim collateral source attacks if I don't happen to have included any consideration of classifications and quality. That is not the case. More importantly, "Trade magazines are reliable independent secondary sources" - skipping past the irony of the negatives of classifying everything in one go, that's a very broad statement. It is also false. It depends on the trade magazine, obviously, but many fail to be independent as they want to benefit the companies they talk about, and a heavily overlapping group are not reliable because that requires giving incomplete/incorrect facts. Nosebagbear (talk)

p.s. "And that is the bottom line." - not a great finisher for a discussion based process even if you'd made a Socrates slapdown. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.p.s Lastly - none of my response sets out which sources are which group, it hasn't yet been made clear. Why not pick a couple of the strongest non-news sources and make clear why they're so good. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's precisely one source - the Times - that is a reliable source, which is about what you would expect for the London office head of a mid-ranked US law firm. The reason we don't regard "trade press" (call it what you will) as generally being WP:RS is because most such publications are tiny affairs, run on a shoestring without fact checking, and are read only by a handful of people. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Fiachra10003: The Law Society Gazette is the official gazette of a quango. It has a circulation of well over one hundred thousand. Its circulation approaches that of a national newspaper in the UK and significantly greater than that of national newspapers in, for example, Australia. There are something like 130,000 solicitors in England and Wales and they all get a copy of the gazette by virtue of having a practice certificate. Further, university (law) libraries generally have it, and the academics and students read it. To claim that is read by no one is precisely the sort of collateral attack that I was complaining about above. It is not run on a shoestring with no fact checking either. The publications of the governing bodies of professions are not trade press and generally have a level of scholarship at least equal to that the publications of universities (source: Piedmont College library website). As far as I can see, the Law Society Gazette is (within its area of expertise) actually a more reliable source than The Times. As for the claim that trade magazines are generally unreliable, Piedmont College library again says you are wrong. It says that trade publications are difficult to distinguish from scholarly publications. The University of Rhode Island library website talks as though scholarly and professional publications were entirely equivalent. I'm sure I could dig up more sources that say that the "trade" smear is nonsense. As for the rest of the sources in the article, there is no evidence that they are as you describe them. You claim no one reads them, but you have not produced their Audit Bureau of Circulation figures or OCLC library holdings or anything like that to prove it. As I have pointed out, the law is a very large profession in England (about 150,000 practising solicitors and barristers plus academics, students, judges, court officials, and many government departments; also many businesses are affected) and you would not expect the most popular titles to have a small readership. I should also point out that circulation is not a test of reliability. If it was, the Daily Mail (which we have banned) would be the most reliable source in England, and academic journals published by universities would be amongst the least reliable. The primary test for reliability is the credentials of the author, in which case the Law Society Gazette, at least, is an unequivocally reliable source. James500 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiachra10003's comment is only true in certain situations - trade mags having a biased purpose is a more common reason for concern. It was never claimed by any of us that large readership meant reliable source, so arguments meant defeating that are somewhat wasted.
You aren't going to manage a universal overturning of trade (or at least legal trade) publications judgements here for several reasons a) We don't have the consensus capability to grant it b) it's deliberately reticent but permissive as it stands, encouraging a judge on individual basis. Sourcing the basis for judging comparable sourcing is odd - not necessarily wrong, but tricky, since if that is allowed we risk a recursive loop as we judge what basis (pour example) the Piedmont College library has to make sourcing judgements that override other viewpoints. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Law Society Gazette is, in my view, a reliable source, but the article only mentions Maher in passing: "Rowe's head of corporate, Paul Maher, retains his role." WP:BASIC states that 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 may not be sufficient to establish notability." The Gazette is exactly that type of "trivial coverage". Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, for many years I managed a budget that included a significant expense line for trade publications. Every year, the question of which publications to spend it on was a challenge. Many such journals had only one or two reporters who would print what you told them, especially if you were spending several thousand dollars on subscriptions - and sometimes would print stuff that was completely made up. The reason we don't rely on these types of publications is because they lack the personnel and processes needed to report reasonably reliable facts. The New York Times, mentioned above, does have such processes: multiple layers of fact checkers and editors as well as mechanisms for correcting their errors. And they still often get it wrong. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BIASED "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". We can't accept Fiachra10003's personal knowledge unless it has been published in a reliable source or can otherwise be supported by some kind of verifiable evidence (WP:IAC). In particular, we cannot assume that any personal experience that editor might have had is typical. According to The Brief, which seems to be a spin off of The Times, the periodicals called The Lawyer and Legal Week are actually the leading publications in their field. Reliable sources in GBooks and GScholar and elsewhere do cite them. They are included in Whittaker's Almanac. The Lawyer has been in publication since 1987. I think it would be better to find out how many reporters these publications have, than to make generalisations about the number that others have. I can't see anything in WP:RS that would justify the rejection of any of these sources or trade publications in general, without the production of verifiable supporting evidence. I can produce instances of periodicals said to be trade magazines being of demonstrably superior quality, such as this. James500 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything in the article that indicates him being noteworthy for a stand-alone article, just one of many. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GNG does not require that a topic be unique or even unusual. "One of many" is not an argument that has any basis in policy or guideline. And it is not even factually accurate in Maher's case. The reality is that he is remarkable and exceptional in that he is was head of a massive billion pound global firm (Mayer Brown) and is now vice chairman of a similar sized firm. There are very few such people in Britain. As a general rule of thumb, these things tend to become notable around the $100 million dollar level, never mind ten to twenty times that figure. James500 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per Fiachra.∯WBG^converse 04:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stench of advocacy here and fails WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan Gupta

