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.

If possible, please use one of these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

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

People

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Keyes

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

Article does not appear to meet notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. ilamb94 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ilamb94 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick search did turn up some significant coverage from his two years as a UCLA starter and later as a coach, e.g., (1) "Miss and Hit for Keyes", Los Angeles Times, 9/18/05, (2) "Keyes Plays Way Back to First Unit", Los Angeles Times, 8/16/06, (3) "Former Birmingham, UCLA standout Keyes a daydream believer", Los Angeles Daily News, 1/31/09, (4) "Drawing from within: Campbell Hall football coach Dennis Keyes ...", Los Angeles Times, 8/15/17, pt 1 and pt 2, and (5) "L.A. football coach starts youth 7v7 league to combat lost skills from drop in tackle football", USA Today High School Sports, 2/16/18. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having had time now to review the coverage, I am persuaded that it is significant coverage sufficient to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After a Google search turned up significant coverage, including post-pro ball articles, I added to the existing Wiki article. Feature newspaper stories of the subject include those written by USA Today and the Los Angeles Times about the subject's life after his football career. Subject easily passes WP:GNG, plus his football career includes awards and notable records, thus the subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like new research has uncovered enough to pass WP:GNG. Good research team!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the coverage satisfies WP:GNG - the LA Times articles from when he was a player are local blurbs from the team's beat writer and I would classify them as WP:ROUTINE, and while there's a feature article from the hometown paper it's about how he made the practice squad, the reserve team, for a NFL team. He fails WP:NCOLLATH (specifically #3) and WP:NGRIDIRON. The human interest story on his art is interesting but it's by the youth sports writer, and the quote about his 7v7 league isn't bad, but it's not really WP:SIGCOV of him. I'm not specifically !voting because I have a different view of what constitutes routine coverage than the users on the college football project (i.e., he was not a notable college football player and only received press in a football setting because someone was assigned to cover his team locally, and his post-football work would not have qualified him an article had he not played college football) and I've found some !voters who continually vote against WP:GNG consensus disruptive when sources exist, but I want to note my concern. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 25 November 2019 (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) 23:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tosin "Cute Kimani" Adekeye

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable media and hence fails WP:GNG. Article is written like a WP:PROMO and sources provided in the article doesn’t establish notability of subject. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's just not enough in the way of in-depth coverage in reliable media about her. It's an article about a social media influencer who received an award that doesn't appear to be notable and the article attempts to build notability by name-dropping celebrities (notability not inherited). Fails WP:GNG. 23:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog Farm (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It branding, advertisement. Nothing on social media, no coverage at all. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cute Kimani. This article was re-created less than two months after it was originally deleted via AfD, so it could be a possible WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT situation as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GPL93. The subject fails WP:GNG and has not been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is referenced in multiple sources, as listed currently in the article, but this is just a run of the mill DJ and "influencer". The quantity of sources does not matter; the quality of the sources makes one notable. Ultimately, to have an encyclopedia article, a person must have done something notable. This one hasn't. The fan who wrote this page is no doubt well-meaning. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of the article completely fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalluri Sushila

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

Unsourced article since its creation. Per WP:BEFORE I can find no refs this person even existed. Since it makes a claim of significance and she has died years ago, I am using AfD. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, apparently no sources out there. I searched for Sushila Group as well without any substantial results. Skeletor3000 (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not the first time this article has been AFD'd - see the user's talk page. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Andyjsmith: To add onto Andyjsmith's comment, this article has not just been proposed for AfD, but has been speedily deleted before due to lack of any establishment of notability. This version appears to have been created within an hour of the speedy deletion notice on the creator's talk page. It was also created with a peacock template already in place, leading me to wonder if the user just pasted the deleted article's content into a new page after the first was deleted. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps salt it as well. scope_creep^Talk 11:10, 20 November 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes H. Berg Jr.

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

Biography without indication of notability. Created in 2004, and doesn't seem to have seen a non-(semi-)automated edit since. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moving biography. Early historical example of what Wikipedia can be, in a good way. Nothing is disputed about the content of the article. —Doncram (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No non-obituary sources in the article. If other sources are found, please ping me so I can reconsider this vote. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing substantial given by a Google search. With all due respect to the keep !vote above none of those are valid reasons to keep. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i know about Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL as a guideline or whatever it is. As a redirect that was created in 2007 or 2008. Substantial discussion/guideline stuff along those lines was created later than this article, which I believe was fine by all standards back when it was created in 2004. We are not bound to enforce every piddling technicality that one can drum up, you know, by the way.

Note there were 9 "keep" !votes vs. just 2 "delete" (counting nominator) in 2005 first AFD. We don't have to disrespect those people either.

I wonder if this person was himself a Wikipedian, that is not mentioned. If they were, then maybe something could be done at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. The first persons covered there died in 2005.

It is also unfortunate there is only an i.p. address for the original, main contributor here. --Doncram (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect is intended for anybody involved. However, all that has been said in favor of keeping this article, both in 2005 and now, has been trivial and hasn't shown that Mr. Berg passes our notability guideline, which is not in any event a "piddling technicality". There are no grandfather clauses on Wikipedia, which is a very different place now from in 2004; all articles must meet 2019 standards, regardless of when they were created. Perhaps another website can more properly honor Mr. Berg. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly I do not think that the 2005 AFD would have muster by 2019 standards. None of them on either side cite any policy rationale or even give an actual reason other than “I don’t see any reason to delete” or “Other stuff exists”. Some of them don’t even provide a reason at all, just say ‘keep’. I personally don’t have any objection to keeping this article, but I do think that it needs better/stronger sourcing to show that it meets the WP:General Notability Guideline. It’s not enough to prove that he existed and arguments along the lines of, “A lot of people contributed to this article” or “it would be disrespectful not to have this article” aren’t good enough either. Perhaps someone with the appropriate language skills would be able to go through the article on Norwegian Wikipedia and see if the sources there can be translated and used here to strengthen this article? Omanlured (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the most egregious failure of the not memorial guidelines I have ever seen. The last few lines of this artile are totally worded as a memorial. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing memorializing obituaries which this article totally is. Articles like this are everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, providing coverage of European males over people anywhere else and having an over emphasis on coverage of fantasy works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyboss

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

Subject of article doesn’t qualify for inclusion into the encyclopedia as our subject of discussion is yet to receive significant coverage in WP:RS hence falling short of WP:GNG which is the primary yardstick to establish notability. Also he fails WP:MUSIC. A quick WP:BEFORE on google definitely portrays him as a non notable individual. He is a songwriter/Compoer but fails WP:COMPOSER as well Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note:This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what Versace says. TOOSOON at best. Mahveotm (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of the article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG guidelines are not met.castorbailey (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2019 (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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Fulco

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

Unsourced (only "reference" is a vague one that does not lead to the source in question in any way). Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:BLP. Possibly promotional. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources alone isn't a sound reason to delete, but it appears that his most notable tournament finish was fairly minor.[1] His appearances in major international tournaments resulted in 40th and 50th place finishes. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletor3000 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Search on web (EN) found no independent, reliable sources of the subject to indicate passing of notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find was a source that Fulco received a Pokémon TCG Travel Award to the European International Championship 2017. Not sufficient for notability. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the meager sourcing I found wouldn't support notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:20, 18 November 2019 (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 speedy delete screamingly non-notable — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Torrielli

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

Unsourced (only "reference" is a vague one that doesn't actually lead to the source in question in any form), therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:BLP (and therefore WP:NBIO by extension). Potentially promotional. WP:BEFORE check did not bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Search on web (EN) found no independent, reliable sources of the subject to indicate passing of notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any sources to support notability of this person. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find sources that would support notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Marquez

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

Article does not appear to meet notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. ilamb94 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ilamb94 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at first glance I tend to agree, but I'm finding some all-conference and all-century recognition for his college days. It may be worth it to let some of the locals at SIU complete some off-line research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was only a nominee for the all-century team, he ended up not being selected. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Not looking too good at this point, is it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FCS offensive linemen have it rough. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta come down to delete -- generally speaking, offensive lineman do not generate enough press to pass WP:GNG at the college level and that's even more true at the FCS level. I don't see any reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. This article indicates he played in the CFL in 2009. If true, he passes WP:NGRIDIRON. I've yet to discover a fully reliable database of CFL players. The best I know of is cflpedia which does not include him. Anyone have a better resource for CFL players? Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like justsportsstats.com, it covers NFL, CFL, AFL, NFL Europe. His page doesn't show any professional games played, however. The CFL transactions page is very good as well, and it says Marquez was cut before the start of the 2009 CFL season on June 25, 2009. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My findings are consistent with what Eagles247 found. This indicates he was released in late June before the regular season began in early July. If someone can present evidence that he actually appeared in a regular season game (or received GNG-type coverage), I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Balshaj

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

The article, entirely unsourced, is a POV fork of Balšić noble family. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator, the article is completely unsourced and duplicates an existing topic. – Βατο (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xian Gaza

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

While the subject has received controversial nationwide coverage for his advances on an actress and his other exploits. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and has doubtful WP:LASTING effect. Nothing about the subject could be covered beyond sensationalism. And info about his role in the closure of the Kapa Ministry could be mentioned in that article. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All info about him are just scoops from the entertainment section. Had to clean it up for it not to become a self-promotion article. The only notable about him is his vlogs about Kapa Ministry.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I believe there is a rough consensus favoring deletion. I also note that WP:PAG based arguments seem strongly weighted towards that end. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Oluwatobiloba Adeyemi

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

Article is written as though it were an advertisement for subject and his company. Subject of article doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable source. References provided are just repetitions of themselves and non discuss subject in detail. Fails WP:BASIC & WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ther appears more than enough to meet the GNG here. The uN Idea fair win alone is probably enough for notability. Several of the cited dources are interviews, but contain significant coverage in the editorial voice befoe the start of the Q&A, and there is enough even without any of these. I removed some promotional writing from the article, nd it could use further improvement, but I see no reason to delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is no reference provided for subject has in-depth significant coverage in reliable source that establishes notability hence doesn’t scale WP:GNG The only sources I see mostly discuss his work in passing & not him. @DESiegel: if you do find sources that show notability of the subject do provide it at this AFD. Furthermore the article is written as though it were a resume & advertisement. Celestina007 (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have heard a lot about his works and innovations and i personally is impressed by the devotion of a Nigerian youth towards development irrespective of the risks attached. As @DESiegel: as said, the UN idea fair, Leap Africa Fellowship and Eco-E product are enough for notability. Celestina007 i respect your beautiful and very intelligent opinion but you know, "A man is celebrated because of his works, his works define him". This man was given the this priviledge because of his works which led to numerous interview sessions and as we can see indeptly, the sited interview sources contained straight forward significant coverages of the editorial input even before further questioning of the subject. Promotional writings may not have been intentional but since they all have been removed from the article by DESiegel then i believe we can give this a pass as i see no reason to delete.

Perhaps the writer was overwhelmed by the conduct, works and input to community and national development by a 22 year old who was once considered a failure by his class teacher. Hence, I see no reason to delete. Teebabalola (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG and even if Adeyemi did meet notability standards it is clearly a WP:PROMO article (Keep vote above highlights likely WP:COI issues) that needs to be WP:TNTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should be noted that Teebabalola & Diesigel are yet to produce in this AFD reliable sources that discuss subject of AFD with in-depth and establishes his notability. AFD’s arent about how many keeps or delete votes but substantiating your votes with reliable sources (if you claim he/she is notable enough for inclusion) I am upholding GPL93 view; there isn’t enough WP: SIGCOV to show subject of our discussion is notable yet. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON Celestina007 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:RS, and WP:TNT. I don't see how anything the subject has done is beyond what thousands of other business people have done as well, every day. It's not entirely clear what product or service he's created to improve other people's lives; marketing doesn't count. Almost every human being has been told by at least one teacher that they'd be a failure -- that's a trope, not a claim to notability. The sourcing is if dubious provenance. It's so poorly written ("his grandpa...", what specifically is he marketing) that an entire re-write will be necessary. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. I must also point out that none of the awards the subject won are notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funmi Omoyele

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

Article is about a non notable ballon designer. Subject of article doesn’t qualify as per WP:BASIC & WP:GNG as she hasn’t received WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't fulfill GNG requirements. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 20:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not find enough substantive third-party coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He makes balloons. The sources are unreliable and insignificant. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Brads

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. His rubicks cube exploits were covered in the local media. Outside of that, there are primary sources that verify non notable achievement. John from Idegon (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - his accomplishments are worthy of applause but the coverage is entirely local. I'm not sure how that racks up against other, similar champions, but this guy seems to fail WP:42. I'm not going to link past disasters (to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and related drama) but this is the sort of article we usually delete. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAtleast he had been recognised by awards won. Atleast be meets WP:GNG. Rocky 734 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. This person is notable, therefore it should be improved but not deleted.WikiAviator (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Coolabahapple local coverage and lack of English content is not a reason for articles to be deleted. Those can also be RS.WikiAviator (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiAviator, sorry but i have only added this afd to a couple of afd lists, that is all, you may be meaning to respond to someone else? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple world records in a premier mind sport, backed up by reliable sources. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:48, 19 November 2019 (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) 08:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cracker Mallo

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

Article claims subject is an artist, record producer & composer but subject fails WP:SINGER, WP:COMPOSER & WP:BASIC. All references provided in the article are not by reliable media & do not establish notability for the subject. A WP:BEFORE shows subject is not yet notable. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete Some of the more focused coverage of this guy revolves around his production of "Jealous" by Fireboy DML. It seems like Nigeria's charting method is up to each news outlet to determine, but if we assume some reliability, his production of this reportedly chart-topping^[1] song may mean he meets WP:SINGER... also assuming we apply that criteria to producers and not just primary artists. Any known precedent regarding rap producers of questionable notability? Lots of factors here to wade through. Skeletor3000 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:SINGER subject should have multiple non-trivial, published works that has appearances in sources that are reliable & not self-published and are independent of the musician. So could you provide such reliable references for us that shows he passes WP:SINGER ? the ones in the article clearly shows he doesn’t scale through. Even as per WP:GNG he doesn’t qualify. perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Hence a Delete !vote is very applicable to this article. Also you provided a reference that is about a certain artist called “Fireboy DML” that reference doesn’t speak about the subject of our AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed as a producer on the Fireboy DML track as well as some other "charting" tracks in Nigeria. I can find sources and organize the info later if you'd like, but I'm leaning toward delete being the proper response here after reading up on how Nigeria's "charts" work. I'm putting it in quotes because every news outlet decides their own charts. There's no national equivalent to Billboard, etc. Some just list the most viewed YouTube videos of the week, for example. To me this suggests that, even if he produced some popular songs, the lack of any real charting system removes validity from that aspect of any claim to notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mahveotm (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. He has not done enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The subject might become a prominent figure in the future but as of right now, he is still an up and coming producer. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:58, 16 November 2019 (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. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Pullavar

