Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:20, 9 April 2021

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is to keep. Concerns with promotional tone should be addressed by editing/talk page discussion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trishneet Arora

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

Most links are dead and the last AfD wasn’t properly addressed, the awards and funding related sections clearly depict Promotional work, the subject is a forbes 30 u 30 holder but that doesn’t make him notable as these awards are very manipulative. Posting it up here for a discussion. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are multiple WP:RS news articles over a period of 2 years which easily makes the subject notable. This might require cleanup. But AFD is not a venue for cleanup. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article lists 20 sources. All live, or available as archives ("Most links are dead", c'mon). The nominator has not addressed any of these and is making specious and weak arguments. What source, specifically, is a problem? Why? The coverage is real and significant in many reliable sources. Previous AfDs have been riven with socks and canvassing on both sides, including the nominator of the last one who got blocked during the AfD. The noms claim of "manipulative" is unsupported. -- GreenC 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GreenC, I’ve already addressed it at the talk page, when no one replied i raised it to AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 05:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has reliable reference from global magazines, TV channels includes BBC and Fortune Magazine there were many recent articles on this person which were not listed on Wiki, I added them. He's popular entrepreneur globally and movie maker Sunil Bohra has already announced movie on his life. State of New Mexico has announced 25th August 2017 as "Trishneet Arora Day", a day on his name. I request to remove the deletion nomination. Techloveralwys (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techloveralwys (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough and WP:RS links are working. There are other awards also apart from Forbes.Sonofstar (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Choudhary

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

Single significant role, fails WP:NACTOR and sources don't meet WP:GNG criteria. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail to pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Many IANS PR links are there, which I removed in the past but the page creator undo my edits, might be COI IssueSonofstar (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs multiple lead roles. She got her first for now. But more needed. WP:TOOSOON like many other actors. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough indepth coverage. Purosinaloense T/K 10:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I request the Wikipedian Admins to please look into the Wikipedian Article of the subject Abrar Qazi. Just like the Wikipedian Admins have approved the article Abrar Qazi to be following all the criterion of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way, the article of the subject Priyanka Choudhary too has fulfilled all the criterion necessary for WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content. ——Serial 09:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Plus as Sonofstar has wrongly claimed, this article falls nowhere into WP:TOOSOON. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Therefore, I put down my opinion to keep this article. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Only one major acting role and lacks in-depth coverage on the subject. TOOSOON. Fails NACTOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content. ——Serial 09:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Sunshine1191- No you are wrong. The subject infact has THREE MAJOR ACTING ROLES; which are in Yeh Hai Chahatein (where the subject was playing PARALLEL LEAD till her character was killed); then the lead in an episode of Savdhaan India and at present one of the leads in Udaariyaan. --] (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, that very well proves that the subject has fulfilled WP:NACTOR.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the wikipedia article of the subject has ENOUGH IN-DEPTH COVERAGE ON THE SUBJECT which user Sonofstar had tried to remove for some INVALID, IMMORAL, VAGUE REASONS.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the subject can nowhere be counted as TOOSOON because apart from being part of television shows. The subject has been also part of several musical video projects of the reliable sources are from verified youtube channels. So, that provides for the subject not being TOOSOON and also fulfilling GNG. Thanks --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR, and a BEFORE indicates a lack of WP:N based on a dearth of WP:RS. ——Serial 09:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Would just like to state that despite Aleyamma38's repeated attempt at flooding the discussion with the same tedious points and redundant arguments like other stuff exists, in order to sway opinions, I will be sticking with my previously stated opinion that the said article should be Deleted. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dearth of reliable independent sourcing that's actually about the subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The latter keep arguments have refuted the only delete argument (discounting the sock) of not meeting WP:NPROF. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damodar Sharma

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. BLP does not meet WP:NBIO. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage or citations to meet WP:PROF.Webmaster862 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:PROF#C6? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Vice-Chancellor, meets NRPOF C6 (also see Board of Management Resolution on retirement as Vice Chancellor). Also served as Chair of the Academic Council. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nom is a blocked sockpuppet of Phoenix man (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man/Archive. --Blablubbs|talk 12:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being VC of RTU (an evidently major university) makes him notable as per NPROF C6. I am glad I have clarity on this now after participating in some other similar AFDs and making wrong nominations! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Hurtubise

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

Fails GNG, only coverage is local news or news focusing on his invention. Noah ^💬 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy is quite famous in Canada for "project Grizzly", a suit worn to protect from bear attacks. There is a lot of of national-level coverage. There was a documentary film made about Project Grizzly. Peter Gzowski interviewed him several times.

Here is what the New York Times said of him in 1997: "In 1984, Troy Hurtubise was hiking in the Canadian Rockies when he came face to face with a 600-pound grizzly bear. The great beast knocked him down, stared momentarily and casually retreated into the bush. End of story. Well, not quite. Since that day, Hurtubise, a scrap-metal dealer from North Bay, Ontario, has been on a quest to wrestle a grizzly in the wild."
Here is what The Guardian said of a book he wrote: "Bear Man: The Troy Hurtubise Saga is Troy's magnum opus, the tersely told summary of his yearnings, frustrations, triumphs and philosophy. The book includes many of Troy's previous writings on these subjects, augmented with a powerful-as-a-riled-up-grizzly collection of previously private photos, philosophy, intellectualising, and emoting."
Variety reviewed the Project Grizzly film about him, summarizing it as "Ultra-Canuck docu profiles one seriously deranged individual, an Ontario scrap-metal merchant and inventor of a string of high-tech suits, all designed to help him come face-to-face with his obsession, grizzly bears."
The Globe and Mail, one of Canada's national newspapers, printed a huge obituary when he died, saying "Troy Hurtubise combined the fevered imagination of a mad scientist with the foolhardy bravery of Evel Knievel in his quest to design a suit impervious to bear attack. Operating from a makeshift laboratory in a garage in North Bay, Ont., he produced ever stronger armour for what he called Project Grizzly. He was a backwoods Don Quixote convinced of his scientific acumen, a Captain Ahab whose white whale was ursus arctos horribilis. As with those fictional characters, he, too, was ultimately doomed by his compulsion."
The National Post sums up some of his fame: "With his fringed buckskin jacket and ostentatious red beret, Troy was not just Canadian famous, but American famous. He did spots on big-time talk shows like Roseanne Barr’s, with Penn & Teller. David Letterman wanted to drive out of a New York alley in a limo and crash into Troy in his armour, but Troy said no. Even The Simpsons did a parody, in which “local laughingstock Homer Simpson” builds a bear-proof suit out of scrap metal that looks just like Troy’s, called the BearBuster 5000 in a clear reference to his Ursus Mark VI." (here also is the Simpsons clip)

It would be quite easy to add 20 more quotes like this. He was also mentioned in many books and magazines such as The New Scientist, The Canadian Journal of Film Studies, Reader's Digest and so on... His obituary appeared in The Evening Standard, Vice Magazine, CTV News, the Toronto Star, and the CBC. I would suggest withdrawing this AfD, since the subject is very clearly notable, as a WP:BEFORE would have shown.--- Possibly (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons that Possibly has noted above. I don't even know how this article could be thought to meet GTG. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per what Possibly has listed as rationale. Bebopjohnson (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have a look at this and this. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article could use some improvement — but right off the top, the nominator completely ignored the existence of a Genie Award-nominated feature documentary film about Troy (by the National Film Board of Canada, one of the most prestigious documentary film studios on earth, to boot!) when assessing what coverage Troy does or doesn't have, and that's before you even consider (a) their misreading of the existing sources (some of which are bad, but the good ones cover a wider range than claimed), and (b) the fact that numerous other good sources have been offered in this discussion, demonstrating that the nominator didn't do much WP:BEFORE work. Seriously, how could anybody on this planet ever be notable at all for anything, if news reportage about the things they did somehow didn't count as valid sourcing? Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasnain Nazish

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

Fails WP:GNG, Present coverage is not enough for this author. Citterz (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%86_%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%B4

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 FastSpring. While there are many sources, none of them constitute significant coverage, so there is consensus that he should not have an individual article. There is no consensus on whether the article should redirect to FastSpring or be deleted, so I will default to making the redirect and anyone can take it to RfD if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Foodman