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

Poorly cited article with multiple claims failed to me Wikipedia's criteria verifiability in addition to that the subject also failed to meet WP:BIO. In the previous AfD the result of the discussion was keep yet it was not properly established whether the subject is really notable. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – More than meets Notability guidelines. Referenced anD quoted in the Outlook India, Washington Post and Times of India to just name a few and shown here [34]. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Generally the sources are the articles that he wrote himself and others who have referred him are reliable. My Lord (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only two independent reliable third party sources are merely passing mentions of him...Delete (Discounting all sources written by him or which could have been influenced by him....) — F R ⁺ 11:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chito Cano

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

Aside from unreliable lyrics websites and youtube videos, I'm not finding any reliable sources about this person (or even anything in-depth about the songs that feature him). There are a number of trivial mentions along the lines of "so and so performed the corridor of Chito Cano", but nothing that actually talks about the history of these songs, or the man they are about. There is not enough reliable sourcing available to support a standalone article at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this here and here is significant coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE..."Z list celebrity" only notable for being shot in 1971 and having a couple of Mexican folk songs that nobody has ever heard of written about him. Also, according to the article the songs are being sold and marketed by his brother. Maybe Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well, since this is User:Alexunlv one and only edit 10 years ago... + This has nothing to do with the Firearms Project.--RAF910 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Carver

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. Ambrosiaster (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think three independent sources is enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. 344917661X (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing in the article seems weak and I do not believe it is enough to justify an article in itself. This [35] indicates there was a Nightline interview with him so NEXIST comes into play. If he were simply some Howard Stern Show interviewee I would not think there is enough out there on which to base an article but there is nearly always something reported in RS before Nightline becomes interested. Jbh ^Talk 14:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also think the 3 different, reliable sources are enough to keep this article. While it is a stub it's cited, and neutral. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local area coverage does not show notability. This really fails any reasonable reading of our fringe coverage guidelines. A few local interests stories in newspapers do not overcome the inherent problems of this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 05:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" only links to search results, which aren't the specific sources we usually look for. Sandstein 06:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Burkhardt III

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). He founded a couple computer companies which have their own articles, but I don't see significant coverage of his life beyond an obituary. ^Falling_Gravity 17:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as academic. See this Google Scholar search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not actually notable as an academic as Google Scholar returns patent applications. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 13:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GScholar h-index of 10. Papers with 112, 92, 86, 83, 79, 79, 57, 50, 22 and 17 cites. It is true that some of these citations are by other people's patents (not sure how many as he is also cited by journals). I am not sure what our attitude to patents is. I am not sure if we have policy for that. James500 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wallengren

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

Wallengren is a local radio station host. This is not the level of position that gives default notability. The one source here in no way shows notability. My search for more sourcing turned up some passing mentions, but no substantial coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources present that comes close to WP:RS. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Success Akpojotor

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

The subject is an author of multiple books but coverage is basically non-existent. The two sources currently in the article are blog posts and while 76crimes claims that Maurice Tomlinson is their writer, that alone is not enough for this source to establish any kind of significance. Searches on GNews or GBooks come up empty other than that and a generic Google search turns up no reliable source coverage either. Fails WP:BIO, WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much improved since nomination. Daask (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An extensive search turned up little-to-nothing to indicate notability under GNG, AUTHOR, or any other guidelines. Most of the books and refs appear to be self-published on essentially open access platforms. The strongest support is that the author/work has been discussed on the blog of a notable gay rights activist, but that falls well short of our GNG or author guidelines for substantial independent secondary reliable source coverage. Alsee (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came here from here and think that if this article is as stated "Much improved since nomination", then there is little hope for the topic because the article is not good and the references/links are not reliable. I mean yes it has been reviewed, but when the guideline says to find reviews, it clearly means reviews from major publications and not reviews from blogs. Also this is a forum post. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article may have numerous references but none contribute to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyoti Ann Burrett

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

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

Isima Odeh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T Low Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandra Lalić

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Gilman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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