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

Subject not notable. This biographical article only details one event in the subject's life, with no apparent means of expanding the article. A summary of the content of the article is already present in Levitation (paranormal)#Hinduism. Additional sources offer no information about the life of the subject outside this single event. Info about the levitation event is unreliable in most cases and found in tabloid-type sources. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim to fame is that he performed a magic trick that his audience did not figure out? I assume there isn't more otherwise it would already be in the article. Sgerbic (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A passing mention in a book is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I'm not finding any other sources that meet the notability criteria. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Levitation (paranormal).4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Conway (politician)

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

Although briefly an elected local official, Mike Conway does not meet the notability criteria. I could find no significant coverage of him in published secondary sources; the only significant detail gleaned from a google search of his name is the fact that he died in 2016. Further, no details have been added to the body of this article (aside from reference tweaks) since its creation in 2009. Drdpw (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Drdpw (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Drdpw (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one (possible) instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source found in my before (his obituary in the Glendora City News). To pass WP:BASIC we need two such references in different sources. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear WP:NPOL fail with no indication of passing WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless other sources can be found. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Glendora CA is not large enough to guarantee all of its mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors — but this features neither the depth of substance nor the volume of sourcing required to actually get him over WP:NPOL #2. Making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires the ability to write and source a quality article about his political career, not just the ability to offer primary sourced technical verification of the beginning and end dates of his term in office. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus the subject now meets GNG post a WP:HEY by RebeccaGreen (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Allanach

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

Fails WP:GNG. I've only found one proper source, which is the obituary that is already ref'd in this article. Scrolling down Google does not bring up anything that's quite better, aside from a few mentions in a magazine with no biographical information, a document with prohibited access, and a website that seems down. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 16:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 16:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 16:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think. There is several GBook references available. She was the first women Fellows of the Institute of Actuaries. [2]. I think a deeper search in archives will find more as she seemed to very vocal. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have added a couple of new sources, and she appears to have been a pioneer woman in her profession and to have supported her successors. It's unfortunate that my computer doesn't trust the pages of The Actuary website, so I can't check all the relevant material. PamD 17:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources and information. I was able to access the obituary through a Google cache, as my computer also didn't trust the website, and the page has unfortunately not been archived. There is significant coverage in the Actuary obituary and an article in The Daily Telegraph in 1970, when she was appointed deputy actuary at the Prudential - the first woman to reach management level in that firm, as well as the first woman on the council of the Institute of Actuaries. There is also coverage, though not as long, in a 1971 article in The Sunday Telegraph; in the Birmingham Daily Post, which noted in 1968 that she was the first woman elected to the council of the Institute; and in the Daily Telegraph, which noted when she was appointed to the Secretary of State's advisory panel. I believe that she meets WP:BASIC, if not also something similar to WP:ACADEMIC for the impact on her profession of her achievements and her writing (as noted in her obituary). RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the Telegraph story and the Actuary obituary are enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY after the good work by RebeccaGreen. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:56, 20 November 2019 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amrinder Singh (disambiguation)

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

Not necessary considering how short the page is. Could be easily solved with a hatnote at the top of “Amrinder Singh” KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only one Amrinder Singh. One of the other two entries has a different spelling and the other has Singh as a middle name only (John Fitzgerald rightly doesn't list John F. Kennedy). One "distinguish" hatnote for the former is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have added a couple more entries. Useful dab page. PamD 16:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've nominated the singer for deletion, and one politician's name is "Amarinder"; close, but no cigar. That leaves two entries, so WP:TWODABS applies. (A second, distinguish hatnote could be used for Amarinder.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems people could confuse Amarinder/Amrinder. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per User:PamD work. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Very often in Punjabi names, the last name isn't used, so Amrinder Singh Gill or Amrinder Singh Raja Warring could also be referred to as Amrinder Singh, as is even evident from those articles as they stand and the spellings Amarinder and Amrinder are used interchangeably, as is evident from the references in those articles. Therefore there are at least 4 listings for the dab (someone who actually works on dabs - PamD et al, can fit these two in). —SpacemanSpiff 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Have tidied it up and restored names. An entry should not be removed just because it has been proposed for deletion, only if it is deleted. Have restored singer's sourced full name to his article as it had been lost in series of edits. Useful dab page. PamD€

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kia Jam

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

The article was subjected to an edit war recently, with an IP editor determined to remove a short section (added by Greyjoy in May 2019) about the subject having paid £500,000 to settle a civil fraud case. I removed the section, pending a discussion on whether or not it was sufficiently reliably sourced and WP:DUE, but noticed that without the sources supporting the payment, the article was sourced entirely to IMDB (WP:UGC, unreliable). I searched for additional sourced, but the only stuff I could find that was reliable, independent and gave the subject significant coverage was about the fraud stuff. I believe that, per WP:BLP1E, the fraud case on its own doesn't make him notable, but without those refs he fails WP:GNG, and so the article should go. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E is not a stand-alone WP:DELREASON, but typically a reason to rename/redirect/merge articles about the person into the article covering the event they are notable for. It should only result in straight deletion where the event you would otherwise rename/redirect to is itself not notable. In this case, the event (the fraud case) appears to be potentially not notable due to lack of evidence of WP:LASTING impact (it was covered in May 2019 but not since) meaning this fails WP:NEVENT, and is possibly also a WP:NOTNEWS fail. As such there is no event to merge to. If this guy goes any further in the film-production business we may end up recreating this article, but for the moment we've got simple bare-mentions of him producing a single film in a couple of trade magazine articles. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, thanks for this detailed analysis. My thoughts run along the same lines as yours - I wasn't meaning to present BLP1E as a reason to delete exactly, rather it's a reason why this coverage on its own enough to justify retaining the article - and, without any other significant coverage, deleting seems the best option. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jerrome

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

Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. I do not find any kind on in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Presented sources are local, limited to Petworth News Agencies. Not meeting WP:GNG. Hitro talk 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search doesn't any notable coverage beyond Amazon listings of his books. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There are actually a lot of mentions of this man in local press as a local historian, but nothing quite rising to the level of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn’t meet WP:GNG Bubbasax (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can you all have a look at recent revisions please? - a selection of the publication titles has been added and some earlier biog which provides a bit more nobility to the broad, developing role of "historian". The geographical focus is local to Sussex (apart from Hebrew and Cyriac specialisms) but the expanse, depth and rigour of study is there. I will research some peer review that isn't accessible through modern web sources Cazimir (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Hudson (pornographic actor)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: Of the sources currently in the article, only #2 (HIVplus Magazine) represents significant coverage in reliable, external sources. #1 (XBIZ) is an obvious press release, #3 is Hudson's pornographic website, and #4 (Queerty) is a passing mention. (I just removed two other references, both to the unreliable porn blog queermenow.net.) I looked for new sources and found only interviews [3][4] and trivial coverage. This person may or may not have, under a different name, been a member of a fledgling musical group which received some news attention when they raised funds to self-produce a reality web series; in any case, per WP:MUSICBIO, individual band members don't inherit notability from their band. Cheers, gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic actor. Abtehas98 (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the depreciated WP:PORNBIO Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Heart

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT: the current sources are an interview and two award listings. The awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found only a passing mention in Out[5] and a name-drop in the biography of a gay community leader[6]. An editor at the previous AfD suggested two other sources: one is a mention in a photo caption[7], the other another industry award roster[8]. gnu 57 23:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Yet another BLP-violating pseudo-biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of many run of the mill porn actors. Nothing particularly remarkable about him. Graywalls (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Bature Ogbeifun

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

Article claims subject is a musical artist and pastor but does not pass WP:SINGER or WP:RELPEOPLE a WP:BEFORE shows subject does not meet up to basic WP:GNG standards. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Subject clearly fails WP:BASIC. Mahveotm (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. In any case, the line "that is popularly known in" makes me cringe. I assume a well-meaning fan wrote this essay. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable secondary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SINGER. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding any sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Youngblood

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: The two references currently in the article are a listing in an online database and a promotional interview/profile in an adult magazine. I looked for additional sources and found nothing under any of this person's aliases. His industry awards don't count towards anything either, now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Not a notable performer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and there's not solid references. Abtehas98 (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer in pornographic productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2019 (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) 03:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scump

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

All are unreliable sources/non notable person.--121.148.2.133

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP 121.148.2.133 Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As a Nominator, Topic has no reliable sources. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC) blocked[reply]

*Delete. Lacks of sources and all the contents are just trivia. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Checkuser note: Every !vote above including the IP nominator is either an open proxy, or a banned user, or both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close for this bad nomination. A single purpose IP addresses can not nominate a group of articles for deletion, and you shouldn't do it for them. Since the only ones appearing to try to delete it are now blocked sock puppets, kindly close this bad nomination. Dream Focus 05:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, well there is no such rule that I can find that prevents IP from nominating articles. Even if we later ban them, I think they should be left open until there is a clear "keep" consensus. If you wish to change the rules, hold a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Then Keep [9] "The most popular player in Call of Duty, Scump finally won his first world championship in 2017". Winning the world championship in a notable competition and making $652,140 from this, makes him notable. Google news search shows a lot of results to go through, but not bothering since winning the championship alone makes him notable. Dream Focus 22:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, WP:BLP1E? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They get coverage for more than just that one tournament win. Hit Google news search at the top of the AFD. Dream Focus 00:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of the sources provided are unreliable like YouTube, Call of Duty Esports Wiki, Twitter (although some of them are justified since it is the Abner's Twitter but still does not establish notability) per WP:RSP. Most of the other sources are small mentions. Some of the sources do not even mention him like the Scuf Gaming source. Therefore does not establish signficant and thus fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on the two post-checkuser !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [10]] Seems to be a bit of a whale on social media. 2.5 million followers on Twitter, 4.15 million followers on Youtube. scope_creep^Talk 16:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

undefined*:Scope creep, social media presence doesn't automatically means notability. He would need to pass the WP:GNG first. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody has that number of followers, which are verified and close to the population of Scotland, and their videos have been played more than 520million times, then they are notable in anybody's book. That is coverage. They don't play themselves. It is unfortunate the subject works in a industry that is still fairly new, probably less than five years, but it is undergoing stellar growth. I did find a ref on Reuters which combined with what's there already makes WP:THREE references. It is sufficient. scope_creep^Talk 17:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view WP:BLP1E as applying here. This is the man's career and the work he has done is consistent with a career. scope_creep^Talk 18:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not in my wheelhouse, but I can see that the player is plenty notable. Perhaps passes WP:ANYBIO for awards and WP:GNG for coverage. I have to wonder idf the Nominator did a WP:BEFORE. Esports Earnings, Red Bull, Top Ten Highest Earning Player, Venture Beat, He is Called a World Champion covered on ESPN, One ES Sports, Paste Magazine. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, nominated on behalf of IP... --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This local news profile is the only source I've seen which is definitely reliable and definitely significant coverage. There is an ESPN mention to go with the interview. I'm not sure which of those e-sports sites listed are reliable, I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met, I'm not voting either way since only a couple of them need to be reliable but the article desperately needs to be updated if it's kept, as only one of the 20 sources is credible at all. Call of Duty Wikis? Youtube? Tweets? A list of everyone who graduated in his high school class? That's what you'll get from the current sources! Needs to be tagged for cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 10:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites unreliable sources such as wikis and tweets. If notable, about which I have no opinion, needs total recreation based on reliable sources. Sandstein 15:41, 27 November 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabal Singh Bhati

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

An attempt of self-promotion. The subject is not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Awards that the subject has received are insignificant and do not help in establishing notability. Hitro talk 07:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the username of the editor who created the article indicates that this is most likely a promotional WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a resume, not an encyclopedic article. Subject doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable autobio that does not pass WP:GNG per above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pakistan Insani Haqooq Party. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Aftab Sulehri

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

Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG. The subject is yet to contest and win elections. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pakistan Insani Haqooq Party, the political party that he founded. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan Insani Haqooq Party as a plausible search term. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems the best solution, but I suspect we will be back here in as many weeks. scope_creep^Talk 23:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Neither being chairman nor founder of a minor political party translates into an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — the key to getting him a standalone article is to show that either (a) he has actually been elected to a notable political office, or (b) he has received a substantial volume of reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG. But the footnotes here are his own Twitter feed, which is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all, and a very short blurb about him giving a speech, which is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah Nanjeba Torsa

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

I don't see any kind of notability on this subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The references for this are written on the same topic. She just won Miss World Bangladesh 2019, that doesn't mean she is notable. WP:BLP fail. Xain36 {talk} 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xain36 {talk} 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Xain36 {talk} 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. She did win Miss World Bangladesh. Only the winner is notable. I could not find any reason why this article nominated the article for deletion. isn't reasonable for article for deletion. lot of news coverage available , even she is tv presenter, this article pass WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NahalAhmed, Please see WP:PSEUDO. Xain36 {talk} 17:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response. If she was second I would vote for delete, It would be wrong to say that just say it for single event, Dhaka tribune news statement here shown multiple work also got another award , as a tv actress , host and a national competition winner probably pass WP:GNG, Thanks.-Nahal^(T) 08:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Winning Miss World Bangladesh is enough to pass WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:ONEVENT it states if the event and the subject(in this case the winner) both have in-depth WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS then separate articles maybe created for them. And in this case it is not so for the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Doesn't apply here one event because Miss world Competition before she recived first prize for folk dancing ( Bangabandhu Shishu kishor Competition ) given Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. even multiple work tv host & model , i don't find any reason for deletion, Pass WP:RS & WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 09:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep She is proper notable public figure. She is a champion of MWB 2019 and champions always notable in Wikipedia rules. She is also a TV Host. I think this Afd should be remove.ChotoBhai (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ChotoBhai, Per WP:BIO1E: It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person. Xain36 {talk} 17:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:GNG.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Darius Ishaku

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

Fails WP:GNG and no provision for inclusion in Wikipedia for spouse of elected persons in WP:POLITICIAN. Just being the wife of a notable politician does not establish notability. Since the husband of the said person has a Wikipedia article here, it should be included in the article and there's no need creating a separate article for her. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She is not simply the spouse of someone who has a Wikipedia article, She is highly educated and is the founder and CEO of a NGO. IMHO, the focus should be if her work there is wiki worthy. I am not familiar enough with the subject to have an opinion on keep or delete but I strongly feel the discussion should focus on her accomplishments regardless of who her spouse is. Postcard Cathy (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anna Darius Ishaku is not just a wife of a notable politician, she is notable in her own lane as she is the founder of a Non-governmental organization "Hope Afresh Foundation", which is widely recognized in Nigeria. She is also a well educated Barrister and a member of the Nigerian Bar Association, and has held few appointments on her own even before becoming the wife of a governor, among which are; Solicitor-General and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice Kaduna State, Chancellor of Anglican Diocese Kaduna State. I will plead with you to kindly check her work "Hope Afresh Foundation" to see more insights on the discussed person.