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

~~Not a notable Entrepreneur. No in-depth sources present. Fails WP:GNG as per lacking WP:RS Citterz (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Bebopjohnson (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nomination. Fails GNG. Ew3234 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well sourced, passes WP:GNG. significant coverage in major reliable sources. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep As per news availability in mutiple sources. Passes WP:GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBIO, no indication of notability. All cited sources either contain trivial mentions, or no mention at all of the subject. Searching reveals no significant coverage in WP:RS. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Passes GNG listed on reputed sites such as Entrepreneur, CNET, INC, Fortune and many others. It can be also procedurally close as nom is blocked for sockpuppetery. Namkongville (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these sources offer significant coverage of Foodman, the Inc source is just FastSpring on a list of 5000 other companies, the Fortune article just contains quotes from him about FastSpring, the Entrepreneur article lists his name once in a list of founders of FastSpring, and the CNET source does not even mention his name. SailingInABathTub (talk)
  - I agree with you that some are mentions but if they are from reputed websites they still hold a value for GNG. I can see many other sources too which are listed down and can be counted for GNG too.
  - https://www.macworld.com/article/151243/17reporter.html
  - https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/23616
  - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/acclaim-to-offer-disk-versions-of-online-games
  - https://www.livemint.com/
  - https://fortune.com/2014/03/21/e-commerce-platforms-and-the-fight-to-sell-selling/
  - https://www.pacbiztimes.com/2013/04/26/investors-jump-on-fastspring-as-revenue-soars/
  - https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Ohana-buys-Rebate-Delivery.html
  - https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/inno/stories/roundups/2019/06/25/10-female-founders-with-the-most-funded-startups.html Namkongville (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately they do not contibute towards WP:GNG, as none of the sources offered contain significant coverage of Foodman. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, FastSpring is a possible redirect target, as most of the sources here are about this company. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets GNG per references presented above. There are lots of news search results about the subject and his work. Purosinaloense T/K 18:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Current sources qualifies for GNG as per all. Articuno appears (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep As per all above, Easily passes WP:GNG as has received coverage in multiple reliable websites. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, my source analysis is below:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
#1 ZNet	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Acquisition announcement that does not mention Foodman at all.
#2 TechCrunch	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about SaaSy that does not mention Foodman at all.
#3 Atlanta Inno	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about female startup founders that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of Jonny On It.
#4 Yahoo News	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Wrong URL. An article about Vizmato that in one paragraph, says Foodman is the President of Global Delight and founder of FastSpring, lives in Atlanta and has been involved in the tech industry for many years.
#5 CNET	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about Digital River that does not mention Foodman at all.
#6 TidBits	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Acquisition announcement that does not mention Foodman at all.
#7 Games Industry Biz	N	N	Y	Y	N	An article about a business partnership that includes one quote from Foodman about the partnership.
#8 The Daily Record	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about an acquisition of a company that Foodman is the founder of. Says that they negotiated with Foodman for some time and that he is "an excellent ally".
#9 TechCrunch	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about investment in FastSpring that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other board members.
#10 Fortune	N	N	Y	Y	N	An article about FastSpring and Digital River, includes quotes from Foodman about FastSpring.
#11 Entrepreneur	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about three startup entrepreneurs that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of FastSpring.
#12 The Stevie Awards	N	Y	N	N	N	2015 Stevie Award Winners, includes FastSpring, no mention of Foodman.
#13 Inc. Magazine	N	Y	N	Y	N	Dead link. FastSpring on a list of other companies, no expected mention of Foodman.
#14 Deloitte	N	Y	N	Y	N	FastSpring on a list of 500 other companies, no mention of Foodman.
#15 Pacific Coast Business Times	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Dead link. Article about investment in FastSpring.
#16 Business Wire India	N	N	N	Y	N	An announcement about Global Delight appointing Foodman as its new CEO. Includes some quotes from Foodman and some information on his background.
#17 Geektime	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Dead link. Article about a Vizmato product launch.
#18 Pymnts	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An acquisition announcement that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of FastSpring.
#19 Salon Today	N	N	N	Y	N	An announcement about Rosy Salon Software appointing Foodman as its new president. Includes some quotes from Foodman and some information on his background.
#20 Jounal Pioneer	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An acquisition announcement that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of FastSpring.
#21 Digital Trends	N	N	N	Y	N	A Global delight product launch article. Includes some quotes from Foodman.
#22 Inside UNC Charlotte	N	N	Y	Y	N	A redirect to the Salon Today article.
#23 Google Patents	N	N	Y	N	N	A patent where Foodman is listed as the inventor.
#24 USA Weightlifting	?	?	?	?	N	Dead link. Unable to verify per WP:V.
#25 Casual Connect	N	N	N	N	N	An article by Foodman about GetMyRebate.com.
#26 Software Business Magazine	?	N	N	N	N	No link. An article by Foodman.
#27 Entrepreneur	N	N	Y	Y	N	An article about creating web companies, includes quotes from Foodman.
#28 Fortune	N	N	Y	Y	N	An article about Digital River, includes a quote from Foodman.
Total qualifying sources					0	There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many in-depth sources. For example this article in Fortune [1]. Second: a piece in Entrepreneur [2] and an article on The Daily Record [3]. Those three alone are enough for WP:GNG. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Techcrunch article you mention is source #9, Fortune #10, Entrepreneur #11, and Daily Record #8. None of them have significant coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the excellent and exhaustive analysis of source made by SailingInABathTub shows a lack of SIGCOV and a failure to meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Above seems a good example for WP:HOAX. The nom is bad faith. Maybe you can reconsider your vote :) Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the three sources purportedly meeting GNG, I checked the one in Entrepreneur, which is just an in-passing mention of Foodman and contributes nothing to notability. I didn't check the others (Fortune is behind a paywall and the Daily Record website seems to be down), but just the Entrepreneur example already shows that you have no good feeling for what meets GNG and what doesn't. In addition, I sampled some of the references and agree with the nterpretations of {SailingInABathTubabove. --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right upon checking deep Fortune articles fails for GNG. The entrepreneur article seems just a mention. Agree with your assessment. :) Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to FastSpring As per great sources assessment by SailingInABathTub and Randykitty. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other delete suggestions. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Salehi

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

Present coverage is not enough for GNG Citterz (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This one is a little rough, because I could find actual zero English-language coverage of this poet. (Confusingly, there's a different Persian poet named Ali Salehi published in an Australian press.) However, it seems GNG may be met by Persian-language coverage, e.g. this coverage in a cultural magazine. Lean delete, would love input from a person who knows Persian. Suriname0 (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says "Seyyed Ali Salehi" which finds no Google hits. But change to "Seyed Ali Salehi" and sources begin appearing. It's the same person as seen in Google Image search there are multiple spellings of his name. -- GreenC 15:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Michigan Quarterly Review [4] "SAYYED ALI SALEHI (born 1955) is a famous Iranian poet and writer." According to ICORN [5] "Seyed Ali Salehi (Iran), one of the best-known Iranian poets; resident in Teheran." There is also a lengthy article on fawiki. Seems like enough evidence not to delete, until there is a better reason for deletion beyond the standard "fails GNG" sort of stuff as we now have two reliable English source asserting notability, and lots of Farsi sources in support, and probably many more English sources under the English-fied spelling of his name. The article itself needs copyediting. -- GreenC 15:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added the Michigan Quarterly Review reference to the page. He seems to have won at least one significant award, which pushes him well into Notability territory. PianoDan (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the MQR source. I also added the passing ICORN reference, to help out any future improvers of the page. Suriname0 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable author. I also found a number of English citations to support notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable author with significant wide coverage. Passes GNG and NAUTHOR. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajit Dev

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a dancer and choreographer, swathed in far too much promotional advertorialism to sort out whether he actually has a credible claim to passing WP:CREATIVE or not. As always, everybody who exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he has a job -- he needs to be able to show some evidence of distinction (awards, critical analysis of the significance of his work, etc.) to pass the notability bar, and he needs to be able to show real reliable source coverage about those distinctions to verify that the claims are accurate. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody is able to write and reference an article properly, but he isn't entitled to keep an unreferenced article that reads like it was written by a first year public relations student. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although Google search returned results, very hard to find reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage. Not notable as per WP:NBIO and WP:CREATIVE as of now. Roulisegee (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Roulisegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (striking, blocked sockpuppet.─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete There is some coverage but as per nom not enough news coverage to qualify for notability. Citterz (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All comments so far are by blocked editors...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the nom . There is no sigcov hence fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chanuka Nadun Perera

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

PROD contested by author. Obvious WP:AUTOBIO, nowhere near WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, obvious promotional. Probably could be speedy deleted. User3749 (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Chanaka L (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur that this young journalist doesn't pass GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Dan arndt (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Hale (born 1998)

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

WP:BEFORE failed to turn up anything not in the article. We have local sources, an interview (not independent), an article by a mental health service he used (not independent). In the category of possibly contributing to notability, we have an appearance in a documentary (not the main/only focus of it, it looks like), and possibly a LadBible article that Hale is the focus of. Overall, WP:GNG is not met. Was approved by a sock at AFC - not sure if their behaviour at AFC was ever in question, but I wouldn't expect a normal AFC reviewer to accept this. (If the close is "delete", remove the listing from William Hale.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reynell Cotton

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

Non notable cricket person - doesn't appear to be any evidence he was notable for playing the game - CricketArchive has a single non-first-class match in 1773. Fails WP:NCRIC.

His notability has to rest, then, on WP:COMPOSER and the one song that he wrote some lyrics for (although probably not all of them). This appears in Nyren's book - see wikisource, but there is no other mention of Cotton by name other than as the writer. The Ashley Mote reference can be found at Google Books. It's mentioned in various other places, but doesn't appear to be particularly noteworthy - and this, I think, is where Cotton's notability falls.