Moshswacide (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moshswacide, Hope Afresh Foundation is a pure Taraba State government initiative and not necessarily the initiative of the governor's wife. It was created and operated from the Governor's wife office as soon as the tenure of the Governor started, as seen in 1 and 2. Until you convince me otherwise that she's really a notable figure, I don't find her passing either WP:GNG or WP:BIO just yet. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nnadigoodluck, Hope Afresh Foundation is not a Taraba State government initiative but purely her initiative. In Nigeria, a governor and his family are under the state government, as seen here 1. I will refer you to the foundation official website here 2. You will notice that everything on her here begins with Barr. Anna Darius Ishaku and not as the wife of the governor. And again here 3, as a Non-governmental organization, support from any legit source is acceptable, so any government can as well support the foundation. Even Toyin Saraki's foundation was financial supported by Kwara State government when her husband Bukola Saraki was the governor. My point is, this is a foundation founded by Anna Darius Ishaku, not by Taraba State government and this foundation will not stop functioning even at the end of this government.

Kind regards. Moshswacide (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Criteria per WP:GNG has not been met. W C M_email 10:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nominator, please read WP:WAW - women are whole complete humans. Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A simple thorough WP:BEFORE would have saved us a whole lot time. Subject of article clearly scales through WP:GNG as she has significant coverage in reliable press. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search of the subject appears to show her being discussed in secondary sources independent of her. I found this and this. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khan (Nepali cricketer)

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

Cricket player who fails WP:NCRIC having played no major matches and no sigcov to pass WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment copied from talk page) This is a T20 match that he recently played against the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), and I believe it is a notable enough senior T20 match. [11] Sadbhav Adhikari (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This match is a friendly, and has not been awarded full T20 status, so does not meet the requirements at WP:NCRIC. The fuller explanation at WP:CRIN says or in any senior domestic competition or match Spike 'em (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not played any major matches so fails WP:NCRIC. Andrew Base (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:NCRIC.
Delete Agree with the nominator here as it fails WP:NCRIC by a long way. HawkAussie (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in any major matches and is therefore not famous. MA Javadi (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:NCRIC. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:FILMMAKER. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Alhomoud

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

Was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bader Alhomoud. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the sources of article, subject is notable as a filmmaker who won nationally and internationally awards in notable film festivals. Alibilbao (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides other sources of the article, I found Arabic sources about his films and awards but these 3 sources are directly talking about subject as a film director; [12], [13], [14]. Subject meets WP:FILMMAKER. صدیق صبري (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article has been deleted before. Now it has being re-created it still does not show that the subject of the article has been significantly discussed in reliable press, a WP:BEFORE shows subject fails basic WP:GNG woefully. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the article was deleted one time in past, it's Not a reliable reason to delete this time! Because last time may be creator of that article, didn't provide reliable sources or enough content or the article was short and many other reasons. But this article was written about a award-winning film director that if you check the sources you perceive context is supported by solid sources in English and too many sources in Arabic. For film directors, awards and festivals are notable events in their professional career. In this case you can see awards and entries to film festivals. In my idea subject clearly passes WP:FILMMAKER. Mousafaeq (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:FILMMAKER, covering article by sources in Arabic and English as a award-winning filmmaker, subject meets GNG. Abtehas98 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as identified above the film director has received significant coverage directly about him in multiple reliable sources so that WP:BASIC is passed and there is no need for deletion imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Per the above comments, notability has been established.مضحرالعجایب (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 18 November 2019 (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 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Loel

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

I referenced article about an actor which does not meet the notability thresholds of WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as having no reliable sources, only the unreliable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies as a speedy since there's enough of a vague assertion of notability via the claims of TV roles. That said, it would be good to find someone fluent in Hebrew who can help look for sourcing, just to verify whether or not there's anything out there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think he may actually be notable - he seems to have held major roles in some notable shows and a notable film. I've added them to the page. I haven't looked for sourcing yet, but ideally it should be out there - most likely in Hebrew. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While nominations can't really establish notability, it looks like he was nominated for an Israeli Film Academy Award for Best Actor for one of his films, the Pretzel one. I'm finding coverage in English for some of his other work, so I'm pretty certain that he's notable at this point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I still have some searching to do, but I've found enough coverage to justify notability for this actor and to show that there's definitely more out there. He seems to be fairly well known over in Israel, so most of the coverage is in Hebrew. I will try to add what I've found when I have more time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has prominent roles in notable productions so passes WP:NACTOR with the article currently being improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources there is no longer a need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2019 (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 12:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnia Agu

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

Subject of article does not qualify as per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The article appears as a WP:PROMO and written like a resume & as per WP:NOTRESUME this is wrong. Furthermore article does not exactly establish notability for its subject in any which way as subject lacks WP:INDEPTH coverage in reliable press. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I believe a delete !vote Is most applicable here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe keep because the subject has received the 2018 West African Leadership Summit Award and the Lagos State Award of Excellence, which at least qualifies her for WP:ANYBIO, given the article can be improved.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, now please I would like you to add a reliable source to substantiate your claim on this & emphasis on the reliable source(s) only. Furthermore the page in question has received no WP:SIGCOV in reliable media. A sharp WP:Before shows she falls short of WP:GNG. A quick check on her via google search only shows links to her Twitter page. You recently deleted a undisclosed paid tag that was issued on your talk page by a diffferent editor. Also I believe you get paid to promote & create WP:BLP pages on certain non notable persons. I suspect you of suck puppetry & would report my findings to the appropriate authorities. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment noting the nominator's WP:CANVASing, [15], for the record. ——SN 54129 10:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You aren’t wrong, I did ask Cabayi to look into this AFD as I have seen him in other AFD’s providing reasonable rationale on why an article should be kept or deleted and thought it wise to draw his attention to this one. You see certain Nigerian related articles on the encyclopedia are on non-notable persons & people who create this articles often have a vested interest & financial reward at stake which I strongly perceive is the case here as the editors edit pattern & a mere google search on this current article up for deletion proves this as the subject doesn’t pass WP:GNG or even WP:BASIC. Anyways I appreciate you Serial Number 54129 & your efforts for keeping me in check. Celestina007 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. Google searches of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Some of the sources in the article are broken links, while others are primary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has undergone very minimal changes since it was nominated for deletion. It still doesn’t have significant coverage in reliable sources that show subject has significant coverage in reliable press independent of subject, hence a delete vote is most applicable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG with Guardian and Leadership articles, especially. Also, it doesn't matter if the article has undergone minimal changes. It's either notable or it's not. This article has a notable subject as shown by the references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please @Megalibrarygirl: If it isn’t too much stress do provide the reliable “articles” as you claim that establishes her notability. And please passing WP:GNG is about multiple independent secondary sources having in-depth coverage on a subject. So far I am unable to see that established in the references provided in the article. Please Don’t just !vote keeps because you can or in passing and not provide reliable sources to substantiate your claims. I don’t mean to sound rude or anything & I’m sorry I’ve sounded that way. Please do respond to this if you can. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Sorry I missed this. The articles I mentioned are listed in the article itself. I just didn't have the time to list everything out when I decided Keep. I don't just !vote keep because I can. I really only weigh in when I think it will make a difference. I do expect that people have gone through the sources in the article already when reviewing them for AfD so I didn't think I needed to be much more specific than I was. Basically, I think all of the sources help add up to GNG, which is why I didn't say specifically this article or that one. I just wanted to point out thatLeadership and Guardian sources are certainly RS and she's covered pretty significantly there. Then when you take the other articles, it all adds up to GNG to me. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Megalibrarygirl I thought you probably read it & chose to unlook. I’ve lived in Nigeria/with Nigerians for 20+ years & on face value I know notable & non-notable persons when I observe them. I’m not claiming to be all knowing but I know enough. Any Nigeria-related articles I put up for deletion it’s because they probably deserve to be there. As for subject of this article, the articles by Guardian & Leadership are definitely RS but to be honest are they enough? Are they the “multiple reliable sources” that are required in BLP’s? I’m all for articles on women to be retained on Mainspace but when I see a fraud I say it as it is. I appreciate your politeness by the way there aren’t many good ones like you left.Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina, I appreciate that. I think you and I have different approaches to articles. When I find good coverage in several RS and mentions about someone in several other sources, I find that clearly speaks to GNG. You are arguing for more coverage, which is a valid argument, too. That's why the AfD process is important. We can allow a back and forth between participants and a consensus decision, which is usually fair. I don't expect to change everyone's mind in an AfD. I just want the ability to put in my own decisions when I decide to weigh in. I respect your position, even if I don't agree with you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Moore

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

This is an article about a living person, who seems to be notable only for one event, so I an nominating this for deletion per WP:BLP1E (the 'Subjects notable only for one event' section of the biography of living people policy). She appears to be only notable for the 9/11-related email and has since retrained as a teacher, so it would seem unnecessary to keep an article on her specifically. The details of what happened can be covered in other articles. We do have quite a few articles on British government special advisors, so maybe I am missing some level of notability that this role confers (some have gone on to have political careers). Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for only one event, but the event led to an expression which became useful and is still deployed on relevant occasions, viz: "It's a good day to bury bad news." Her infamous email was an early example of cynical media manipulation, and should be preserved for the historical record as an example of how political advisers were already behaving before the dawning of the age of Fake News.
This is an interesting AfD and needs some reflection. After researching this a bit, I'm inclined to think that there are useable sources but they aren't basically about her. They're about news management. At present we do have news management but it's a redirect to a rudimentary semi-stub at managing the news. We also have media manipulation#distraction. I think there may be an opportunity to reorganise all this related content in a better way, reusing and refactoring the content in Jo Moore so it's about news management rather than about her personally. At the end of that process, I agree with Carcharoth that Jo Moore should be a redlink; but we've got to preserve attribution until we get there so I wouldn't want to delete it quite yet.—S Marshall T/C 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to get too off topic, but if anyone participating in this AfD wants to look at other SPAD articles, ones like Lizzie Loudon (who now works for Rory Stewart but you would struggle to learn that from her WP article), that might be useful as well (some SPADs were recently made peers, such as Elizabeth Sanderson, Baroness Sanderson of Welton and Joanna Penn, Baroness Penn, so while controversial in itself, that settles the notability question there). It seems that in general most UK government Special Advisors (recent ones at least) do go on to a career that can be covered by Wikipedia (often as MPs), but some don't. The careers can be a bit up and down until they end up becoming notable. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some special advisors go on to become notable. Moore on the other hand engaged in downright unethical activities and was driven from politicis. She was not notable then and is not notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom, by WP:BLP1E. Ralbegen (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT and lack of notability. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP generally. Redirect as per above is fine, but I'd be cautious, since it's unclear if it quite belongs there. Not opposed to this being included in some sort of public relations/media strategy sort of article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 23 November 2019 (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's considerable debate about the sourcing for the article and whether there's enough to justify compliance with GNG. I think the arguments for Delete have the better case and policy backing, but I don't read the discussion as holding consensus for that position (it's very much split). For that reason, I'm closing as "no consensus." Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Alciati

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

This person is a non-notable athlete Finball30 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Finball30 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Finball30 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Meets WP:NOLYMPICS. A marathon runner competed in Olympic games is unquestionable notable in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the Olympics, per WP:NOLY. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I despair of Wikipedia sometimes. Because of one SNG we've actually got to keep this article about a bloke who's notable for not finishing a marathon at the 1924 Olympics?—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was at the Olympics at all, his name exists in Olympic-related references and will be seen there by people who will be looking for information about him. The fact that he didn't finish the race is not a reason why he's less notable than the other people he was running next to; the fact that he was in the race at all is absolutely a valid notability claim. It's the frickin' Olympics: win or lose, getting there at all is a highly notable achievement by definition. So even if we deemed him not notable enough for a standalone biography, we would still have to keep his name as a redirect to some other article that explained why he was the one and only athlete in the entire history of the Olympics who was somehow less notable than all the others. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking, from that response, that you feel our decisions about notability need to be consistent with each other?—S Marshall T/C 15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "consistency" in the sense that "if we decide that every Olympic athlete is notable for being there, that means we also have to decide that every writer who ever published a book has to have an article regardless of their sourceability or lack thereof", then no, you're not. Different fields of human endeavour have different considerations — some occupations are much more prone to trying to misuse Wikipedia as a publicity platform for their own self-published public relations bumf than others are, for example, so some occupations have to have stricter notability standards than others do (although there's no human occupation for which we have no quantified notability standards.) Being an athlete is the occupation while getting to the Olympics is a career achievement that not every athlete ever accomplishes at all, so this isn't even as unparallel to other notability standards as you seem to think it is. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, we have 559 people in Category:Olympic athletes of Italy. Somehow, Category:Italian footballers has 5,422 people in it but we only have 98 people in Category:Italian scientists. Do you really believe our notability standards are consistent and defensible?—S Marshall T/C 17:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are more notable sportspeople than there are notable scientists strikes you as an inherent flaw in our notability standards, and not simply a factor of either (a) the number of sportspeople there are in the world compared to the number of scientists, or (b) the amount of attention that notability-making reliable sources devote to them for us to write articles with? Fascinating. Simple reality check: Olympic athletes always have real sources, whereas scientists may or may not. Neither group is getting special treatment; both groups are simply following the sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I understand how it works. I just think it shouldn't work like that. A disparity of that magnitude is wrong, and it's a failing of Wikipedia. We need to apply a bit more editorial judgment in the edge cases like this one, in order to go some way towards leavening the loaf.—S Marshall T/C 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're all volunteers here, and we work in areas that interest us. 5,400+ footballers vs. <100 scientists is for people interested in scientists to work on. The Italian WP category has 277 scientists, and that's before you look at the sub-cats. Serie A football has twenty teams (according to our own article). So from match one, there are 220 notable footballers (20 x 11). Maybe there simply is never going to be 5,400 Italian scientists. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there aren't enough articles about scientists, then by all means you're free to do something about it — but the appropriate thing to do is to take on a project of finding and identifying and writing about more Italian scientists who meet our notability standards for scientists and just don't have articles yet, not to tear down sportspeople who meet the notability criteria for sportspeople just because we don't have enough scientists. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: He's not. Of the 75 competitors listed in Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon (all of them have surnames), five only have initials for a forename, and one of them (Vincent) only has a surname. Now is that "less notable than all the others" or what? ミラ P 02:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to applicable Olympic games article which mentions this athlete per JzG below, subject to further reply significant counter-arguments from Bearcat et al. (ping me!), was ~~Keep, possibly speedy~~ per Bearcat's rationale above. I don't know the rules on the Olympics, but to me, one doesn't need to finish a competition. They could be signed up to participate on the Olympic team and then back out at the opening ceremonies and still be notable. Also, +1 to Bearcat for his reply to S Marshall that different fields of human endeavour (i.e., writing) merit different notability tests. I couldn't have said it better myself; or,

Delete per S Marshall and JzG below. If this alternate !vote helps to establish consensus and prevent a no consensus outcome, then I'm fine with this outcome as an alternate outcome.

Doug Mehus (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SNGs are there to indicate the type of person likely to have enough sources to allow a biography, they are not there to override core policy. There are no substantive sources about this person. We cannot have articles based on namechecks in results lists. Guy (help!) 13:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Interesting. Are you saying, essentially, that because there are no sources which meet WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, the supplementary notability guideline at WP:NOLY doesn't apply? Tagging Bearcat to see your response and consider a reply. Either of you can ping me and I'll consider changing my !vote based on further responses.--Doug Mehus (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, Yes. WP:GNG describes the sourcing needed to meet canonical policy (WP:V, WP:NOT etc). It has wide consensus. Subject specific guidelines are almost all drawn up by small groups of fans of a subject with no non-fan input, they offer a handy guide for consistency and generally indicate the kind of person likely to meet GNG, but if there are no sources about the subject then we should not have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory of Olympians or anything else. There's no reason you can't have a list article with redirects, when you have results but no biographical sources. Guy (help!) 16:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've finally managed to get rid of WP:NPORN, most of the biggest outlier SNGs are in WP:NSPORTS. WP:NFOOTY is particularly egregious.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this technically meets WP:NOLYMPICS, in that he took part in 1924, there is nowhere near enough for WP:GNG. The little narrative there is in the article has been derived from statistical records and I don't think that is sufficient for an article. My take on the argument above is that the SNG provides an indication of potential notability which must then be determined by reference to the GNG. Achieving SNG by means of a statistical mention is not a qualifier for GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because DNF is a participation. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are trivial mentions. Meeting a SNG is an indication of notability, not iron-clad proof of notability. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOLYMPICS doesn't exist because someone decided out of nowhere that all Olympians are notable or to override general notability guidelines. With arguably the exception of the earliest editions, but certainly by 1924, people who attended the Olympics were not just picked out of a hat, they were elite athletes at the national level. In 2019 in English, yes, the only thing that is readily available is that he failed to finish the marathon at the Games, but the fact that he was there in the first place suggests that he had at least some success in his home country, which is probably difficult to find information about unless you have access to Italian publications from the 1920s. WP:NOLYMPICS exists, therefore, because consensus determined that if the individual was at the Games, there is a significant likelihood that sufficient sources for a biography exist that may just be difficult to access. My work is on pre-1952 Egyptian athletes, and information beyond their Olympic appearance is difficult to find in Arabic online, let alone in English. But I happen to have access to newspapers and sports journals from that era and there is plenty of coverage on all of them that would satisfy WP:N with ease. For a country like Italy, which at the time had a better-developed press and sporting infrastructure, there must exist coverage of all of their Olympians that would easily satisfy WP:N, I just can't access it (or at least read it). WP:NOLYMPICS represents that consensus that these sources likely exist for all Olympians, even if we cannot find them, and so we can avoid discussions such as this and presume notability unless there is convincing evidence otherwise. Canadian Paul 17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notion that everyone who has participated at any olympics from 1896 to the present is default notable is just ludicrous. Sourcing is not there to create even semi useful articles on over half of the people who ever participated in the olympics. We need to use better criteria and destroy or revamp the olympics notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon at the suggestion of both Doug Mehus. While the subject meets WP:NOLY, so do a dozen people who don't get articles because the fact that they only have a initial for a forename (e.g. W. F. Theunissen, A. B. Mole) or no forename at all (Vincent) makes it clear that there are not gonna be any biographical info other than participation anytime soon. Perhaps we should make centralized athlete lists like in early modern English cricket, where the scorecards are incomplete to a point where we have people like J. Cox, S. Maynard, Venner, two people named Walker, Morgan, H. C. Howard, Ashurst - oh, I could go on forever. Heck, we even have a Wikipedia:Featured list on the subject. It is extremely important to note that if it's voted to redirect the article, this could have a huge effect on Wikipedia's coverage on Olympic athletes. ミラ P 02:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miraclepine, I think Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon is the actual proper target here where he is mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if there's scope for an RFC about NSPORTS in the round or NOLY in particular.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. That's policy with backing consensus. All other opinions are WP:IDONTLIKEIT viewpoints contrary to policy. If you don't like that particular SNG too bad. We follow written policy. Contrary to the deletionists in this discussion, SNGs exist to temporarily lower the threshold of inclusion in specific content areas where proving GNG compliance is difficult. Otherwise we wouldn't need any guidelines except for GNG. SNGs are just as authoritative as GNG within their particular content area. Stating otherwise is just false. 4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, guidelines aren't policies, and if we are going to go that way, the WP:BIO1E exists to counter that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some AFD closers do favour SNGs over the GNG, but it's standard operating practice at deletion review to overturn them when that happens.—S Marshall T/C 10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon per WP:BIO1E. "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person" The subject is notable only for appearing and not finishing a race in Olympics, ergo we cover the event which we already have an article for, instead of a separate article for the person. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: WP:BIO1E doesn't easily apply to Olympic athletes because in order to qualify they would have had to medal in an important national event (in this case the Italian National Championships Marathon). Even if the article doesn't reflect that content currently, we can presume the athlete would have succeeded in other important races within his own country.4meter4 (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 WP:NRV says that we "that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability" which we don't have for anything apart of his Olympics appearance so it has to fall under WP:BIO1E and "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" and also see WP:MUSTBESOURCES which is an argument not to make in this AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop WP:wikilawyering Jovanmilic97 and use common sense. We have WP:NOLYMPICS for a reasons just like this. The Olympics has very specific and stringent qualifying rules which govern participation, one of which is placement in the highest national event within the sport. We can trust that any athlete that was accepted passed that criteria. Therefore WP:BIO1E can never apply to Olympic athletes.4meter4 (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would point Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to you as well for using WP:NOLYMPICS and I can also turn WP:COMMONSENSE back to you for WP:BIO1E. I am sad to see you attacking me (and I see other editors above for being deletionists with no proof) when you have no additional arguments, especially since I respected your editing/AfD participation. I'm also not going to reply further since your post above was an enough indicator that we won't get to an agreement, and I'm not going to be involved in a petty reply drama here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I have a pet peeve with editors who ignore SNGs. They are there for a reason. SNGs were written for cases just like this one. It does seem incredibly disrespectful to the community that took the time to carefully put these SNGs together. SNGs were made to temporarily lower the bar for inclusion when GNG compliance proves difficult. If we are going to insist on WP:SIGCOV in every case, then we might as well delete all SNGs as completely irrelevant. This will be my last comment on the matter. Appologies if I upset you.4meter4 (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid that's not how it works. SNGs don't trump the GNG. Some AfD closers do make mistakes about that and we routinely overturn them at deletion review.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think SNG trumps GNG, they are an indication that GNG likely exists. Do you believe we have exhausted our search for pre-internet Italian sources, the most likely place this would be covered? Canadian Paul gets to the essence of why SNGs are important. For those who want to delete by redirect, what are you going to do with the non-olympic information per WP:PRESERVE? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What info to be preserved? His birth info and athletic club (the 2nd one being completely trivial)? In any case we already WP:PRESERVE by doing a redirect while keeping the history intact. The target article could be expanded with more info about the competitors too. WP:IMPERFECT applies.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see anything encyclopaedic enough to qualify for preserve either. But I'm not sure expanding the redirect target with the dates of birth and athletic clubs of the participants is necessarily very helpful for our readers. If these editors need more time to exhaust their search for pre-internet foreign-language sources, then I have no objection to moving this content to draft space while they work?—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, well, and concisely, said: SNGs do not trump the GNG. It's good to hear that this is (one of) the purpose(s) of deletion review. Doug Mehus T·C 14:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NOLYMPICS. Agathoclea (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have the time to research this individual, but it's worth noting that the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (sports), of which WP:NOLYMPICS is a section, specifically says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." (Emphasis mine). This SNG is not a substitute for GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, Yep. Good emphasis. SNG becomes moot and there's no indication WP:GNG is met here. Sadly, seems like a clear cut case of delete. Doug Mehus T·C 21:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: SNG becomes moot because... why? How are you so certain that there aren't Italian sources from the 1920s? How are you certain GNG is not met? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
78.26, We have to prove offline sources exist, per Bearcat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Stuart. Thus, I believe that, until WP:GNG is proven to have been met, deleting without prejudice to re-creation, ideally through AfC seems reasonable. Doug Mehus T·C 22:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have all the respect in the world for Bearcat, and while we often have different perspectives I don't disagree with what he wrote there. However, this article is not based on primary sources, and an Olympic athlete is not in the same league as a local politician. I believe that it is cases like this that make SNGs necessary. I believe that those who want this deleted should show one of two things, either 1)that it is highly unlikely that any reliable, independent sources exist for an Olympic athlete, from a foreign country, from 70+ years before the internet, 2)or alternatively, that community-supported/vetted guidelines such as WP:OLYMPIC are never valid and should be overturned. Re: to S Marshall, I think the most important aspect to preserve is his best time for a marathon, outside the Olympic events. All things considered, I think the pie-in-the-sky option would be to place the information in a "list of 1924 Olympic Marathon Participants". The verifiable information at hand would easily fit into a table. But as this doesn't exist, I believe the best option for readers seeking to find deep information about a premier event from nearly 100 years ago is to keep this article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NOLYMPICS. This is an athlete from a non-english speaking country who participated in the Olympics 95 years ago so doing WP:BEFORE on Google is probably not going give many results. As he passes WP:NOLYMPICS, one can assume that he passes WP:GNG until a thorough search in Italian newspaper from that era proves otherwise. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit steve, Disagree that he meets WP:GNG by assumption. Nothing wrong with deleting and letting someone try again, preferably someone in Italy with access to local sources. Doug Mehus T·C 20:14, 18 November 2019 (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. This is very borderline, and difficult to get at any essential notability due to the article being poorly written with trivial sourcing that should not have been used. As noted in the discussion, the article is not focused on why the subject is notable (which appears mainly due to the Nextdoor incident), but attempts to create a general notability for which there is little evidence. There is some disagreement over the value of the alcohol article in establishing notability. I haven't given that article nor the discussion against it much weighting either way. It appears to a promotional piece for a book she has written, though that thought is not present in the discussion, so I have not considered it as weighing against notability, and on the whole have viewed that article as possibly leaning toward notability, though it would require more than that to keep the article. The most viable piece of sourcing for the subject's notability is the Nextdoor incident, though it is argued that coverage is about the incident rather than the person, so one event would apply. The delete arguments used in the discussion are more closely aligned to our inclusion criteria and policies than the keep arguments; and though there are more keeps than deletes, the keep statements are more assertions rather than rationales. "Meets XYZ" without giving details is not helpful to a closer. That is not to say there aren't some detailed keep statements and a healthy and lively discussion has taken place, but where there have been solid keep rationales, they have been refuted by reference to inclusion guidelines. I did consider this as a No consensus close, but on the whole feel that the delete arguments were more convincing when looking at the article and the sourcing, so close as delete, though will userfy on request to anyone who feels they can rewrite and refocus the article appropriately. SilkTork (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erica C. Barnett

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

Noticed an open RfC on Talk:Erica C. Barnett regarding whether to restore, or leave deleted, some content from a potentially editorially conflicted editor Ericacbarnett who appears to be the subject of the article in question. I think this misses the larger point—that is, is this subject notable? As written, most of the references are either passing mentions, tangentially-related, and there's a fair bit of primary sources authored or co-authored by the subject herself. No indication of any significant coverage. Thus, I thought we should bring this to AfD as a potentially non-notable blogger and regional radio personality/guest host. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly tags: Chetsford, as initiator of the open RfC, and Bearcat, for his expertise with respect to person/biographical notability as there's a lot of primary sources, passing mentions, and questionable, non-reliable sourcing in this article. As well, the potential WP:COI doesn't help and it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON for her autobiography which is not yet published. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The bulk of RS merely mention her in passing as the author of this or that article. I almost AfDed it myself but found more thorough - albeit unflattering- treatments I thought redeemed N (which are currently undergoing RfC as to whether they should be included after the subject of the article issued a call on Twitter for the article to be defended against "assholes" [I think that's me]). I don't suspect the RfCs will allow said coverage to be included due to lack of participation from non canvassed editors. Since the only sourceable references are, therefore, not SIGCOV I'd cautiously support delete with no prejudice against future recreation. Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, Agreed. I think once she's got her autobiography published, given her journalism work, she may be notable, but WP:TOOSOON seems to apply here. Perhaps, then, someone, non-editorially conflicted can re-create a slimmed down version this article? ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the three articles at [16][17][18] are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and the sources at [19][20][21] show the subject is considered a signifant player in the post-print media landscape, doing city hall beat work after the downsizing of print newspapers. The sources at [22] [23][24][25][26] further corroborate this, demonstrating that Barnett has filled the void in local reporting using new media and crowdsourcing. Taken together, they meet WP:ANYBIO, that the person made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShe is undoubtedly notable, and a significant presence in the public sphere of the Pacific North West. In the age of a decline in the influence of print media, she has earned the hostility of the establishment, reporting on issues that otherwise would have been passed over.Oldperson (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, which is challenging for a profession like a journalist (or historian), where they're usually the ones writing about others, not being written about themselves. Schazjmd (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a number of concerns about the article - many of the sources in the article don't cover her in a WP:GNG capacity, the (only two though three links exist) sources listed above which appear to satisfy WP:GNG only cover her in the context of one event, and the article definitely has some COI/promotional issues. I expect this to be kept based on experience and I don't mind draftifying, but based on context and sources, I don't see her as notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I agree. I'm not seeing any sources which provide significant coverage on which to write more than a stub-class article. I assume there's a similar provision for biographies as WP:CORPDEPTH such that we cannot use all primary sources to write a longer, detailed article because there may be two or three sources that meet WP:GNG but because they make relatively little mention to the subject, we can't "get" much out of those sources?