An alternative might be to redirect to Hambledon Club, but that seems sketchy at best. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The principal source for his cricketing exploits is not a reliable source (self-published by a now blocked editor; the writing style of this article seems rather familiar – "not known", "believed", etc.) – I have removed it and the pure speculation it supported. I have added this source which states him as the founder of Hyde Abbey School and found multiple mentions of "Reynell Cotton's School". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In marginal cases like this, my inclination is always to be inclusive. I think there's enough to make him notable, including founding a school that had some distinguished alumni. And the article currently has five citations, so he comfortably passes GNG (is it? - I'm not very fluent in Wikipedian). JH (talk page) 07:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The club song he wrote does seem to get some coverage, and then there's the coverage of the founding of the school Wjemather mentions above. There's probably just enough there and could be more in a more thorough offline search to pass GNG. Not sure the suggested redirect is suitable really with his as notable for his school related actions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability as an educator is definite, though I agree with BST about the cricket aspect. The article should be revised to emphasise Cotton's educational career and perhaps someone from the schools project will be best qualified to do that. I've alerted WP:SCHOOLS to this discussion. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm convinced he is certainly more notable from an educational standpoint. StickyWicket (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not because he passes WP:NCRIC- he doesn't appear to. But there with multiple references from a range of sources his WP:GNG case is already close to or over the line, and given his date of birth, most sources are likely to reside offline, so the standard WP:BEFORE checks are of limited use. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be interested to see what, if anything, about Mr Cotton is in The Hambledon Cricket Chronicle 1772-1796: Including The Reproduction Of The Minute And Account Books Of The Club a book from 1923 which covers the period when he was president of Hambledon, but which doesn't appear to be digitised anywhere online. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on a WP:BEFORE search this is at worst a merge and redirect, but while I see a lot of mentions I haven't seen anything which clearly passes the WP:GNG line to put me in the keep camp (not convinced the Horsham Society Newsletter is reliable for notability reasons, and can't access British Newspaper Archives.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting one. As far as I can see, he fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NCRIC and, I think, fails point 3, the relevant one, of WP:CREATIVE. But he existed and did some things. I'm not adverse to the keep - and thanks, btw, to people who have added sources; I was looking just at the song so missed those. But what notability guideline are we hitting here? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. You can find the article here: Draft:Ranjitha Menon. Missvain (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjitha Menon

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The person did not appear in multiple notable films in significant lead roles. Chirota (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Only have notable role in a single movie as of now. Others are just some minor roles. This [6] seems to give her some decent coverage (not enough for passing general GNG criteria) and says that two of her Tamil movies are under production. So she will pass NACTOR in near future. Thus this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - WP:TOOSOON, currently fails WP:NACTOR. The article can be incubated in draftspace and moved back once the subject becomes notable. --Ashley yoursmile! 05:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per all above.--Ankit (Talk with me) 20:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Mourão

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

Very poorly written article. There are some references but the references are passing mentions failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC. An artist if notable enough, there should have been more references in the time of half a century. The article is not eligible for being considered as standalone article. There are some exceptional claim like "he has been known to host parties and surround himself with famous people, like Pablo Picasso,[1] Salvador Dalí, The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin." without any credible source. Apart from my objection about the subject's notability, tone of the article, notability is not inherited. Chirota (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is possible that he generated enough coverage in the 80s to be notable; finding that coverage is another issue. I cleaned up the article a bit, but it is still a GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anywhere near enough to meet WP:GNG, and nothing indicates he passes WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS. The artists' own website doesn't have any evidence that he passese NARTIST either. And both are very PROMO. Theredproject (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 08:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delowar Hossain Dil

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

Other then some passing mentione in the refs (WP:REFBOMB as article contain 33 refs), i didn't find any significant coverage about this person. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete- A quick google search shows that he is writing and directing a number of big studio films in Bangladesh but no coverage on him.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep- I think it has enough sources and passes GNG. Diptadg17 (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diptadg17, Not sure how a single word/mention in in the ref passes GNG. If you don't mind, can you please explain how those refs passes as "Significant coverage" (addresses the topic directly and in detail). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete - has enough google search results to verify the person has indeed writing and directing films.Riteboke (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently it doesn't fully meet WP:N because there's no WP:SIGCOV on the subject apart from passing mentions. TheChronium (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 17:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jigar Saraswat

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

Article appears to be a self-promotional BLP of a social media/SEO writer. However, two seemingly reliable source references are provided. But... those profiles are written in an oddly promotional tone too, making outlandish claims like "India’s Best Freelance Content Writer" - which makes it look like paid advertising. I note the article was originally rejected at AfC ([talkpage notice here]). Furthermore, I note that the talkpage of the user who published the article consists entirely of speedy delete notices (and a warning for potential sockpuppetry). Witty lama 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two references are not sufficient. Also, the references though seems reliable, but they don't seem independent. Chirota (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Riteboke (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person!. TheChronium (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Goulding

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

Taking to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN. The sources I could find were mainly unreliable. I don't think he passes WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I found was this and that’s not enough to support a stand alone bio. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found no IRS and thus no SIGCOV. Less Unless (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devoke water 17:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. Only one citation. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kehinde Asu

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

Does not meet WP:GNG - references are all brief mentions in lists plus a memorial website. Melcous (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was a philantrophist, the first chatered accountant from his home town who inspired a lot of chatered accountants from his community, reknowned auditor for multinationals and also a titled chief which was possible as a result of his major contributions to his community.

In some of the links cited below it is obvious that he was a titled chief. I sourced for a lot of these links and it was only obvious that he was a very private person despite his notability.

He was also the Chairman of Infinity microfinance bank, Nigeria as seen on page 4 of the first link below.

https://www.infinitymfb.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Published-Accounts-2018.pdf

Page 4

Meanwhile the Annual reports of the multinationals are online. They were all signed by him. Circa 1988 to 1993 or beyond

Niger paints Nigerian Breweries Sun flag PZ Julius Berger and a host of others.

Here are other cited links in the article:

https://lawsdocbox.com/Politics/80531175-The-institute-of-chartered-accountants-of-nigeria-financial-members-as-at-may-22-2018.html

https://www.yumpu.com/xx/document/view/29224427/financial-members-list-the-institute-of-chartered-accountants-of-

https://kipdf.com/transformation-first-bank-of-nigeria-plc-annual-report-accounts-2010-nigeria-lon_5aadd5471723dd37770c4507.html

https://www.lafarge.com.ng/sites/nigeria/files/atoms/files/2018_annual_report_final_0.pdf

Page 45

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/31686208/mise-en-page-1-ecobank-investing-in-africa-investinginafricanet

Page 29

https://www.fbnholdings.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FIRSTBANKOFNIGERIA31DECEMBER2012ANNUALREPORT.pdf

Page 25

https://cdn.trombino.org/uploads/files/FBNH-Annual-Report-2010.pdf

Page 194

https://www.anan.org.ng/general2.aspx?id=menucol2d

https://www.forevermissed.com/peter-kehinde-asu/about

https://gramho.com/media/2103826865331547659

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=xtbuCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=chief+p+k+asu&source=bl&ots=tq7d2gy1RB&sig=ACfU3U3lRViwdRL74GHzJgaP0n_H6Q6Xng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiioJmkt9rvAhXrCWMBHX4AB284ChDoATARegQIExAC#v=onepage&q=chief%20p%20k%20asu&f=false

@User:Versace1608

You can be kind to help edit and make the article better, it is the reason we are here "TO CONTRIBUTE" and not spite. Thank you in anticipation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyitayo osunkoya (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)< [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reliable sources do not address Asu directly and in depth, WP:GNG is not met. The self-published Forever Missed memorial is the only source that is more than a passing mention but such sources are not WP:RS and therefore do not contribute towards GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is getting ridiculous. Now we consider "first accountant from a particular village" to be GNG-worthy? For shame. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 8 unsourced paragraphs, 6 unsourced achievements, and phrases such as "blessed with 6 handsome sons and 4 beautiful daughters" make me wonder if there is an undeclared conflict of interest. GoingBatty (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - User:GoingBatty , User:Lettler , User:Spiderone , User:Melcous why isnt anyone of you editing the article to get better? Instead of voting for the deletion of the article? Is this the right way to get things done / collaborate? Two articles i created years back: 1. Smalldoctor and 2. Mayorkun, who are both Nigerian musicians; were both nominated for deletion and eventually deleted. Few months later the above listed pages were re uploaded by another wikipedian and those pages are still live till date. "someone else took the credit". It is the reason i stopped creating articles on wikipedia for years.

I thought wikipedia is meant for collaborative efforts and not for spiting or racism. Is it because the article is of a black man? He is however dead. Dont forget that in a hurry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyitayo osunkoya (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eyitayo osunkoya. It is easy to misunderstand the Wikipedia term "notable". In ordinary language, anybody who is famous, or important, or innovative, or popular, or influential will necessarily be notable. In Wikipedia "notable" generally means "there is enough independent reliably-published material about the subject to base an article on". Since Wikipedia requires that all information in an article be sourced from reliable published sources (and most of it from sources independent of the subject) it follows that if there are not enough such sources, then there is literally nothing which can be put into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eyitayo osunkoya, please be civil in AFD discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment User:ColinFine He is wikipedia notable, if not i wont have deem it fit to write an article about him. Have you tried editing the article or reviewed my comment above via the links cited there in?