Don't get me wrong, she's to be commended for her investigative work uncovering malfeasance, corruption, or shenanigans at Seattle city hall in age of declining print journalism, but we need to remember to check any biases or preferences in favour of seeing whether the subject is notable, eh? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some bloggers are notable, and this one is per the SIGCOV in RS. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not adequate to show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RS clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. Those saying otherwise are clearly WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.4meter4 (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is SIGCOV? SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, Well said. I think we're seeing a lot of vague waves here from the "keep" camp, which is likely why administrator RL0919 relisted it as still in "no consensus" territory. Good example of not !vote counting by RL0919. Doug Mehus T·C 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The charitable, good faith assumption is that we're seeing editors who evaluated two arguments, found one more compelling than the other, and !voted without need for further embellishment, confident enough to ignore bludgeoning and sealioning. Ignoring someone yelling "debate me, dude" doesn't make them right. It usually means that the facts are already on the table and further debate would amount to mere repetition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, True, but I'd note only one editor (yourself) has provided sources to substantiate whether WP:SIGCOV is met here. It would be nice to have some substantive analysis of the sources, so we can have a collaborative and constructive evaluation of the sources on offer. I've said why I disagree with that, so won't repeat, but I'm just saying that it would be nice to hear other editors say why they feel those sources meet WP:SIGCOV beyond merely stating that they do. SportingFlyer, did you have anything to add to this, since we're replying to your comment? Doug Mehus T·C 20:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you should assume they're competent and diligent enough to have read the prior !votes, and choose to be concise, rather than re-state facts already given. If this was a blatantly obvious swarm of newly created SPAs in response recruiting on Reddit or someplace, you might have reason to question their competence, but there's no hint of such a thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I'd be open to withdrawing my nomination as "speedy keep," without prejudice to renomination in the future (although there's never prejudice to renomination in the future since AfD discussions are notionally not precedent-setting); however, I'd need the consent of Johnpacklambert, Chetsford, and SportingFlyer to proceed since differing opinions have been expressed. Doug Mehus T·C 21:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles presented above, in my opinion, get us close to WP:SIGCOV. The first three presented are about how she was suspended from Nextdoor, which isn't about her but something which happened to her in furtherance of her own journalistic position. In the other sources, she was on a panel, she was in a story about the panel she was on, a story she wrote was mentioned in another story (twice), and she's got a brief blurb from SeattleMag for starting a blog. Where's the significant coverage of her specifically? All we've established is that we've verified she's a journalist in Seattle, but there's absolutely nothing here which suggests she's notable enough for Wikipedia to have noticed. She hasn't received any sort of coverage outside of Seattle, either, and the articles which claim to establish WP:GNG are all about one event, the fact a website shut down her account. Given all that, I think it's absolutely fair to question those !voters who claim WP:SIGCOV has been established. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer and administrator Chetsford, thanks for the added discussion. Yes, this is the sort of thorough vetting of the sources Dennis presented which should help the AfD closer thoroughly analyze whether WP:GNG is met. I'm of the same opinion as you both; the articles presented aren't what I'd call significant coverage. She's a noteworthy Seattle blogger for uncovering city hall corruption and misspending, but noteworthiness does not equal notability, as I understand it. So, I tend to think this is actually a delete rather than a no consensus, at least not yet. When significant biographical works (in book(s) and/or significant, at-length biographical essay or documentary about her) are created, we can always re-create this article. Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We often see this argument in WP:N discussions about journalists, that because their name is often cited by other journalists we can create a long reference list and a long reference list must mean WP:SIGCOV is crested. But the articles about Barnett do not contain deep, biographical information, they are merely acknowledgments she reported on this story or that story and, because this is her profession, do not rise above the level of merely WP:ROUTINE coverage of her. Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not routine for lone bloggers to scoop major news organizations, on their own beat, with consistent regularity. When you call it routine, you’re arguing with cited sources that tell us Barnett has had unique success in the wake of newspaper downsizing. You’re asking us to weigh your personal opinions against reliable sources. Sources carry more weight than an editor’s original research. Deep biographical information has no relevance to notability. We don’t delete articles about people with significant accomplishments because we don’t know the name of their high school or their birthdate. Such trivia is beside the point. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't see anything in the sources which would lead me to believe Barnett has had "unique success" as a journalist. In fact, reviewing the sources, I think that argument is WP:SYNTH. I've discussed the extent of the sourcing above, and I do not believe there's anything which definitively demonstrates she's notable in any of the sources. If there are articles written specifically about her, not four-sentence blurbs which discuss her in passing with her other editor, not stories that could have been written by any journalist who was temporarily blocked from a website, which I acknowledge is difficult for a journalist, I'd be more inclined to support. I just don't see any accomplishments here much less any significant ones. I also searched for the most important Seattle journalists to give you an example of someone I'd find notable - Mike Baker received national press for winning a journalism award and he doesn't have an article yet, but he would be an example of someone I would think would be a wiki-notable Seattle journalist. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which other independent journalists regularly scoop major media, changing the course of events and public policy in the process? If it's routine, it must happen all the time. I see Barnett credited in the Seattle Times regularly, but I don't see other names similarly credited. I see her cited for the significance of her work after the decline of newspapers, and you're saying there's many others just like her? Who? I'm looking at sources telling us Barnett is particularly notable for this. So you have sources saying there are many others like her? Please cite them. Mike Baker is an example of the opposite, one of the few remaining major newspaper employees. Twenty years ago reporters like Baker covered city hall, but now, per multiple sources, we don't find out what's going on from the Times, the local TV stations, or NYT correspondents like Mike Baker. It's not clear we would get any such reporting if it weren't for Barnett. Not that anybody is stopping you from creating an article about Baker; whether he is notable or not isn't really relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I can think of a few independent and mainstream media journalists who do independent exposés on those subjects, including Essex Porter, Christina McKenna (former KIRO-TV journalist; now in academia and no longer reporting—the linked "Christina McKenna" is someone else), Robert Mak (again, not the journalist who even had his own KING5 Investigators TV program!), and Sharyl Attkisson. Three of those don't have Wikipedia biographies likely because they'd fail WP:GNG despite them having more notoriety. Ms. Attkisson has her own article because there has been a lot of significant coverage about her and she's published multiple non-fiction bestsellers. Erica C. Barnett does not seem to be there, at least not yet. Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the citations that they regularly scoop major media? Where are the citations that they played a major role in the post-newspaper landscape? The claim is that ECB’s work is merely routine, so the Seattle Times, KOMO, KIRO, Stranger, etc must routinely credit others as they do Barnett. Please. And why are you mentioning employees of major media and not independent journalists? Because there are few if any others like her? That she is exceptional? Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there still are some mainstream media journalists left in the investigative reporting realm. So she's not the only investigative journalist left. Nonetheless, I don't think that makes her notable. Commendable? Certainly. Noteworthy? Perhaps. Notable? No, not yet. Doug Mehus T·C 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christina McKenna isn't working as a journalist, correct? She's evidence of the exodus of investigative journalists, yet your fellow editors here would see your list of names and be deceived. Sharyl Attkisson? When was the last time she did any Seattle reporting comparable to Barnett? Seems to be working full time as a Trump apologist, promoting Russian state media anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories. A bunch of anti-vaccine "exposes" before that. While Barnett's reporting has affected public policy, this Atkinsson person can share the blame for debacles like the 2019 Pacific Northwest measles outbreak. Are we supposed to take that seriously? Essex Porter appears to at least still be employed, but doing what investigation? Citation please. Robert Mak hasn't done anything since 2016, and even then, no investigation.

It appears you're making a series of false claims. You tell me there's all sorts of investigative journalists here in Seattle doing the same things as Barnett, yet you can't name one. The names you've given suggest there's an extensive list, when in fact that's entirely misleading. Would you please retract your false claims? None of the names you've mentioned support your case; in fact, they are merely a list of the journalists who have left the field, and evidence that independents like Barnett have the city hall beat to themselves. Your examples only underscore Barnett's exceptional status. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I'm not sure how you see my claims as "misleading." We're comparing notability of comparable journalists, whether print or non-print. I'm not trying to suggest Sharyl Attkisson ever worked in Seattle or covered Seattle city hall like Erica C. Barnett. I used her as a point of comparison in that she, like Barnett, is an independent investigative broadcast journalist. Likewise, whether McKenna or Mak are no longer working as journalists, I am going from my memory of them having done good exposés for which each won journalistic awards from their industry peers on Washington State political misspending, political corruption, and the like.

I reject your claim that Ms. Attkisson is a "Trump apologist" who promotes "Russian state media anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories." I'll work on digging up the stories Porter, McKenna, and Attkisson have won either of an Emmy, RTNDA, or Edward R. Murrow award, but am busy right now. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as I said, Erica C. Barnett may well be noteworthy for the investigative work she's doing, but we need more than that to confirm notability guidelines for people. And, even if she may meet the SNG for journalists, she still fails WP:GNG due lack of significant coverage in multiple (minimum two; three is better) reliable sources beyond merely one, two, or three line, or even paragraph mentions about her. Multiple works noting her laudable work is a start, but it doesn't equate to significant coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors agree with my three sources that meet GNG, and my several examples that add upt to meeting ANYBIO. You posted your objections, and failed to sway most of them. Not much to add.

On Attkisson, here you go. And here. In what way, shape, or form is this investigative journalism? And why are you ranging far and wide across the entire United States to find investigative journalists?

Here, in Seattle, one of the two major daily newspapers stopped printing, and the rest underwent massive downsizing. Sources tell us Barnett is notable for filling the void left in local reporting. In Seattle. Barnett is repeatedly credited with uncovering news that nobody else got, and having a decisive impact on subsequent events. You tell us the sources are wrong, and pretend you have evidene of that, but you're only throwing around a lot of names that are irrelevant, and don't offer evidence that the sources are wrong about Barnett.

Can you cite anybody else doing what Barnett is doing? Here. Not off somewhere else. Not a Sinclair Broadcasting-paid propagandist. A real investigative reporter. Not someone who did investigations 10 or 20 years ago. Now, in the current media environment.

Everything you're posting here is misleading and disruptive to the discussion. You claim there are lots of others like the subject, and throw around a long list of irrelevant examples. Please retract these claims if you can't substantiate them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree and I think we're always going to, it's as simple as that - but the fact of the matter is, I've just looked through everything you've posted here and the sources in the article and there are no sources which state Barnett "frequently scoops major media" or that she plays a "major role in the post-newspaper landscape." There are articles on her alcoholism and a blurb about her memoir, but that is your own conclusion and not the conclusion the sources support. You write she's "repeatedly credited with uncovering news nobody else got" - are you talking about the single-sentence mentions in a couple of the articles above? Where's the evidence she herself has had "decisive impact on subsequent events?" Where's the source that says that? Sorry to be pedantic, but sources =/= notability, and I'm not "refuting" the sources - I'm saying none of them are enough to demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, Well said. I wasn't trying to in any way be misleading, as Dennis claims. Nor was I trying to suggest Ms. Barnett's work is not laudable, but, like you and administrator Chetsford I'm not seeing any reliable, independent sources that provide Ms. Barnett with significant coverage about her. Doug Mehus T·C 00:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, to the satisfaction of most who read my !vote. I asked you to cite examples of anybody else doing work equal to Barnett's supposedly "routine" reporting, and you offer none. Now you ask me to waste my time repeating everything already stated and cited? The evidence is here in the current version of the article. Click on the footnotes and read. They tell you what ECB uncovered that others missed, and they tell you what influence it had on subsequent events. I'm not going to bother walking you through it if you won't bother citing the examples I asked for, or else admitting you have no comparable examples.

Most of the editors who saw my argument and read the article !voted keep. You're challenging me to go over it all again? That's bludgeoning and sealioning. You can forget it. You claimed ECBs work is commonplace, routine, yet when asked for examples of anyone else doing the same thing, you deflect. That says it all.

Dmehus, please retract your false claims, or cite support for them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I haven't made any "false claims." I'm currently busy right now, but will try and find sources showing Christina McKenna's, Essex Porter's, Robert Mak's, and Sharyl Attkisson's Emmy, Edward R. Murrow, and RTNDA award wins for "investigative news reporting" within the next day or so. In the mean time, I might suggest a Google advanced phrase search for their names and phrasing for their award wins with respect to investigative reporting.

The only ones who have presented any sources or substantive discussion beyond mere !votes are yourself, SportingFlyer, administrator Chetsford, and I. You presented the sources, which SF, Chetsford, and I challenged as meeting significant coverage. I'm not asking you to explain everything over again, so not sure how you might see that as "sealioning" or "bludgeoning" (sorry, I'm new-ish to Wikipedia editing and not familiar with those Wikipedia essays). I am assuming good faith, and ask that you do the same with me with respect to trusting that I know what I am talking about; I watched those reporters' investigative reports for years in the mid to late 1990s when I was 14-18 years old. Doug Mehus T·C 00:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked for, and I think it's unhelpful, and even disruptive, to continue to waste others' time talking about people who are not investigative journalists in Seattle. Nobody cares that Attkisson won an Emmy 20 years ago (she burned her reputation to the ground since then with anti-vaxx misinformation[27][28] and far-right talking points). Twenty years ago Barnett had a job at a newspaper. What this is about is what happened after the newspapers had mass layoffs, and the remaining local reporters were spread too thin to sit through hours long city council meetings taking notes of on things that mostly go nowhere, poring over public documents and transcripts and mostly coming up empty. That's what changed. Seattle used to have two daily newspapers and two vibrant weeklies that paid multiple reporters to spend all their time doing this stuff. The TV news had to be good enough to compete with that. You're right that many years ago there were all these people doing that work, but that's not what this is about. Now the workforce is laid off and scattered, as in your examples of former local reporters who are now off elsewhere doing something else.

If you have no examples of anybody here in Seattle doing what ECB does, then please simply admit it and stop this waste of our time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I apologize if you feel it was an unnecessary diversion. SF, Chetsford, and I have disputed that the sources you provided meet WP:SIGCOV and explained our reasons why.

You're probably right that my including the other journalists' accolodes was an unnecessary, tangentially-related diversion, so I'll concede that.

I maintain my position that the sources you provided, for which I duly thank you for doing in addition to your discussion contributions for which I also thank you, do not meet our definition of WP:GNG. Erica C. Barnett may well meet the SNG for journalists/bloggers for her investigative journalism, which I'd already stated, but perhaps Chetsford and SF can clarify...SNGs an are an additional guideline, not an "instead of" guideline. Put another way, meeting an SNG means a subject is likely to be notable, but it does not guarantee notability if the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, which is what we're arguing. Does that help clarify? --Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not what I asked for, and I think it's unhelpful, and even disruptive, to continue to waste others' time talking about people who are not investigative journalists in Seattle." For the record, as an observer - and occasional participant - in this conversation I do not consider my time is being wasted. Chetsford (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have no examples of anybody here in Seattle doing what ECB does" - There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes notability insofar as Wikipedia is concerned. There is a difference between a person being objectively notable and a person being notable for purposes of WP. A person is only notable if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. A person who invented a working time machine would not be notable, as far as WP is concerned, if they were not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Barnett may very well be filling a void left by the demise of newspapers or whatever, however, the doesn't make her notable for purposes of WP. She may well deserve a prize or an Attaboy, but that doesn't mean she gets a WP article. There is only and exactly one route to notability for a journalist and that is through WP:SIGCOV. Our individual perceptions of their value or goodness is not a route to WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that at last we agree on the facts. Some of us feel those facts meet at least one if not two routes to notability, while your opinion is they don't. Not much more to say.

Unfortunately, as with the howler earlier as to the use of original research in an AfD discussion, a bit of misinformation has been introduced here, and someone needs to correct the falsehood that WP:SIGCOV is the 'only and exactly one' path to notability. At the top of WP:N: "it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". I've cited 3 sources that I and some others feel meet WP:GNG (also known as SIGCOV), and even if you aren't convinced of that, I've argued that the topic also meets WP:ANYBIO, for the reasons I stated above. Some others agree with me; you and some others of course disagree. Fine. Your opinion is your opinion. Maybe you think you've made strong arguments, but I don't see any valid arguments because you haven't cited sources that support them, such as for example, instances of others doing the 'commonplace' 'routine' thing that ECB is supposedly so unremarkable for. But lacking sources, it's ultimately a matter of editorial judgement, whether one, or both, of the two claimed routes to notability are met here. --Dennis Bratland (talk)

"Not someone who did investigations 10 or 20 years ago. Now, in the current media environment." Dmehus can validly cite someone from 1,000 years ago if s/he likes. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This is Wikipedia, not Everipedia. Chetsford (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether or not those other people are notable. It's whether any of them are counterexamples to the assertion that Barnett's work is exceptional, not routine. That fact that 20 years ago these other reporters did routinely do the work that Barnett, and few if any others, now do with no institutional/corporate support, actually bolsters the case that she is notable. Some editors here have claimed her work is merely routine but so far none have named anyone else who does what Barnett does. The !delete argument hasn't cited any of the most obvious kind evidence that would make their case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"none have named anyone else who does what Barnett does" Because that's WP:OR. We don't engage in original analysis of resumes and notability is not a synonym for uniqueness. The world's only one-armed trapeze artist may be unique but, unless he is the subject of significant and non-routine coverage about himself, he is not notable insofar as we're concerned. You seem to be under the impression that we're here to pass judgment on Barnett's qualifications or innate goodness, which we're not. As far as I know, she may be the most fabulous journalist since Edward R. Murrow. Neither the presence nor absence of a WP article is a comment on a person's vocational competence. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:NOR says: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."

Second, you said "acknowledgments she reported on this story or that story and, because this is her profession, do not rise above the level of merely WP:ROUTINE coverage of her." Did a source say that? Or is it a conclusion you reached as a result of your own original research? WP:ROUTINE says it's a common thing, everyday. If that's something that happens every day in Seattle, that local independent journalists are credited by major media with scoops that affect subsequent events or policy, then cite them. Or simply admit that there isn't anybody else getting credits like this in the Seattle Times, the weeklies, and TV news.

Innate goodness? What? Are you just making stuff up now? Can you focus on the subject at hand, and on the issues that have actually been raised? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you just making stuff up now? Can you focus on the subject at hand, and on the issues that have actually been raised?" Hi Dennis - I appreciate your passion but it would be welcomed by myself, and others in this dialog, if you could winnow your comments to those related to our policies and not use the Talk page to attack or disparage the motivations of other editors as you did here, and have repeatedly done with others. Thanks, in advance, for your kind consideration and your willingness to help make WP a welcoming space for civil discussion. Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you had no reason to say "You seem to be under the impression that we're here to pass judgment on Barnett's qualifications or innate goodness, which we're not." You pulled that accusation out of thin air, correct? If you didn't, then please cite what I posted that would justify characterizing my editing in such an uncharitable way. It appears you're casting aspersions on me, for what reason I can only guess. Please assume good faith and cease questioning my motives, or belittling my posts by accusing me of advocacy or somehow promoting anybody's "innate goodness", whatever that even means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You pulled that accusation out of thin air, correct?" Incorrect. Chetsford (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, excuse me but I think you forgot to post the diff that goes with that. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, very well said. Erica C. Barnett may well be an intrepid investigative journalist willing to hold the powers to be to account, but of the sources provided so far in this AfD and of the sources I've been able to search so far, like you and SportingFlyer, I can see nothing which amounts to significant coverage about her. A lot of editors seem to be under the mistaken impression that passing an SNG amounts to the subject passing notability, but it's a wrong assumption. Here we have a case where the noteworthy journalist is not notable due to failing WP:GNG. Doug Mehus T·C 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ——SN 54129 15:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be leaning Keep, but it's still in No Consensus territory, so giving another round to develop consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to RL0919 or other AfD closer: note that significant new discussion is occurring in the thread above this line. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 19:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, please note that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are fundamentally subjective. Those advocating for 'keep' have presented some support for WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, and the question is only whether that support is sufficient. There are so many guidelines on WP:BIO that both 'keep' and 'delete' sides have found supporting guidelines. It would be great if there were an objective criterion like a simple numeric cutoff for citation counts, but there isn't.

My opinion is that this judgment call, with reasonable opinions on both sides, should be resolved in favor of 'keep'.

° It should take the experienced wikipedians reading this only a minute to find many articles about individuals who are not and have never been marked as candidates for deletion, despite having far fewer notability-supporting citations—even setting aside "stubs" with zero or one citations. It's worth asking why this article, with 34 references right now, was marked and those weren't. If this article has been marked because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons, because of early COI issues with Ms Barnett making edits, because of the difficulty of defining "Blogger" versus "Journalist", or because it may be a difficult page to manage (this article about an ostensibly non-notable person already has over a hundred edits!), none of those are relevant to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. We should recognize the possibility that the initial flagging and some of the comments above are influenced by those concerns. If those not-relevant concerns influenced claims of non-notability, but are not a valid part of the notability debate, that advocates toward resolving the borderline case by leaning the other way toward accepting notability.

° Many sources assert that there is inequity in the wikipedian population that spills over to what is covered, kept, or deleted. Those sources include Wikipedia: see WP:WORLDVIEW and Gender bias on Wikipedia. In a borderline case about a category of people where the wrong call has been made by wikipedians (historically, not necessarily by those in this discussion), the cautious thing to do is to err on the side of 'keep'. This isn't about affirmative action or lower standards for women; this is about taking in the history documented in WP and the press and using it as one piece of information about how to handle a case with reasonable perspectives on both sides.

° People are sometimes notable locally but not nationally or globally. Have a look at the List of Armenian journalists. Almost all have only one or two citations, but I know very little about Armenian culture, and therefore defer to Armenians about evaluating these pages. I think this is analogous to deferring to molecular biologists about who is notable in molecular bio, even though their names are unknown outside the field.

One side of the discussion states that Ms Barnett is notable in Seattle; the other states that she is not notable from the perspective of wikipedians who seem to have time zone markers outside of the Pacific Northwest. I believe that the subjective evaluation of locals should have more than weight the subjective evaluation of generalists, which advocates for resolving this borderline case with 'keep'. For readers who disagree and advocate 'delete' for this page, the only consistent thing to do is to flag almost every page in the list of Armenian journalists for deletion.

I didn't look for additional citations to respond to the people who state that this is not passing WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, because there is no count-of-citations criterion. Both sides concede that there is some evidence for notability, and everything after that is a subjective evaluation—especially given the many subjective criteria for marking or not marking notability and the thousands upon thousands of wikipages with a fraction of the citations than given here. Context matters, and I believe that the contexts discussed above indicate that we should err on the side of 'keep' in resolving this judgment call.

[PS: I originally created this article; see the head of the talk page for disclaimers.] B k (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe that the subjective evaluation of locals should have more than weight" While a valid belief to have, I would disagree this is within either the letter or spirit of policy. However, thank you for registering an opinion nonetheless! Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B k, I agree with administrator Chetsford here. I respectfully disagree that SNGs can trump GNG. Indeed, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto_Alciati deletion discussion, S Marshall, myself, and a couple other editors, in the minority, argued that the SNGs do not, in fact, trump the WP:GNG. Despite having "competed" in the 1920s Olympics, many editors argued he passed the SNG WP:NOLY (technically, he was scratched in that he never got to compete in the Olympics, but they still argued that he passed that and thus WP:GNG did not apply). The closing administrator even felt that those arguing delete had the stronger case because, in fact, SNG does not trump WP:GNG but still ruled "no consensus."
It's a similar story here, I suspect, in that the delete arguments are, arguably, much stronger, so the best outcome that those arguing "keep" can hope for would be a "no consensus" outcome. That would still effectively mean the article stays in place, with notability still very much in question. But, throughout your long opinion, and the preceding apparent evidence that WP:SIGCOV was met (still nothing about Ms. Barnett has been presented, I noted), I see no evidence as to WP:SIGCOV having been met. Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is certainly an interesting AfD, but I want to counter some of the points which have been recently made:

Local editors are in no better position to determine notability than anyone else, with the potential exception of language issues. The only thing which matters is whether she passes our notability guidelines, and there is nothing that suggests editors from outside Seattle are more likely to determine she's notable than people outside Seattle - it's all about whether there are enough reliable, secondary sources which support her notability. I'm mostly commenting because I'm concerned about some of the keep !votes and don't want to create a slippery slope based on their arguments at other AfDs.
Whether SNGs trump GNGs or not (they do not, the article still requires reliable sourcing), she still fails WP:ANYBIO, as there's no evidence of her "widely recognised contribution" in the historical record.
I don't concede there is some evidence of notability, there's at best one or two articles which might count.
Citation counts are indeed irrelevant, this is a straw man.
For those voters who are passionately voting !keep, please note I'd be open to changing my vote to a !keep if sources which definitively discuss her can be found - not just about her one flap with NextDoor, which as I've said above really isn't about her, and not articles which quote the articles she's written, because that's not significant coverage. I do not think she passes WP:GNG - the best sources on her specifically are blogs, or about a minor event she was specifically involved in. I'd like a reliable secondary source specifically on her which discusses how she's worked to change media in Seattle, and that might change my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those just tuning in, here are some of the articles cited on the page that are about Ms Barnett, but not about the NextDoor incident.

A radio interview.^[2]
A short piece about Ms Barnett's importance in Seattle politics reporting.^[3]
Her mention as one of "Seattle's most influential people"^[4]
Her award from a civic association.^[5]
A piece about why Ms Barnett's forthcoming book is already gossip-worthy.^[6]

There don't seem to be arguments specifically addressing the citations, something of the form "Seattle Magazine's 'most influential' column does/doesn't indicate notability because...", so evaluating whether these are sufficient to pass Wikipedia's notability requirement seems to be a subjective call about an overall impression. B k (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick source analysis of the four articles presented, which emphasises how I don't think she passes WP:GNG:
- 1) Interviews of a subject do not lend themselves to the notability of that subject, they're primary.
- 2) This article is written by the organisation about how Barnett joined that organisation, it's not secondary.
- 3) Barnett is mentioned twice and only in passing, the blurb might lend itself to the notability of the organisation PubliCola but unfortunately not Barnett
- 4) This is a good award to have won! Unfortunately the citation comes from the award's own website, and the only press to cover the award I can find is the newspaper Barnett was working for, so they're both primary. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) SportingFlyer, it's incorrect to say " Interviews of a subject do not lend themselves to the notability of that subject, they're primary." Interviews very much serve as evidence of notability. Nobody gets to have themselves interviewed at will at the New York Times or on 60 Minutes just because they wish to burnish their fame and promote their brand. Sources devote interview space to people who are significant. The word count or minutes or bandwidth a publication gives to a subject is evidence of that. The truth value of what the interview subject says in the interview is a whole other matter; that is WP:PRIMARY. It's no more reliable than if they tweeted it. They're only stating their opinions, not necessarily establishing fact just because the NYT printed the quote. It's WP:SELFPUB in that sense, but the reliability of information as a citation and the value of coverage for notability are two entirely different things. A subject expert can be reliable and cite-able in their field of expertise, yet not be notable enough for a Wikipedia bio about them. Someone can be notable, and have a Wikipedia bio about them, due to the amount of coverage they get, yet not speak a single trustworthy word, or not be considered expert or knowledgeable on any topic except their own opinions. Your error here is mixing up these two categories. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dennis Bratland: Sorry, but please read Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, specifically If it's primary and non-independent, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability.. I am certain I have not erred in my assessment of that source for the purposes of Ms. Barnett's notability. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merely an essay. Carries no weight as a guideline or policy does. All you're telling us here is that out there somewhere is another guy who shares your opinion that interviews don't add to notability. Just an opinion, not a guideline, not policy. Some editors have wished to add this to the notability guidelines, but they've failed because that opinion lacks consensus. It makes no sense. Any John Q. Nobody can go write a Wikipedia essay, but John Q. Nobody can't get themselves interviewed in the Times. That honor is reserved for a select few. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        She didn't get interviewed in the Times. She was interviewed by a local radio station. And it's still not a reliable secondary source. SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, we get that. Once again, as I and others have been saying, that's your opinion. Repeating it this way doesn't give it any more weight than the first time you said it. You all keep going on and on and on with this, but you're not adding information to the debate. You're just telling us all over and over that your position is ever more entrenched. We get it. It seems to bother you that your points have failed to win a majority as the !votes roll in, but this bludgeoning isn't helping. It's time to step back and let everyone judge the sources on their merits. They're just as capable of that as you are.
        I don't like just letting it go when false statements like this thing about interviews are posted, or that there's only one route to notability, or that original research is banned form AfD discussions, but that's how these myths take life. Somebody has to speak up when misinformation is spread.
        But the outcome of the AfD hinges on the sources themselves, not this lame debate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's also your opinion. It doesn't bother me at all my points haven't gained traction - several people I respect agree with me, people like yourself who disagree with me haven't produced any quality sources, and I'm comfortable being correct in my analysis. AfDs aren't meant to be won or lost, they're discussions. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you and to move on. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "not this lame debate" If you feel this debate is lame, we're lame, everything here is lame - as you keep reminding us in different ways - you are free to choose not to participate. Obviously your participation is welcome but I feel it's necessary to advise you that it is also not compulsory, in case you were under the misperception your presence in something you find so "lame" was something beyond your control. Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Dennis Bratland, Essays do help to interpret policies and guidelines, so I would take issue with your opinion that they carry no weight. SportingFlyer is correct, wholly, in his detailed assessment with respect to sourcing. I support all four of his points. Doug Mehus T·C 21:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm only replying because these bald contradictions of policy need to be corrected. People believe this stuff if they read it. Read WP:ESSAY: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia-related topics." Read WP:POLICIES: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." Were I to go whip up my own essay to go with the 2,000 others, saying the opposite of your opinion, I don't think you'd find it helpful. They can serve as shorthand. You could !vote "per <essay>", rather than writing out a full treatise on your opinion, you refer to someone else who expounded on the same opinions. "Sorry, but please read <essay>" is a fallacious argument from authority.

Why not just let it go? Surely you've presented all your best arguments. You really don't need to keep reminding everyone that you support those points which you've previously expressed support for, I count, six times? Each person who !votes keep doesn't need to comment on every other keep !vote saying they agree with the others. If you were to suddenly cease supporting them, you only have to go cross out your !vote. If you say nothing, we all presume you continue to hold the position you previously stated you hold.