Speedy Delete - Subject of the article fails GNG. A BEFORE search comes up short. Large portions of the article are a copy of a memorial website. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 09:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:GNG. Riteboke (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Lettler, the re-listing was a very horrible one. Please if you do not understand policy please keep off from admin related areas until you are experienced enough to delve into such areas. I suggest you revert the abysmal error you just made. Celestina007 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I see the state we've devolved to on WP, demeaning editors for tiny mistakes. Please tell me calmly and maturely if I did something wrong, and I will revert it. Thank you. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be consensus that there are sources now present in the article that satisfy the GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bald and Bankrupt

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

Article is about a popular YouTuber, but there's very little out there in terms of notable/reliable coverage. Is what is included enough to justify the article? I lean no at this time. Nemov (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find a few passing mentions about the show in RS, but nothing that grants Rich direct coverage. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received coverage in reliable sources. There are already quite a few citations in the article pointing to them. Eopsid (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Eopsid. At least one of these news sources focuses on Rich and his channel. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 03:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several sources already in the article directly dealing with him or his channels as the subject. A quick Google reveals plenty more articles about him. Sourcing seems OK to me. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also concur that sources seem sufficient Vember94 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like the article is part of the WikiProject YouTube project. Subject currently has 2.84M subscribers, I think the article improves Wikipedia's YouTube coverage and is adequately sourced. DavidDelaune (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it seems that some UK publications have covered his viral videos, this individual still fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 05:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a variety of sources not just UK publications. But American and Russian language ones as well. Eopsid (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vorkuta aka Benjamin Rich-Swift aka Arthur Chichester doesn't have any significant coverage from RS, so delete per NickCT. StickyWicket (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bald and Bankrupt is cited by an economics professor [7] and this article on Medium: 8 Things All Travelers Can Learn from Youtuber Bald and Bankrupt [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanbini (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Germanbini (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Has a lot of subscribers, is relevant AlexdG (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having "a lot of subscribers" is not a valid justification for keeping an article on Wikipedia. It is reasonable to argue that the YouTuber has received enough attention from notable sources, but I still lean it's not enough for the article to exist. --Nemov (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per WP:ARBITRARY, having a lot of subscribers does not make an individual notable. That said, further discussion is needed on whether he's good enough to pass WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has sources, but The Daily Express and The Daily Dot articles are the only ones that are specifically about the channel. Are those sources reliable and significant enough to justify the article's existence? The Vice (magazine) source mentions the channel, but only in passing. There are a few local sources in the countries he visited, but does that rise to the level of significant coverage? --Nemov (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I spent about 10 minutes digging around and this Youtuber is actually featured in alot of eastern european news sites. Unfortunately it looks like because he mostly tours India and eastern European nations much of the coverage is limited to those areas.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]

He doesn't have as much coverage in the western news outlets. I was quite surprised to find that that Der Standard published a piece about him. DavidDelaune (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Research

^ "Jutjuber pronašao najjeftiniji hotel u Evropi: "Toliko je jeftin da nema ni ime, a da im vidite tek sobe!"". Blic.rs (in Croatian). 2021-03-22. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
^ Nikolić, Ivana (2021-02-18). "Da nije bilo srpskih doktora umro bih: Čuveni britanski Jutjuber opisao svoju borbu sa Kovidom". Telegraf.rs (in Croatian). Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
^ "VIDEO - Maailmakuulus reisivlogija külastas retrotrammiga Tondit: lõpuks olen jõudnud Nõukogude Eestisse!". Kroonika (in Estonian). 2021-02-01. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
^ "Verschwörungstheoretiker attackieren Youtuber nach Video über schwere Corona-Erkrankung". DER STANDARD (in German). 2020-07-13. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
^ "Британец снимает свое путешествие по всему СНГ. Такой России вы еще не видели". Daily Afisha (in Russian). 2020-07-13. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
^ ""Приключения в Гопниквилле". Популярный британский блогер снял видео о Харькове". Харьков (in Russian). 2021-03-15. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
^ ""Prague is the most liveable city"–YouTuber Bald and Bankrupt on his new home and Soviet fascination". Radio Prague International. 2020-09-11. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
^ Magazin, Index (2021-03-22). "VIDEO Pogledajte kako izgleda unutrašnjost hotela u kojem noćenje košta 26 kuna". Index.hr (in Croatian). Retrieved 2021-04-12.
^ "Bald and Bankrupt". Famous Bald People. 2020-02-18. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
^ "British Vlogger Who Visited Minsk Military Parade, Now Infected With COVID-19". BelarusFeed. 2020-07-10. Archived from the original on 2020-12-17. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

Comment - Is famousbaldpeople.com a reliable source? Eopsid (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure if English is your native language but that was exactly my point. There aren't many reliable sources and most of the news coverage is eastern European. This is a talk page, those are not article citations/references. DavidDelaune (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I changed the title on the Reflist-talk box to reduce the confusion. DavidDelaune (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DavidDelaune the DerStandard reference seems impressive and its true that there are some other RS in eastern-European languages pulling Bald and Bankrupt beyond SIGCOV. So my vote would be for the keep. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems there have been numerous WP:GNG-level sources (from many different countries!) added since the original AfD nomination. Most arguments for Delete address citations/notability, so I reckon those have been greatly assuaged.

Also (and I'm not sure what specific policy to cite here) but there's evidently an ongoing directed campaign to attack this page — edit wars, sock puppets, increasing anonymous contributions, a whole bunch of brigading tomfuckery. Other editors have ascribed this to users from Reddit, particularly the /r/BaldAndBaldrDossier subreddit, but I haven't dug very deep. If I can find a specific post I'll link to it. ~~Though it's perhaps not an argument for Keep per se, it does make the original AfD nomination smell rather dubious. Knowing that, Delete at this time really rubs me the wrong way.~~

Nemov has clarified that they put the article up for deletion and have been watching it for some time, so it's unrelated to posts coming from /r/BaldAndBaldrDossier. They also helpfully linked two threads where calls for action are being made: [9][10]. So the timing of the nomination is simply coincidental. As far as I can tell, no sources cited from that subreddit have made it into the article (which is unfortunate, from a certain perspective). I'm still rankled by the targeted harassment and brigading, but oddly enough a group of 3.4k members dedicated to "exposing" the host of the show is actually a persuasive argument for notoriety and retaining the article — though obviously not possessing citation-quality. If only they were so dedicated to verifying their information! Sigh. Still Keep, all things considered. –OrinZ (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per non-Western sources. WP:GNG looks at all sources that exist, not just English and digital sources. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akif Abu Assi

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

~~Current sources fails in passing WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the sources are in arabic.--شوشو مسعود (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his roles as a director do not add up to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He worked as a director at Al Jazeera Sports, which is currently called the Bein Sports media group, won at Cairo Film Festival for Radio and Television by direct a movie "Long road to the school". the sources in Arabic confirm my words. i just don't want any pages i creat to be deleted so that i make sure i create a page which is already exist in Arabic wikipedia so i think it's for sure this person is a notable.--شوشو مسعود (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator has been blocked as sock. Does that mean this AfD is invalid now? Riteboke (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Riteboke: as there was good faith discussion beyond the sock I choose to relist but closing as no consensus in this kind of circumstance is another option available. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Yes that would be for the best. Riteboke (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both sources in the article are brief namedrops that don’t come anywhere close to establishing notability and a search in Arabic produces nothing else. Definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wilson (Mr. Ragamuffin)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, I found that the text of this article is copied almost entirely from the musician's personal site, with the sections here conforming to the subpages at that site. The creator of the WP article added a few sources but they are unreliable reprints of press releases, as is common in Nigerian entertainment media. While this musician has been around for a long time, his only coverage is the aforementioned press releases and occasional gossip rag pieces about his personal life or a feud he got into with someone. He is also described as engaged in other activities outside of music, such as activism and politics, but I can find no reliable information on him leading any activist efforts or running for office, and that's under both of his names. He's done a lot of things and appears to be a reliable behind-the-scenes guy in Nigerian music, but he is not as influential as his own press releases say he is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Udoka Oyeka

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Pilean (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject passes WP:NACTOR#1 as he has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. He also passes WP:DIRECTOR#3 as he has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known film and WP:DIRECTOR#4b as his work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition here and here. He has been nominated for an AMVCA for best director. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 11:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator has been blocked as sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko. Riteboke (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Gakhar

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

Non-notable person, the only politics they have been involved in has been at the student level failing WP:NPOL. The references are all written by the same author, and don't discuss him in any sort of depth failing WP:SIGCOV McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a WP:RESUME. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What the hell? A promo article about of minor politician, clearly fail WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajayendra Urmila Tripathi

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

Non notable activists, web programmer. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, no indication of notability. fails WP:GNG. DMySon 13:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per rationale by আফতাবুজ্জামান, zero in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of his actions add up to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had a discussion with the page creator,Gocorona (talk · contribs), on my talkpage @ User talk:220 of Borg#Help me. They said "This person is a journalist, social media research programmer and social activist and works for Stop Acid attack".
"Stop Acid attack" is not mentioned on the Tripathi BLP page, I advised Gocorona to add it, hasn't. They don't seem to understand how to establish notability, despite me telling the how to, at least twice. They finished with "... will start a campaign against wikipedia on social media." WP:CIR. 220 of ^ßorg 05:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A similarly named page less middle name, Ajayendra Tripathi, has been deleted twice before. See deletion log. 220 of ^ßorg 06:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty much A7 material this, but since we are here, better to let this follow the course of the AfD. Java Hurricane 16:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails basic requirement of WP:GNG. Northern Escapee (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SIGCOV is asserted but no sources presented to back this up. Sourcing in the article is mainly novelty coverage and/or unreliable sources, so I don't see that it meets SIGCOV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lili Hayes

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

I have doubts about this person. She is a popular Tik Tok bloger and Christina Aguilera mentioned her recently, but all in all it looks like WP:TOOSOON. Not sure that she passes WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; sourcing isn't strong enough. Graham87 04:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting passing mention does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic of substantial WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With all the Keep votes coming from socks, there is clear consensus it should be deleted Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Nied

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

Promotional article about a non-notable teenager. There is some coverage, but not enough; the "non-profit" is all local human-interest coverage, and the Virginia Beach Neptune Festival incident would be BLP1E. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article should be kept because of numerous articles in Virginian-Pilot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocean11s (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Ocean11s (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck. CU-verified sock of 360nosc (talk · contribs), please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/360nosc. --Blablubbs|talk 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !votes, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/360nosc --Blablubbs|talk 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep: This Article should be kept for the help with positive changes the the Neptune Festival and contribution to environmental changes

Keep: This article should be kept because of the amazing work Planting Shade is accomplishing

Keep: This article should be kept because of the great app, HeyyyU, that helps young adults