I will now not go and post "I agree" under each of the keep !votes. Not. Necessary. We. Get. It. Can we all drop the stick? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles you've cited are, in fact, the very articles you've previously said should be omitted from the article under all circumstances because they supposedly violate BLP (i.e. those acknowledging The Atlantic libel case and her alcoholism). If the articles are RS for purposes of establishing N, then you should have no objection to reinserting them into the article. If the articles are not RS, then they can't even be considered for purposes of N. Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria by which the article is being proposed for deletion strike me as absurd. By this logic, we would delete the article for Harrison Salisbury, which contains considerably fewer independent verifiable sources indicating his importance. If Wikipedia had articles only for journalists who have been frequently and extensively profiled, rather than their work being frequently and extensively cited, we would have very few articles about living journalists, except for a few that have become celebrities in their own right. - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel, Well, that may well be that Wikipedia is full of articles of non-notable journalists who shouldn't otherwise have articles. Nevertheless, that's not a valid argument for keeping this article. No evidence has been presented thus far, of the sources Dennis has presented (the only "keep" !voter to present actual sources; the other "keep" !votes were mere vague waves). We do not, as far as I'm aware, justify keeping articles because other questionably notable people have articles. Administrator Chetsford or editor SportingFlyer may be able to add further to this; better than I can. Doug Mehus T·C 00:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel, Also Harrison Salisbury had an at-length obituary published in a major metropolitan daily newspaper; that qualifies as significant coverage. There are also in-text and footnote references which indicate offline sources exist that would turn that into multiple qualifying services. Thus, I think he passes WP:GNG relatively easily. No such luck for Ms. Barnett. There has simply been not even one qualifying significant coverage reliable, independent source presented, never mind the required multiple ones (WP:THREE indicates that three is considered the best minimum, but two would suffice). Doug Mehus T·C 00:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, "we would have very few articles about living journalists" (emphasis added). Yes, they get obituaries. - Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (if there is any doubt what I'm saying) keep. I would think membership in a short-list of "Seattle's most influential people" would, on its own, come at least pretty close to sufficing for inclusion. - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dmehus: How is Seattle magazine not an "independent source"? or are you saying that inclusion in such a list is not significant? - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seattle magazine clearly doesn't cover her significantly, it just name-drops her twice. It also covers by my count 48 people and the "students, teachers and PTSA of Ingraham High School" in a list format. By WP:OSE, Harrison Salisbury has thousands of matches on a simple Newspapers.com search even though the Wikipedia article itself is currently undersourced. Finally, Dmehus, I would appreciate if you would stop pinging me into this discussion - the case for deletion is clear, but I've already spilled a lot of ink and don't want to spend any more time bludgeoning the discussion here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage for both the Nextdoor incident, as well as other coverage, such as her receiving a “Government News Reporting of the Year” in 2007 [29]. Samboy (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samboy, While the Nextdoor story may be a significant item in her life, it is, crucially, not significant coverage for our purposes of determining notability. There has to be multiple (two minimum; three is better), at length biographical essays or reportings about her life from cradle (or near cradle) to current (or grave, in the case of deceased subjects).

I would also point you, others, and the XfD closer to this recent AfD discussion which closed as "no consensus" despite a plethora of vague wave "keep" votes and a minority of stronger "delete" votes. In that case, which is remarkably similar to this case, the vague wave "keeps" insisted on the subject "competing" at the Olympics so per WP:NOLY (an SNG), he "must" be notable. Similar story here where those !voting "keep" because she passes the SNG for journalists, she "must" be notable. Yet, as SportingFlyer, administrator Chetsford, and I have pointed out, the SNG does not replace the WP:GNG, which Erica C. Barnett has clearly and, crucially, not met. Note from SF's and Chetsford's replies above, the the Sound Effect podcast interview is neither a reliable sources (at least for establishing notability because it's crucially a primary, or quasi-primary, source. The remainder of the sources identified by Dennis in good faith have been mere tangential, passing mentions. Until her memoir is published, and even then, we need at least 1-2 more sources, she's not-notable and should be deleteed. Though, probably the "safe" close for the XfD closer would be to close as "no consensus" (which would have the effect of retaining her article, with notability still in question, and at least appeasing the non-evidence-substantiated "keeps"). Doug Mehus T·C 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a “vague wave” Keep vote. The Nextdoor issue has has significant coverage or is the primary topic of multiple articles in reliable third party sources: [30] [31]. The award she received in 2007, as well as a full article about her upcoming book from a reliable source means there is not a WP:BLP1E issue. Please be aware that “a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive” Samboy (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samboy, respectfully, that's irrelevant whether the Nextdoor issue has significant coverage. That's important in the context of establishing whether Nextdoor is a notable publication (it may well be worthy of its own article, if it doesn't already have one), but such coverage does nothing to establish the significant coverage notability requirement of WP:GNG for Erica C. Barnett.

No one claimed a WP:BLP issue for Erica C. Barnett, so not sure why you are mentioning that. As to your citing some digital-only blog's announcement of her receiving some local award in 2007, that, too is not significant coverage. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple, reliable, independent sources of sufficient length of the subject's life to write more than a stub-class article. The only source that comes close to meeting WP:SIGCOV is the Sound Effect podcast interview, but the problem is it's (a) a primary or quasi-primary source and (b) it's not a qualifying reliable source. Thus, she still fails WP:GNG.

I respect your, and other editors', good faith !votes, even though this is notionally not a vote as it's an evidenced-based discussion, and would ask that you do the same by not saying my replies are "groundless opinion" or "proof by assertion." I'm simply pointing out that this is not a vote and, while some of the replies may not have been "vague waves" (that might've not been the right language), they are, nonetheless, !votes unsubstantiated by policy or evidence. That's all I, administrator Chetsford, and SF were trying to say. Doug Mehus T·C 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Nigerian Music Chart: Fireboy DML's "Jealous" Leads". Retrieved 16 November 2019.
^ Barnett, Erica C. (April 11, 2018). "A journalist gets sober, then hits the bars". Sound Effect (Interview). Interviewed by Gabriel Spitzer. KNKX. Archived from the original on October 26, 2019. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
^ "Erica C. Barnett (and her Mad List of Sources) Joins PubliCola Staff". Seattle Met.
^ "Seattle's Most Influential People of 2011". Seattle Magazine. October 17, 2011.
^ "2007 Civic Awards Recipients — Port of Seattle Press Release". web.archive.org. July 21, 2011.
^ "Seattle journalist Erica C. Barnett is hard at work on a memoir, by Paul Constant". www.seattlereviewofbooks.com. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2019-09-15.

Move to draft. Everyone will be equally unhappy. Gives time for whatever memoir to impact, or not. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick, a reasonable suggestion. This article has WP:PUFFERY and WP:NPOV issues, so I would support that. As well, when her memoir is published by Viking, that would likely go a long way to establishing her notability. Thank you for this suggestion...sometimes it helps to have someone guide us to a reasonable compromise in heated situations. This is one of those ideas. Secondarily, it would allow the article to be cleaned up for the above issues, not to mention Ms. Barnett's repeated COI editing of her own article. Doug Mehus T·C 18:50, 29 November 2019 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Aryal

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

This WP:Autobiography is ref-bombed with misleading, non-independent sources and some mere mentions. I couldn't find WP:RSes to take it past WP:GNG. Either the subject fails GNG, despite being involved with people/activities that do pass it (not inherited), or we need better diggers of sources to provide us with some independent SIGCOV, so the article can be brought up to standards. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sfurti Sahare

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

Non-notable author, less than 300 books solved, lack in-depth references, all signs of undisclosed paid edits. Meeanaya (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for total lack of reliable sources; these include Amazon, blogs, social media, and her old school. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:STUBIFY. A quick Google search turned up some coverage - [32] [33] [34]; I'd support keeping the article per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST, and rewriting the whole thing. Could the nominator explain what less than 300 books solved means? Dee 03 16:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Times of India says she is a bestselling writer. [35] Seems to get coverage in places. Dream Focus 18:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed in the disucssion, though it would be preferable if they could be baked into the article as well. /Julle (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas (political strategist)

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

Article about a political pundit, who has been interviewed for opinions a few times but doesn't seem to have anyone actually taken an interest in him enough to meet our threshold for inclusion as per WP:GNG. The original article was a redirect to John Addison Thomas I have no opposition to it being reverted back to that. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't have much meaningful coverage for a political pundit/strategist. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ferns N Petals. After a re-list, no desire to Keep, and a consensus to Redirect to Ferns N Petals (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vikaas Gutgutia

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

This page has been tagged since 2015 for COI and notability issues. The article was created by the BLP (per username). I do not believe this person is independently notable or passes WP:GNG. I think it should be merged with Ferns N Petals. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are mostly about his company and I'm not seeing anything that establishes independent notability as per WP:BIO. There's nothing much to be merged except their collaboration with Tarun Tahiliani and JJ Valaya, but that is unsourced and not written from a natural point of view so, delete and redirect to Ferns N Petals would be a better option imo. GSS ^💬 07:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ferns N Petals per GSS Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 19 November 2019 (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. Opinions are split all over the place. Essentially, votes are either "redirect / merge" or "keep" being challenged and refuted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Grimes

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

WP:BLP, created by an WP:SPA who may have a direct conflict of interest with regard to the subject, about a person not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for the purposes of earning a standalone biography. Of the 15 references here, 10 are total non-starters in terms of getting a person over WP:GNG -- genealogy records, primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, his own Twitter tweets, his own crowdfunding campaign, non-notable blogs, etc. And among the five sources that are actually real media, one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and one is locked behind a paywall which leaves me no way to verify whether it's substantively about him or just namechecks his existence in the process of being fundamentally about someone or something else -- and all of the other three are covering him in the context of a single incident that just makes him a WP:BLP1E.
Nothing here is strong or well-sourced evidence that we need a biographical article about him as a person, separately from his name already being mentioned in BeLeave -- people are not automatically entitled to have BLP articles about them as people just because they were founder or president of a group that has an article, so nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he’s becoming fairly notable, so I would leave the article for now. — TrottieTrue (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability standards are based on the existence or non-existence of reliable source coverage about the person, not your unverified personal opinions about what the person is "becoming". Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the criteria you have set out. This page meets the notability standards more than many other pages currently hosted. You seem to be attaching a fair few of your own "personal opinions" here. Johnlilburne666 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained in my nomination statement why the sources on offer here aren't what we're talking about when we say that sources are required. Not every web page that exists is automatically always a reliable or notability-supporting source — we require a certain specific kind of sources, and none of the sources here are the correct kind. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly this is a run of the mill, young, non-notable political activist. The coverage on him is shallow and unreliable. That other articles should also be deleted or that the issues he espouses are important do not matter. We are not a British web-host, we are an American charity subject to New York laws about charities. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BeLeave. As best I can tell, he is known almost entirely because of his involvement with BeLeave (WP:BLP1E), specifically its high-profile investigation by the Electoral Commission, and BeLeave consisted almost entirely of him (see for example [36]), so having two articles is duplicative. There are some in-depth stories about him [37], [38], [39] but two of those are explicitly about the BeLeave saga and the other is simply his views on Brexit again, nothing worth covering separately. Since it seems to have been largely a solo project (notwithstanding the Vote Leave interactions), perhaps some biographical information could be added there. The article notes that he features at number 94 on a list of 100 influential Conservatives compiled by LBC but I don't think that satisfies WP:ANYBIO. › Mortee _talk 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BeLeave. He is primarily only notable in the context of that organisation. His legal difficulties fall into the category of WP:BLP1E. Hug^syrup 13:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already presented here and in the article. He's notable for founding the organization and for his legal difficulties which are two separate things making WP:BLP1E obsolete. A merger into BeLeave should be discussed on the talk page and not at AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" and "redirect" are possible outcomes of deletion discussions. Now it's been nominated for deletion, discussing those options is appropriate. I also don't think founding the organisation and the legal issue are separate notability claims (would the organisation have been notable without the legal issue?), or reasons to cover Grimes separately from BeLeave. › Mortee _talk 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortee: Merger and redirects are appropriate outcomes at AFD only when an article does not have enough RS to satisfy GNG but the content is still of value to the encyclopedia elsewhere. In this case, there is enough RS for the subject to have its own article, so a merger to BeLeave is not necessary. Essentially, merger discussions like this should be help on the article's talk page where there is no time clock involved.4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: To reverse that, "keep" is an appropriate outcome at AfD only if the article should be kept, not redirected or merged into another article instead (and the GNG don't guarantee a "keep", e.g. if the article is a content fork or the topic is for whatever reason best covered elsewhere). We disagree about whether there are RS showing Grimes' notability separate from that of BeLeave, which is fine and whoever closes this will weigh up the arguments each way. › Mortee _talk 23:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortee:, that's not policy. If GNG is met we keep. Period. Granted, content forks are often dealt with here by necessity, but this is not a content fork because companies are not individuals and vice versa. The decision to merge the two into one article, is essentially an editorial decision and not a policy based enforceable decision. AFD should not become the host to merger discussions on articles that both meet GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of that is wrong. Two identical articles would both meet the GNG. We would keep one of them. This is turning into a meta-argument that isn't helping, though, so I suggest we leave this here. › Mortee _talk 01:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable based on ongoing coverage of his being investigated over alleged wrong-doings and campaigning for pro-Brexit causes. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" - which there clearly is in this case: BeLeave. Hug^syrup 09:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grimes has become a well known figure in the UK's political debate sphere, beyond being a simple political activist. His name retrieves more than 2,920,000 results on a Google search, which, whilst not being a full indication of notability, demonstrates the amount of coverage that he has received. --RaviC (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An argument based on lots of Google hits is an argument to be avoided in a deletion discussion and is likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of Google hits. For example, a Google hit can mention his name without being about him, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can represent him talking about himself or other things in the first person, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can be written by him, not about him, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can not even be a reliable source at all, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. And on and so forth: simply saying that somebody has some megaboss number of Google hits is not a notability freebie in and of itself, and what you have to show is the number of media sources that represent third party, third person coverage about him as a subject in his own right independently of merely mentioning him in the process of being fundamentally about the organization. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, which is why I accepted that such a reference is "not being a full indication of notability". That said, many of these hits are from WP:RS sources, such as the BBC, Telegraph, PoliticsHome and Sky. --RaviC (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julissa Miro

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

A WP:BLP for a model that has no indication of notability. The only source being used is her own personal website. Doing searches turns up a few social media and business profiles, but no sources indicating notability for the individual. I had initially PRODed this, but had not realized that it had already been PRODed a decade before and contested by an IP, thus making it ineligible for another PROD. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well... maybe. Google Books digitized a collection of the Peruvian periodical Caretas from (probably) 1999. As usual when Google Books tries to handle bound periodical volumes, it choked pretty hard trying to figure out the bibliographical information and returns nothing accurate or useful instead (I hate this so much, I wrote an essay about it!). In any case, snippet view provides us with an article apparently titled "Julissa de Moda" that begins "Aun en el competitivo mundo del modelaje venezolano, la limeña Julissa Miró Quesada Woodman destaca como modelo exclusiva de la agencia Mariela Centeno. Es desde allí que ha sido solicitada por fotógrafos y ..." That sounds promising, and Caretas is an well-regarded and reliable source, but there's no way to know from just that snippet whether that text is independent of Miro, whether it has sufficient depth of coverage, or indeed, whether it's an actual article rather than advertising copy! The best I can get Google to tell me is that this was somewhere between issue 1583-1591, so I don't even have an easy citation to look up. Meanwhile, a very much unreliable source suggests that she was also on the cover of the Mexican magazine Veintitantos in June 2001, and of the Venezuelan fashion-focused Complot (but with no date specified). I can't confirm those appearances, much less whether the periodicals in question devoted any measure of legitimate coverage to her. I'm not confident that there's sufficient coverage to warrant a keep here, but on the off chance there's someone taking note of this AFD with access to pre-Internet-era Spanish-language fashion magazines, well... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A search yielded absolutely nothing.4meter4 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give a relist to see if solid RS can be provided for GNG; otherwise it is heading for Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist, since no additional feedback since first relist...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough demonstrated coverage to pass WP:GNG, no prejudice on recreation if other sources end up existing. SportingFlyer T·C 03:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Lazaridis