Delete - very likely undisclosed paid-for spam, given the sockpuppetry and promotion. We should not reward behavior like this. MER-C 14:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pekka Ruuska

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

BLP of a Finnish curator. The fi.wiki article linked to it is about a completely different person who has the same name. A search for sources produced nothing to suggest that this particular Pekka Ruuska is in any way notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fiwiki article is about the same person: fi:Pekka Ruuska (näyttelykuraattori). There was some mix-up with the interwikis a long time ago which can be seen in the history, but it is correct now. The Finnish article was created in 2007, deleted in 2009, and then recreated in 2012. (The 2012 version contained a "joke" that Ruuska was born in Russia. It was only fixed years later when a magazine wrote about it, and the English version had it up even longer.) -kyykaarme (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is mentioned or interviewed in some articles about art galleries, but I don't think there is enough coverage of him as a person. -kyykaarme (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, not enough reliable WP:RS. Namkongville (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sumner

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

Fails WP:GNG and the general consensus of military notability on this site. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only primary and unreliable sources used. A Google search failed to find any reliable sources with more than a passing mention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peacemaker67. Didn't any additional sources, either. Intothat darkness 00:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here otherwise we would have a page for everyone killed in every war. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doubtless a brave guy, but unfortunately not notable with no SIGCOV in RS. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cooper (bridge)

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

Fails WP:GNG with no independent third-party coverage, and death does not establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alas, he doesn't seem to be in the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, though his wife Kitty Cooper is. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer. I got this information (or lack of information) from a second-hand source, not the Encyclopedia itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. Relisting appears to be of no value, as the discussion has been dormant for over a week, despite a second relisting (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Ross

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

An unnotable fashion designer and creative director. Sliekid (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sliekid , I disagree. Samuel Ross is definitely notable, has been written about extensively in various news publications.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Electriclamb (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Sockpuppet of Louisehynes11. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Louisehynes11. Not struck since the sockpuppeter was not blocked indefinitely. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fulfills GNG, has significant coverage and articles. Article needs clean up however. Jooojay (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have not reviewed for general notability, but there may be conflict of interest. There is also a draft, Draft:Samuel Ross, and the draft is an autobiography. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been refactored. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "A-Cold-Wall*'s Samuel Ross: 'Streetwear used to be a class thing'". the Guardian.
^ "A-COLD-WALL*'s Samuel Ross: "Reconstructing the identity of Britishness is happening in real time"". i-D.
^ "Samuel Ross, Designer Of A-Cold-Wall*, Talks Streetwear And Breaking Down Social Barriers". British Vogue.
^ "Samuel Ross and Virgil Abloh on the power of mentorship". British GQ.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the Vogue and Esquire coverage, these are in-depth and major publications. He meets WP:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheela Maini Søgaard

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

Not enough seprate coverage for this CEO fails WP:GNG Sliekid (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If this were shortened to relevant biographical points it would make sense as a section about the CEO on the Bjarke Ingels Group page. Seems like a better solution than losing all of the work that's been done as it could be split back out at later date, if and when needed. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While several of the sources are closely related to the subject, there are sufficient informative secondary sources to testify to notability. Additional secondary sources can easily be found in the Danish press, e.g. [11], [12].--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets general notability guidelines and plenty of other sources can be found.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears to that there is adequate coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet GNG. There seem to be at least one more substantial article not already cited:

Hun kvittede sit prestigejob og er nu topchef for stjernearkitektens 600 ansatte Efter to år hos konsulentkaempen McKinsey sagde Sheela Maini Søgaard op og dermed farvel til en i manges øjne attraktiv karrierevej. Ambitionerne om at gøre karriere forblev dog intakte. Jyllands-Posten, 17 Oct 2020

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eudes de Montreuil

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

This article does not have context and i am sure it does not meet notability criteria. Trains2050 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Trains2050 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources already in the article, here are three others 1, 2, 3. Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many, many French-language sources. Books and articles in GScholar. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not only is he discussed in the relevant literature, there are plenty of books discussing his work in several languages. Another example of tech-centric sourcing discrimination. PK650 (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Misanthropic Bitch

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

Controversial blog during its time, and certainly one of the first of its kind - but not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. It doesn't pass WP:WEBCRIT, and WP:INHERENTWEB should also be referred to. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and per my own review of it. I had hoped there would be some meat-and-potatoes in terms of sources, but after culling all the blogs, dead links, and articles that made no mention of the subject, there is precisely one confirmed article in the San Francisco Chronicle that mentions it, which I confirmed by finding the url for it (only the print info had been cited up until now), and added it to the citation. The other is another non-online source called San Francisco Metropolitan, and I have no way of vetting its content, since I couldn't find any mention of that publication via a Google search, so I don't even know if it passes WP:IRS, or even exists. Nightscream (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what pinktoebeans said. It is a piece of Internet history, and worthy I think of being saved in the Internet Archive, but I am not sure it belongs on Wikipedia? Mpc60ii (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To keep a closed website, it would have to have a high Alexa score (rating of websites) and this one does not figure on alexa. It does not meet WP:WEBCRIT insofar as there are no independent sources evaluating the site. Yes, Archive.org is the best place for this site. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Missvain (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Bahadur Khan Tanoli

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

Had been deprodeed, originally in the Lead only presented as a father. None of the given sources are verifiable, WP:BEFORE gives several results for Bahadur Khan, a common name obviously, nothing which points to the subject CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion include the History and Ruling class of India and History of Hazara.Talk User talk:MbIam9416

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Draftifying. You can find the article at Draft:Khetsingh Khangar. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khetsingh Khangar

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and has no sources. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I've Done.)} 16:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I've Done.)} 16:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no sources how can anyone prove this is not a hoax?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Hindi Wikipedia article shown that the King is real ruler not a WP:HOAX. I agree that the article needs a rewrite, but I've found enough sourcing to believe this King is strong notable see Thousands of people gathered at the procession to celebrate the birth anniversary of Maharaja Khet Singh Khangar in Banda, [13], [14], [15]. VocalIndia (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khangar (community). It's a local folk tradition and the original article should be expanded, and corrected, before the creation of a new page, especially one this poor. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... agree! This article needs attentions from someone who has full knowledge on Gujarat history. VocalIndia (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Did a WP:Before and lot of images and videos from youtube regarding the subject showed up along with some sources (mostly unreliable). This could be developed into a better article by someone who actually have an idea about Gujarat history. Chances are there for the availability of both online and offline sources in the local language or Hindi. And the sources provided by VocalIndia indicates that the subject was one of a historical figure. So deleting it without giving an option to remodify would be unfair. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pointing the author to guidelines as to how to write a WP article (for example omitting ! marks). The article makes a lot of extravagant claims, which makes me think there is a Hindutva bias in the article. If kept it needs to be heavily tagged for Verification and proper sourcing. Some of the text appears to be in untranslated Hindi, which will not do. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned and added some sources for information to the article. Its still a work in progress but it can be improved. I think there is sufficient evidence that he meets WP:GNG and and deserves to be kept. VocalIndia (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- VocalIndia, I appreciate your great effort! But I think this must be presently moved into draftspace so that you or other interested users can work on this article by taking enough time. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki You're also an Indian editor, I see you are one of the best edtors from India, why not make the article better? VocalIndia (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VocalIndia, you mentioned that its still a work in progress. Right? Thats the reason why we have an option to move such articles into draftspace. It is hard to find sources about the subject in this case. It might be available in other local languages. So an expert editor who is interested in this field is needed here. Thats why I said to draftify this article. And by the way, thankyou for your appreciation:) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current version is enough for Wikipedia's article standard ! VocalIndia (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been drastically rewritten since its nomination and first relisting. It should be given another look for further consideration. @Johnpacklambert, DrKay, and Peterkingiron: ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Draftify as requested. I'm not convinced by the available sources and my BEFORE didn't help. But the subject seems notable per how I see few Google search results. Perhaps someone with an interest in Gujarat history can help. Gazal world, Ideas? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 23:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As per suggested by all above and let it vet through AFC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: agree with others. Maybe someone can translate the Hindi article into English. defcon5 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the King of a state, he is notable enough to have his own article. Current version is look notable to me. 185.205.142.76 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Salix alba (talk): 19:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piia Pasanen

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

Familiar face from Finnish TV, sure, but that's neither relevant nor enough to establish notability. Search finds a few tabloid / gossip mag pieces, so barely RS, and even then no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ENT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's the news anchor on Finland's national channel. A search for her name on Google News yields 900 results from a range of sources... but I have to admite that they are all in Finnish, which I cannot read. Furius (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Again, I don't speak Finnish, but from a quick Google she certainly appears to notable; an anchor on Finland's main national broadcaster and presenting the prestgious Independence Day Reception (Finland) event wouldn't be given to some throwaway celebrity. Additionally, the Finnish article for her has existed on the Finnish Wikipedia for 15 years, and the pageview stats for that indicate that the Finnish article for her actually has been getting consistently more views than someone who is currently linked from the Finnish main landing page; not an indication of notabilty, granted, but certainly indicates at least local interest. TubularWorld (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well-known public figure which is reflected by the number of sources out there. I speak Finnish and searched in Finnish-language sources. Much of it is in the genre of entertainment news/women's magazines but the sources themselves are WP:RS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are plenty of hits, but none of it is sigcov, it's all about her mother dying and that sort of thing. Also, many hits are about her reporting (eg. on the Linnan Juhlat), rather than her being reported on. In other words, quantity rather than quality. (And not that I should have to point this out to anyone, but being a news anchor etc. is not a notability criterion. Let's not confuse familiarity of face and name with notability.) When I first saw this article I did some searching in order to save it, but failed, and had to conclude that the subject isn't notable by English-language Wikipedia's standards. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why isn't being a news anchor for a major channel a notability criterion? It seems like it should be roughly equivalent to starring in a notable film, which can be used as an argument for actors. Furius (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TubularWorld. Meets notability guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. Prabhakaran

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

I analysed the complete sources and found that, all of them are talking about his company rather than this person. Some of them dont even mention him. On doing a WP:Before, I only got this [16] as the one giving any least coverage. Here also the main topic is his company. Thus the sources provided are just a REFBOMBING and the subject have no significant coverage at all and fails GNG. There is also a possibility that this article was created for promotional purpose if we are looking at the style of writing. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 15:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the tag says, this article reads like an advertisement and does not demonstrate notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dethan Punalur

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

lack of reliable references which are independent of the subject. WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did a WP:Before in Malayalam and found that this source [17] from Mathrbhumi is giving significant coverage to the subject. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasoning by Kichu. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a lot of awards for photography in South India. An established, high quality photographer. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N. A. Naseer

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

lack of independently reliable references. no indication of notability. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the reputed photographers from Kerala, who popularised wildlife photography in the state. Notability can be established with these [18][] [19] [20][21]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasoning by Kichu. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs work, the subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG based on multiple reliable secondary sources, such as a review on his upcoming photography book at [[22]]. Roulisegee (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Love-Robinson

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

The subject commited fraud as a minor, and subsequently has been found guilty of fraud on two occasions since then. None of this would normally get much attention - and it doesn't appear that there has been that much attention - if it wasn't for the earlier case as a minor which was unusual. I'm not seeing enough here to justify an article and I'm concerned about the BLP implications considering that most of this occured as a minor: per WP:CRIME I'd be looking for evidence that the subject is a significant figure or that there is sufficient coverage to pass this "historically significant" bar, but I'm not really seeing evidence of either. Bilby (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. The article may be poorly written. The subject may not merit ongoing coverage. However, this Dr. Love story has just enough Florida Man oddity to attract ongoing media attention, especially since he is allegedly still practicing medicine as of January 2021.[23] • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the BLP concerns are just too high to keep such an article on a living person. The coverage is clearly not high enough to say that people would find it odd that Wikipedia lacked an article on this individual and I really do not think there is justification to have such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, per WP:CRIME, not significant CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything about this article seems wrong. Poorly-written with significant tone issues. KidAd • SPEAK 04:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Participants are evenly divided, both numerically and from a strength-of-argument perspective, and a fourth relist is unlikely to change that. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yemane Niguse

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

Fails GNG. Might have been G5 eligible but not totally sure. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:-noah-: What does "G5 eligible" mean, please? BushelCandle (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eligible for G5 speedy deletion.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not making the exact extent of my ignorance clearer, Kieran207, but I think I understand the "eligible for speedy deletion part" - it's the G5 jargon that has me nonplussed: where can I find exactly this (presumed) G5 rule or whatever? (A link or URL would assist my education...) BushelCandle (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full policy can be found at WP:G5.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 10:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy response and for those great links, Kieran207. If I have understood those pages correctly, I have deduced that this article is NOT eligible for a G5 deletion because it it has substantial edits by others - specifically 12 others (including myself). --BushelCandle (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The only sources which give any coverage about him are about his assassination, which would fall under WP:BIO1E.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage for WP:GNG needs to take into account the demographic bias of en.Wikipedia editors and sources. We have a mainstream Ethiopian media source, Borkena, that reports on Yemane and his leadership of a group opposed to the former dominating party in Ethiopia, the TPLF; this is not only about the assassination itself. We have a major Oromo media source, Kichuu, reporting on Yemane being sufficiently independent that several groups disliked his leadership of part of the Tigrayan opposition. Both mainstream sources state that Yemane was killed for his political activities. The mainstream sources are currently reasonably widely used in en.Wikipedia for Ethiopia-related topics, showing that many editors consider these reliable, even though nobody has created the sources' Wikipedia articles yet; the red linking is reasonably associated with the systematic demographic bias on en.Wikipedia. WP:BIO1E is only about the question of whether the article on a noticeable person/event should be rather on the person or rather on the event; it's not an argument to delete the overall topic. Keep in mind that since early November 2020 the Tigray War with a near-total blockade on most forms of communication has been in place. This is not the UK.Wikipedia or the US.Wikipedia; this is an English language encyclopedia aimed to cover information about the whole world. Boud (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he's so notable, then find the sources! This Isn't about bias, this is about an article that doesn't comply with WP:V, who's subject fails GNG.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Boud is spot-on in highlighting the demographic bias of en.Wikipedia editors and sources and the existence of coverage in mainstream Ethiopian media sources that have a limited web and English language presence. The suspicion of many in the region is that Yemane Niguse was notable enough to warrant assassination to prevent his influence growing further. BushelCandle (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further focus on sources brought up later during the discussion may help generate a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 15:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search turned up nothing outside of what was in the article already. Likely a non-notable activist that only received attention for dying. And before you talk about my bias, FIND THE SOURCES. If sources for him exist in a language I don't understand, then find them and add them to the article.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 01:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cocnur with Boud; claim that WP:BIO1E applies is incorrect, Niguse's role prior to his assassination is notable, evidenced by reporting of the Fenkil Movement. It's also reasonable in this case to take account of the censorship restrictions in place and the difficulty in finding multiple sourcing to overwhelmingly satisfy the GNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable enough. Doesn't comply with WP:Notability (politics). Ragmuffin-AGASTOPIA (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of these exceptionally difficult AfDs where it's nearly impossible to make a determination based on English sources and available non-English sources. Failing NPOL doesn't mean you can't otherwise be notable. Going only by the sources in the article, he probably does fail WP:BIO1E, but the sources aren't so bad that a neutral article can't be written about him. If there's anything else written on him, which wouldn't be in English, he's probably notable enough for an article. I don't find myself agreeing with the delete !voters, but can't defend a source-based keep !vote due to the difficulties in finding sources. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurukkoli Moideen

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

A politician who is only a candidate in the upcoming Kerala election. Basically fails NPOL as the subject has been never elected into any legislative bodies in the past. There is also no significant coverage. Hence fails GNG also. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The subject is not notable according to GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 17:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won, and this article does not suggest that he would pass any other notability criterion independently of having to pass NPOL. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is clear he has been elected to a lot of local service organisations and sanghas in Kerala. However, he has not been elected to any state or national body, so fails WP:NPOL --Whiteguru (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for office who have not been elected are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete He is Indian politician of Indian Union Muslim League

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/iuml-releases-list-of-candidates/article34053385.ece

He currently Editor-in-Chief 'Swathanthra Karshakan' Magazine https://find.uoc.ac.in/Record/ch.6734He currently serves as president of Swathanthra Karshaka Sangham Kerala State He is the selected UDF candidate to contest for the Member of Legislative Assembly seat from Tirur constituency

https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=144433764&highlights=SWATHANTHRA%2520KARSHAKA%2520SANGHAM

Don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3917:607D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate to contest an MLA seat is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — politicians get articles on here when they win election to, and thereby actually hold, a notable political office, not just because they ran as a candidate. Being a magazine editor is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — magazine editors get articles when they've been the subject of critical analysis about the significance of their work as magazine editors, not just because you show a photograph of them doing their job. And new comments in AFD discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najeeb Kanthapuram

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

A politician who fails NPOL as he has been never elected into any legislative bodies. Also does not have any sigcov thus failing GNG also Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won, and this article does not suggest that he would pass any other notability criterion independently of having to pass NPOL. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and does not have enough coverage outside of his campaign to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can be renamed if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gillman

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

Fails WP:GNG not finding any in-depth coverage of him. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NAUTHOR as the author of quite a few important books about mountaineering history, especially the Eiger and Mount Everest. His biography of George Mallory, reviewed by Publisher's Weekly, was made into a documentary film by the National Geographic Society. The article needs work, but he is a notable author. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a review of the film based on one of his books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a review by Publisher's Weekly of his biography of David Bowie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG, who removed the PROD for this article back in 2011 and seems to already be familiar with this matter. Personally, I vote Weak keep, as the subject seems to be just notable enough under WP:AUTHOR. To add marginally to what Cullen328 noted, Gillman's work on Bowie has been cited by The Times and The Telegraph as well. Comment for those performing WP:BEFORE: this Peter Gillman not to be confused with Peter Gilman (single 'l'), who was also an author. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as cleanup of the article itself goes, I think the only major cleanup this article needs is to be made less reliant on primary sources as opposed to a typical WP:TNT situation with undisclosed autobiographies. Furthermore, the subject seems to be WP:HERE. It's true that they have been prompted at least twice – once on their talk page and once on the Teahouse – to add a COI disclosure to their page, and they really need to read and abide by Wikipedia:Verifiability, but their editing history to me is unmistakably one of wanting to contribute what they know to the project, not of using it as a means of promotion. Therefore, I believe with proper guidance, they could chip in as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question for more experienced editors: would it be reasonable to move this article to Peter and Leni Gillman? Based on the sources Cullen and I are using, Leni seems almost precisely as notable as Peter and for the exact same reasons, and it feels like creating a separate article for Leni would be a borderline WP:REDUNDANTFORK given what sources we have about them. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a possibility, TheTechnician27, since his wife has been his co-author for many years. But my subjective opinion is that his most important book was "Eiger Direct: The Epic Battle on the North Face" which he co-authored with famed mountaineer Dougal Haston in 1966. That book has been issued with title variations in different countries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has written significant books, and that's wenough to meet WP:AUTHOR. There does not seem to be any promotionalism in hte present version of the article. I think it would beenough to have a redirect for Leni, using the same argument as Cullen328-- she is not acoauthoro f his most important book. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Went ahead and made the redirect at Leni Gillman. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Peter and Leni Gillman, as they appear to generally write as a team. pburka (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul

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

Non-notable or not-yet-notable journalist. After discussions with the page’s creator, who has done extensive research, we were unable to identify significant coverage in secondary RS beyond a single source (Yahoo). This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON; for now the entry relies almost entirely on primary sources and does not meet wiki notability threshold. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussion of sources can be found at Talk:Isaac Saul. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage actually about Saul to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnpacklambert: since I'm still not a very experienced editor, and this was my first major article, do you mind explaining why this is? I thought that in particular three of the sources that I included justified this for publication:

And then, there are the sources for his career in Ultimate on top of that. Do you mind explaining why you don't think it's ready? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Establishing notability for journalists is fundamentally difficult because news organizations don't want them to be the story. It looks like we have two qualifying sources ([24] (this WP:INTERVIEW has a substantial introduction), [25]). ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically the notability requirement is for secondary sources tho no? (I’m speaking just of what I understand consensus to be—and actually that’s what that essay says—but I guess I’d have to think over what I think the ideal policy would be on primary sources of this type.) Innisfree987 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Innisfree987, Per WP:INTERVIEW: commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material ~Kvng (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - My apologies, I thought you meant the interview itself was a substantial introduction (to Saul). I take it you were talking about what prefaces it. Agree for sure about regarding that as secondary but have to disagree that it’s substantial—it’s just a few sentences. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that he's notable (yet, perhaps?) The Yahoo piece is pretty minor and afaict, has no byline and the interview isn't enough to satisfy independence of the source, nor coverage of him. TAXIDICAE💰 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to add that I found a new source covering the election fraud Twitter thread that does not include an interview: https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/us-elections-2020-journalists-mega-thread-debunking-trump-campaigns-fraud-claim-is-viral-read-here. Also, here's another interview that I found (I know that these aren't considered high-quality sources on their own, but there are a lot of him, and every one of them includes a blurb before the interview itself): https://braverangels.org/tangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnortangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnor/. Does this help at all? Also, isn't the Forbes source stronger than the Yahoo one anyway? Thank you! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough secondary coverage independent from him either in this AfD or in the article to sustain an article on WP:GNG grounds, for instance the sources include his writings for Huffpost, personal interviews, and a Forbes piece (which doesn't contribute to notability due to the consensus on Forbes and self-publication.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks borderline after 2 relists, hoping for more people to take a look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kokopelli7309, I see no one has replied about those additional sources, so my two cents: despite the header, the Free Press source is really about Trump and only has a passing mention of Saul. Prose before interviews can be helpful as Kvng was saying, but for AfD purposes we’re looking for material that’s gone through an editorial process, fact-checking, etc. and to me it’s not clear the podcast blurbs fit the bill. So for me these don’t change much, as far as giving us more to go on that’s not Saul’s own writing/commentary, but I appreciate your looking for more sources! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Best of Luck Nikki. Consensus was that the article fails WP:V and WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murtuza Kutianawala

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

Unsourced Biography of Living Person and the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect to Best of Luck Nikki, which is the only semi-significant role by this actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is a biogrpahy of a living person with no sources, we need to remove it with all possible haste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect to Best of Luck Nikki as per above. Citterz (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Edinger

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, mostly primary sources. Sources cover him but not in a substantial way. Throast (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can see, this page passes Wikipedia's general inclusion threshold. From reading through the 18 sources listed, one is on the BBC radio interviewing him directly about his life as a YouTube star and another by the SWLondoner interviews him about his his worklife which lends to the notability which is in question. That BBC report as well as the 2 inclusions on the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire Show fulfill verifyability. Further references in Mashable and other online publications definitely seem to aid in the notability requirement, so I do not think this page suits the criteria required for deletion as stated. It could definitely use a cleanup though. For instance, possibly by replacing the primary source listed for his hometown with one of the large number of secondary sources found upon a cursory search, but a lot of those sites appear to be content aggregators so I wouldn't class them as too reliable. But as far as I can tell, most info on this page seems to be cited by the aforementioned reliable secondary sources.TwinTelepathy (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion on whether specific sources count towards WP:SIGCOV can help develop a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search resulted in several meaningful coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources such as a review on his digital content by New Media Rockstars at [[26]], a review on Favorite Evan Edinger moments by Ten Eighty Magazine at [[27]], and a story of his career by American Expat Finance at [[28]]. Believe subject satisfies WP:SIGCOV which states "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, subject is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roulisegee (talk • contribs) 2021-04-09T18:30:44 (UTC)
Keep per TwinTelepathy, the other editor (who left their comment unsigned), and the prior AfD. See Yash!'s comment. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to a lack of participation. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Courte

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

Biography of a journalist and activist, not adequately referenced as passing our inclusion standards for journalists or activists. The only references here are the biographical sketches attached to an archival fonds and a portrait -- but neither having his personal papers preserved as an archival fonds nor the existence of a portrait are notability claims in and of themselves, and none of the work summarized in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have been the subject of actual reliable source coverage by journalists in media outlets or books. And even on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources, all I can find is a couple of glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things, with no evidence of any sources that are actually about him for the purposes of establishing his notability. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has a lengthy entry here in Who's who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day by Robert Aldrich and was an Honor Roll Inductee in 1998 for his work with AIDS for the Ontario AIDS Network (link here). His papers/fonds are held in The ArQuives and they have a biography on him here. He has additional fonds at the Quebec Gay Archives (link here), and they also have a biography on him here. The ArQuives states "Everyone who worked in the gay and lesbian community in the 1980s remembers Bernard Courte, journalist for Le Berdache... He was also one of the founding members and then Editor-in-Chief of the magazine Sortie... He was one of the first in Montréal to truly understand the importance of AIDS and its impact upon gay people." (link here). When Gary Kinsman interviewed Ross Higgins, Higgins called Courte a "crucial figure" and "very instrumental in the francophone community in Toronto" (link here). --Kbabej (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being inducted into an organization's own proprietary "honour roll" is not an automatic notability freebie in itself, especially if you have to rely on the organization's own self-published website to source the claim because journalistic coverage about it is non-existent — in order for any award or honour to make its winners notable for winning it, it has to be an award that gets media coverage to establish its notability, so you have to be able to source the claim to journalism in media, where somebody wrote a news article about the presentation of that award, before it counts as a notability claim.

Having his papers held by archives is not a notability claim per se, and the biographical sketches attached to those archives' collections of his papers are not notability-making sources — because by virtue of directly holding a collection of his personal papers, the archives are not fully independent of him.

Transcripts of Q&A interviews, held in PDF form in the private website of an organization and not published in real media, are not notability-supporting sources, and being editor-in-chief of a magazine is not an "inherently" notable job that guarantees a Wikipedia article in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about him.

Notability is not a question of simply being able to show primary sources, like interview transcripts or the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, as technical verification that he did stuff — it lives or dies on the amount of third party journalism that has or hasn't been published about him and the things he's done in media. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I don't agree with your assessment completely, but that's neither here nor there, as I've located additional sources (below) that are standalone news articles in a notable publication. Those, combined with his entry in Who's who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day, meet GNG in my opinion. --Kbabej (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found two newspaper articles on newspapers.com. There's an in-depth article on his views on AIDS by Heather Hill of the Montreal Gazette called "AIDS plague spawns epidemic of defeat" (August 13, 1983) (paywalled); there's another in the Montreal Gazette on if the Gazette had been biased in their coverage of a gay story when Courte complained in the article "No bias found in homosexual story: council" (June 10, 1986) (again, paywalled). --Kbabej (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see in my nomination statement, where I said "all I can find is a couple of glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things"? Congratulations, you just found the exact same two articles I was talking about.

They don't change anything, though. "AIDS plague spawns epidemic of defeat" just briefly quotes him as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is the HIV virus, and "No bias found in homosexual story" just mentions his name as the plaintiff in a press council complaint about the tenor of other news reportage in the Montreal Gazette. Neither of them are about him for the purposes of helping to make him notable — we're not looking for how many sources we can find that happen to glancingly namecheck his existence, we're looking for how many sources we can find that have him as their subject: news articles about him winning notable distinctions, critical analysis about the significance of his work, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additional sources: Xtra reported Courte was one of the inductees in Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archive’s National Portrait Gallery in 2003 (link here). The same organization also holds a shirt with Courte's likeness on it; the same shirt is listed in the Wearing Gay History project (link here). --Kbabej (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which are article-clinching notability claims in the absence of GNG-worthy coverage about him. (The Xtra piece, frex, just glancingly mentions his name in the process of being about Denis Leblanc, and thus is not building Bernard Courte's notability as he is not the subject being written about.) Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely adds toward notability, as the subject is important enough to be added to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archive’s National Portrait Gallery in 2003. It seems obvious you’re embedded in your position no matter what sources are presented, so I won’t go back and forth any more about this. —Kbabej (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia notability criterion in which "a portrait of him is held in an archive's proprietary commissioned collection" confers an automatic notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. I'm not "embedded in my position no matter what sources are presented", you're failing to show any sources that are about Bernard Courte doing anything that meets a Wikipedia notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elohor Aiboni