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMODEL or WP:MUSICBIO. Not able to find any kind of significant coverage in English sources. Presented sources are trivial, lacking in depth coverage. Fails on WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The accommodation contains referrals and information (depending on the age of the person and his professional background so far). There are accommodations that have no referrals and little information about persons. There is no reason to delete this accommodation. As far as sources are concerned, there are sources such as People Greece and established Greek sites. Man makes a career in Greece, what do English sources have to do with it? Finally, there are references from overseas sites.. Bilakos1 talk 16:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. No in-depth coverage from Greek sources, as well; just his mother's son. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per nomination. The media comparing him or referring to his parents does not make him "his mom's son", nor does he cancel his collaborations. You know very well how the media works around the world. Bilakos1 talk 21:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your contributions to en/WP are on Lazaridis' parents articles, especially his mother Popi Maliotaki (and the same is true for your clobal contributions). So, actually you created the article on him because he is his mother's son, and it also seems that there is WP:COI with your subject. Perhaps we must consider that "Bill" in Greek is frequently used as dimutitive for the Greek given name "Vasilis" (not William, as is the case in English), and "Bilakos", your user name, in Greek means "Billy Boy" or "Boy Bill" = "Boy Vasilis". So, probably this is a self-promotinal article. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your arguments are pointless and you are trying to make an impression with your own guesses. It's funny to talk about the username someone uses in Wikipedia. There are articles in Wikipedia that have no references or sources and continue to be active. I will not continue this discussion nor will I apologize for my username. Bilakos1 talk 15:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your global contibutions since 2015 revolving only around Lazaridis' mother is pure, hard evidence. Any comments about it? That you don't have any WP:COI with your subject, and that you are not an WP:SPA? ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The fact that some WP articles have no references at all does not mean that another article on a no notable person like V.L. must remain, just because it has references. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the fact that in Wikipedia has articles with no sources and no references. I can't find a reason to delete this article. The user who created it has also used sources and references. Prispress talk 21:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is a user with no other edits to en/WP, and an account with some contributions to wikidata and commons and an couple of other language WPs, all related to Vasilis Lazaridis [40]. This is without any doubt a case of sock- or meatpuppetry, and canvassing (or, even of paid contribution for promotional reasons). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage about the subject. WP:COI and WP:SOCK concerns as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search yielded nothing. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Roux

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

He receives passing mention in news articles (because he is serving as a spokesperson) but none of the significant coverage required for WP:BASIC Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (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}}.

Comment - Each Wikipedia has its own guidelines, but for context, this article was previously deleted from French Wikipedia: fr:Discussion:Éric Roux/Suppression. It appears both article were created by the same editor, meaning the English language article was created after the French one had already been deleted.

Additionally, there is some odd behavior from a closely-knit group of editors involved in this article, and other CESNUR-related articles, across multiple Wikipedia projects (such as es:Bitter Winter). This raises WP:COI concerns, which I have mentioned on the article's talk page. Hence the !vote template. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think the article should be deleted at all. Eric Roux is well known as a religious leader and an activist, at least in Europe. This is backed up by several valid and reliable sources that you can find on Internet (whatever you may think of him or of Scientology). He is described as "unique amongst Church of Scientology representatives" by scholar Donald Westbrook in SAGE Journals, “The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429818769404. SAGE journal is definitely a well recognized academic source. He also has several pages about him in Journal of CESNUR in an article written by Professor Bernadette Rigall-Cellard. I know you seem to have problems with Journal of CESNUR, but beside the fact that their editorial board is made of well internationally recognized scholars in the field of new religions, Bernadette Rigall-Cellard is Full Professor of North American Studies at Bordeaux Montaigne University in France. She directs the Masters "Religions and Societies" and the Center for Canadian Studies. She is a specialist in contemporary North American religions https://www.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr/fr/recherche/equipes_de_recherche/climas.html?param=184:81:brigal.

You can also find dozens of newspaper articles and TV interviews featuring Eric Roux in his capacity of spokesperson for the Church of Scientology, but also as a religious freedom activist. He wrote several books and chapters in academic publications that have been reviewed and covered by medias, and just recently, as an example, he appears as one of the authors in the book "religious minorities in France" published by one of the biggest French publishing house FAYARD: See here

Now, even if as said above, he would only be well-known as a spokesperson for the Church of Scientology, this in itself a source of notability which makes it worth to have an article. The significant coverage by independent sources is definitely sufficient.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BASIC notability guideline for people states that we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Westbrook has a one paragraph mention in a solid source. The CESNUR source is a book review from a person who is already a member of CESNUR's editorial board. I don't think this rises above the level of a WP:SELFPUBLISHED article, and so it really doesn't make a dent in terms of notability. Nblund^talk 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Setting aside the strange issues above, being "unique amongst Church of Scientology representatives..." is not a clear claim to notability by itself. This uniqueness may be sort of interesting to someone, or not, but it's not a claim to notability. Passing mentions are insufficient. We are interested in reliable, independent sources with at least some depth. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The point is not that the text says that he is unique. It is that he is known enough to have a page on him by a scholar in SAGE, and the text on him has definitely some depth. Then as regards CESNUR source, first of all, it is not a "book review". Whilst the book review also exists, I was talking about an article of 100 pages by Bernadette Rigal Cellard called "The Visible Expansion of the Church of Scientology and Its Actors"(https://cesnur.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/tjoc_3_1_2_rigal-cellard.pdf). If you read the article, you find at least three pages at different places describing the work of Eric Roux. I understand you have a problem with CESNUR. But then you must also take into consideration the credentials of the author. Bernadette Rigal Cellard is a Full Professor in a major French University. There, she chairs the Master "Religion and Society". She is well recognized by her pairs. In the article, there is definitely some depth about the way she describes Eric Roux, with many details that also show the notability. It makes it a reliable source. And as regards CESNUR, please let me respectfully notice that the two only persons that have selected the article for deletion and joined in support for deletion, are both engaged in a systematic attack on all articles linked with CESNUR, and the second has been called by the first to intervene... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grayfell#CESNUR) That is their right but does not help in terms of neutrality. You think it's not reliable, I think it is, due to the quality of the contributors and their credentials in the field they are touching upon. So we can't reach a consensus. In addition, when you are checking neutrality, you also have to use common sense. Just today, I checked on the web and I found this article published yesterday: https://www.neweurope.eu/article/hijab-controversy-roils-france-again/, in which Eric Roux is interviewed, not as a leader of the Church of Scientology, but as "President of the European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom and a well-known activist in the field of freedom of religion or belief" to comment on the French controversy on Muslim veil and the French government comments about it. New Europe is one of the biggest 10 magazines of the Brussels-EU area. That for example tells about notability. Moreover when you add it to the dozens of interviews, mentions, that you can find in national newspapers from various countries, as well as national TV chanels. I hope this helps.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately CESNUR has a negative reputation for making publications that contain bias and/or conflict of interest. Do to that reputation, it doesn't lend any credibility to a notability discussion at AFD. That's not the author's fault, but that is the reality of publishing in a disreputable journal per WP:Verifiability. Regardless, even if we were to include the journal article, there just isn't any references where the author himself is the main subject of the article. Being the public mouth piece of an organization, and occassionally getting quoted because of your PR role doesn't make you notable. There's also not enough citations/critical reviews of his work overall to satisfy WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To generate a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Le luxembourgeois: I haven't "systematically attacked" anything, and if you would like to discuss questions about user conduct, you should take those concerns to my user page or to a relevant noticeboard. The interview in NewEurope is "supported content" which is paid for by the Faith and Freedom Summit Coalition, which is affiliated with Roux's own group. Content syndication efforts like this exist to make obscure people and events look important, they are little better than advertising, and they really don't carry any meaningful weight because they aren't independent. Nblund^talk 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think that keeping it is a question of common sense. Notability can also be regarded as notability in a specific field. If not, you would only have superstars in Wikipedia. WP:BASIC lists the criteria for notability. The basic criteria are "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". For these we have at least two published academic secondary source, one being discussed regarding its reliability (because it is published in the academic Journal of CESNUR, which some consider not reliable, and some reliable). I argue that the one of CESNUR is reliable, also because of the credentials of the author (see above). Is the coverage significant? I think yes, based on the General Notability Guidelines [41]: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The two sources meet this definition.

Then you have additional criteria. There is no specific category for religious leaders, but I think we could process by analogy to the category "Politicians and Judges". "The following are presumed to be notable: • Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Based on this analogy, Eric Roux would meet both of the criteria. As regards his press coverage, you can easily find articles and National TV shows featuring him, whether in France, Belgium or even the US, during more than 10 years. He is the most visible and notable representative of the Church of Scientology in Europe.

In addition, if you go on Google Scholars [42] you find his work but also works from academics mentioning him.

I think that if you compare also to another religion, as Catholicism, you find articles on many of the Apostolic Nuncios. See here for France for example, one of them (the former one) [43] for which references are only coming from the Vatican. No secondary sources at all.

For me, there is no doubt that the notability is established beyond question.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are only repeated yourself Le luxembourgeois. The RS just is simply not there for the subject to meet WP:GNG and the CESNUR source does not meet wikipedia's requirements at WP:Verifiability no matter how you try to spin it. His academic hits at Google Scholar are relatively very small (FYI that link you shared is not specific enough for all the hits to be related to Eric Roux, and looking through those sources which do cite them, many of the sources in the search are questionable publications). There's just nothing here that is convincing.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically giving arguments and reasonings. It's too easy to just say: "this is not reliable, period", "this is questionnable, period".But it's not an argument. You deny CESNUR as a source but can't argue with the author of the source, and I gave the reasons why this should be also taken into consideration. In addition, I gave other reasons for which I think notability is established. You mention WP:Verifiability, and actually the page gives you what is not a reliable source: "poor reputation checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[9] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." This is not the case of CESNUR (whether we like CESNUR or not), this is not the case of the author of the article cited and this is not the case of the article itself. Same for the article in SAGE. Not speaking about the mainstream medias featuring him. You say that his academy hits at Google Scholar are relatively small. Fine. But if you add academic secondary sources, mainstream national and international medias, the analogy to the category "Politicians and Judges", the hits on google scholars, the comparison I made with Catholic nuncios, etc., and a bit of common sense, I guess you can find out that there is notability here per WP:GNG. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le luxembourgeois, I would argue that CESNUR does lack meaningful editorial oversite because of the conflict of interest problems with the publication as stated above. Constantly repeating yourself, talking in circles, and claiming things aren't problems when they are doesn't solve the issues. This is a very cut and dry case, no matter how much you are trying to deny that it isn't. The google scholar hits are either only tangential/passing mentions of quotes by Eric Roux, or are in questionable publications that lack meaningful editorial oversite. There are no sources where he is the main subject. There is no good RS here.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that I'm sorry to say, but it seems you don't read what I wrote. Example, as regards you saying "no source where he is the main subject", I already answered to this by quoting General Notability Guidelines [44]: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For the rest I let you re-read what I wrote and all the arguments that have not been answered.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what you have written and I have read the sources. I disagree with your assessment that they constitute significant coverage. We are not of the same opinion. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. We are not of the same opinion. It's that simple.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to delete; concern that the RS quoted does no meet GNG (and particularly CESNUR); try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per 4meter4, fails WP:SIGCOV, there's just not enough sourcing to do justice to a bio. Additionally, CESNUR is usually not a RS. Feoffer (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Other evidences of notability and some remarks on CESNUR:

• CESNUR has an editorial board which is composed of renowned scholars. Even if some of them are deemed "controversial", they are not so in the academic world. Even Massimo Introvigne is recognized as one of the best scholars in the field of new religions. He has been occupying the function of Representative of the OSCE on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination, was appointed chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc. Antoine Faivre is one of most renowned scholar on esoterism in France. Etc.

• Sources include an article in SAGE journal, which has not been contested at all (even if removed from the article with no reason) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429818769404.

• Other example, one academic source in the website of the Lund University: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8875480&fileOId=8875481, one page on Eric Roux.

• Mainstream Media coverage: In France, dozens of articles, for example: https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Europe/L-Eglise-scientologie-rehabilitee-justice-belge-2016-04-28-1200756546. In Belgium, dozens of articles, TV shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6iGSM9Pu64, on the official account of the French Parliament (2 hours interview): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzUOIl3PMFA, on M6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16fOe-jji04, in Belgium on the RTBF: https://www.rtbf.be/tv/article/detail_devoir-d-enquete-sur-l-eglise-de-scientologie?id=9106539, etc., you can find dozens of others by yourself. I know these medias are not making him the subject of their report per se, but invite him as an official of the CoS, but this shows his notability, as I said above, he is the most well-known and notable Church of Scientology's official in Europe. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Le luxembourgeois (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Comment. SAGE is not a journal but a publishing company that produces a large body of different academic publications. For those wanting to review the article Le luxembourgeois is referring to see: "The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century" from the journal Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses, 2018, Vol. 47(3) 373–395. I will be providing my own analysis shortly.4meter4 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have struck my delete vote above. The article from Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses is a better reference (I have access through my university library). It's author is a leading researcher on Scientology with a prominent book publication on the religion by Oxford University Press. Roux is the center of a case study in the article. That in conjunction with the other media sources just provided by Le luxembourgeois just barely squeaks by WP:SIGCOV. I was initially inclined to change to weak delete but in reality that opinion would be WP:IDONTLIKEIT out of my own bias. The coverage does in the end meet the standard of GNG. @Le luxembourgeois: I strongly urge you to strike your double vote and not repeat yourself in AFDs. Such behavior often causes other reviewers to vote against you rather than for you because it is considered bad etiquette. It only weakens your argument. You may add new evidence to discussions with the word "comment". The added evidence did persuade me to change my vote. This is the best way to conduct yourself in AFDs. Let the evidence speak for itself.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice @4meter4:. I had not realized it would be a double vote. I changed it to "comment" and made some changes.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per 4meter4. I don't seem to have access to the article ("The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century"), but being the centre of a case study in combination with the other mentions makes me think this is a notable subject. /Julle (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist before action is taken
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:29, 21 November 2019 (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.

[1] "Nigerian Music Chart: Fireboy DML's "Jealous" Leads". Retrieved 16 November 2019.

[Spitzer_5-11-19-2] Barnett, Erica C. (April 11, 2018). "A journalist gets sober, then hits the bars". Sound Effect (Interview). Interviewed by Gabriel Spitzer. KNKX. Archived from the original on October 26, 2019. Retrieved October 23, 2019.

[3] "Erica C. Barnett (and her Mad List of Sources) Joins PubliCola Staff". Seattle Met.

[SeattleMag2011-4] "Seattle's Most Influential People of 2011". Seattle Magazine. October 17, 2011.

[5] "2007 Civic Awards Recipients — Port of Seattle Press Release". web.archive.org. July 21, 2011.

[6] "Seattle journalist Erica C. Barnett is hard at work on a memoir, by Paul Constant". www.seattlereviewofbooks.com. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2019-09-15.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]