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

Non-notable. Of the three sources, one only mentions her once as an attendee. The other two mainly report on her appointment, which is not significant coverage. And the main claim to fame seems to be that she is the first female to hold the position of CEO at Shell Nigeria, which in itself is not an inherently notable role. Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete Considering that it is rare for women to occupy prominent positions in Nigeria (see Women in Nigeria), being appointed to head the company is important and has been covered by multiple sources. An aide of the President is reported to have confirmed it. I think WP:CONTEXTUALISATION is important for the keep. Vikram Vincent 08:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, every one of the couple of hundred male midwives in the UK deserve an article, given that they represent a fraction of a per cent of the total midwifery workforce. I think not. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the UK Prime Minister acknowledges their appointment to head the mid-husband company ;-) Vikram Vincent 08:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my !vote to delete after looking at the new sources presented by Bennyontheloose though my logic of context still stands. VV 21:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources from Nigeria have been added that document her winning the SheCanTech 2019 Woman of the Year award (SheCan holds second conference, celebrates Nigeria’s ‘First Women’ (The Guardian Nigeria, 2019)), and that she was also the first female Asset Operations Manager at the Bonga DeepWater Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) facility operated by Shell Nigeria, and her educational background (‘We believe every woman can do more when she recognises her innate potentials, capabilities’ (The Guardian Nigeria, 2019)). Beccaynr (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The level of psotion she holds does not grant automatic notability, and the coverage of her holding the position is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article has been published here in the last few days. There's also this and this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I’m not sure how this has eluded me for thus long, but yes per rationale by @DoubleGrazing, WP:GNG is definitely not met. Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No attempt has been made to analyze BennyOnTheLoose's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, looking at the coverage presented by BennyOnTheLoose and others it seems to all be from the singular event of her being appointed to her position as Chief Executive of Shell Nigeria, with the exception of an interview and a passing mention in The Guardian Nigeria. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Pharcyde. Consensus fails NMUSIC Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imani (rapper)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC as an individual member, and a before search reveals no sources which pass GNG. Noah ^💬 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pharcyde if anyone thinks the article title is a probable search term. Could just Delete otherwise. Everything notable about him is relation to the group, and his outside projects and solo works have received no reliable or significant notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pharcyde as suggested above. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angier Buchanan Duke

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

Fails WP:BIO. Being born into a wealthy and prominent family is not enough. The newspapers only covered his divorce and funeral. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "The newspapers only covered his divorce and funeral". The newspaper in question being the New York Times. Even if (which I think would be wrong) you interpret this as tabloid/gossip coverage, there's this book which has a long section on the man, same with this book. Pretty clear WP:BASIC pass. FOARP (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP's additionally found sources, notability is met Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicomi Nix Turner

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NOTABILITY or WP:ARTIST. I can only find a few reliable sources about her or about exhibitions of her work, but I don't see enough substantial sources online that show notability:

Every other source I saw about her was a passing mention of an exhibit she was in.

Also, a side note (although this doesn't have to do with notability): my hunch is that the article was written by a WP:UPE or someone with a WP:COI, based off of the article creator's edits and content in the article. If it's kept, there definitely needs to be a rewrite. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whisperjanes seems to have better search skills than I do, because I did not see any independent coverage in a search.--- Possibly (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral First, I believe she has a swing at WP:NCREATIVE#3 due to her work on Emily the Strange, although she wasn't illustrating that for a very long time. There's also a lot of sources discussing her solo art exhibits such as this, this, and this. She's featured in a print magazine I can't access here. Also here is another artist citing her as an influence. She's a featured artist at the Museum for Urban Contemporary Art, which has a building so at least its not one of the online only art museums I found discussing her. I'm just not familiar enough with the art world to a) find more sources and b) know if this makes her notable as an artist. I think only two of the sources I dug up are mentioned above. Maybe I'll be able to find some time to get better at finding art critiques in the future, but for now I have no idea if she's notable or not. I'm really only posting to add some of these sources to the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Coverage does not seem sufficient to meet WP:NARTIST and higher level policies. Not every artist is notable. Sources SFR found above are a good start, however, but outside of the one niche source we can't access seem to fail SIGCOV (I define niche as not having an article on Wikipedia: Hi-Fructose was a red link I redirected to an article about the art movement it is mentioned in). Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Crabtree

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPROF. No credible citations/h-index or no fellowship. Being a journalist, you do get quoted often but the entity clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV. He does qualify for WP:TOOSOON. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment this clearly wont pass WP:NPROF but I am more optimistic about WP:NAUTHOR. He has published a widely discussed book that has been discussed in many major outlets, shortlisted for a major award etc. --hroest 21:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 01:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Both this and the book's page appear to have been created by SPAs but WP:NAUTHOR would appear to apply. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's ignore the WP:SPA-thing for a moment. Getting a coverage at Financial Times- "2018 Business Book of the Year Award" is highly absurd because he had been a former bureau chief of the same newspaper. Ok let's ignore the FT Awards... except his book and interviews... there is no such information exist about him as a "person". This clearly shows that the entity lacks independent significant coverage... It's not what he said or wrote. It's about who he is. If not AfD, the page should/must be draftified. [This opinion should be considered as an extended part of my nomination statement]. -Hatchens (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the draftify option outlined by Hatchens. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At best, WP:TOOSOON. There is no WP:SIGCOV of him as a journalist - the bulk of the citations are just his professional resume, i.e. his work as a journalist. Above that, there are a few book reviews, but insufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. M00thu2 (talk) 01:18,21 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Hristo Botev. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanka Boteva

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

While technical notability may (or may not: I can't verify this either way) be satisfied by the sources cited, it seems that this person's noteworthiness is based on child(ren) who went on to be notable, as well as being "famous with her beauty, pride and spirit". I call that non-notable, sources or no sources; fails WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her son Hristo Botev. I too felt there were some concerns with the article, I am not sure how finished the creator is with the article. I did ask some questions on the talk page to him, however I think a redirect would work for now. Govvy (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. While we do keep some women known solely as mothers (e.g., Abigail Adams), I don't see how this woman was notable, although someone might be searching for her name. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now per talk page. VocalIndia (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Damron

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

Had been deproded, seems to be a typical WP:BIO1E, some coverage about the shoebox action but no sigcov about herself at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Possibly merge a sentence or two to Samaritan's Purse to which Operation Christmas Child redirects. She was clearly a successful local organiser, but that is not enough to make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Peterkingiron; absence of significant coverage about the person sans the event in question. PK650 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no where near enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Brijwasi

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

Not enough coverage to pass GNG also fail for WP:REALITYSINGER being a winner of reality television doesn't make him notable Sonofstar (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winning two national television singing competitions passes criteria 9 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) as confirmed by reliable sources already in the article such as New Indian Express and the Hindu, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject meets WP:BASIC.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Currently elaborating, please wait... ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Evaluation:
  - ^[1] A very detail biography of the subject, thus can constitute as wp:sigcov.
  - ^[2] Excluding the interview section for not being wp:independent, leaving only the lead, the coverage is far removed from being a trivial mention (but may not be wp:sigcov) and can contribute to wp:basic.
  - ^[3] While it may not be wp:sigcov, the coverage is still far removed from being a trivial mention.
  - ^[4] May or may not be wp:sigcov, but is not a trivial mention.
  - ^[5] Same as above.
- With these sources, the combined is enough to meet wp:basic. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Regarding WP:REALITYSINGER, reliable sources have shown that the subject is notable outside of a reality television series, so it fails the second point. The subject also meets the WP:SINGER C9. As the subject meets both WP:BASIC and WP:SINGER, the subject is very likely to be notable. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the above arguments that the subject won two television shows therefore warrants an independent article satisfies criteria 9 WP:MUSICBIO is factually incorrect. They were television shows. See WP:REALITYSINGER #2: Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable. The subject is only notable for winning 2 television contests as you just stated, and lacks significant news coverage in verifiable sources. Therefore, there is not enough to merit an independent article per policy. Also, it's clear you don't understand what exactly WP:SIGCOV is. It's not a biography, nor is it a handful of articles that merely mention the subject. It's a reference to media attention and significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Topic fails notability requirements and should be deleted. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b DelhiApril 16, India Today Web Desk New; April 16, 2018UPDATED:; Ist, 2018 13:59. "From Little Champ to Rising Star: How Hemant Brijwasi won millions of hearts with his breathtaking performances". India Today. Retrieved 2021-04-04. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ ^a ^b Saifi, Javed (2018-04-20). "Straight from the heartland". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
^ ^a ^b "Singing reality show winner attacked in Vrindavan". Hindustan Times. 2016-06-12. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
^ ^a ^b DelhiApril 15, India Today Web Desk New; April 16, 2018UPDATED; Ist, 2018 10:51. "Rising Star 2 grand finale: Hemant Brijwasi is the winner of the show". India Today. Retrieved 2021-04-04. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ ^a ^b "'Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Li'l Champs' winner Hemant Brijwasi wins reality show 'Rising Star 2'". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2021-04-04.

Comment: Add on after Megtetg34 valid points. If fails GNG also

[29] no author name is written, It is hard to believe, it is independent

[30] This is again not independent, just an interview on winning the show.

[31], [32], [33] No Author name are written. PTI is the Press Trust of India, so this is also not independent. Also, it's just written about winning the show and not in-depth about his own journey. Sonofstar (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Winning two notable television music competitions clearly passes WP:NMUSIC as confirmed in multiple reliable sources such as The Hindu. Not all newspapers give bylines so that is not a factor. The reality singer link is for singers who only win one competition not two different ones which obviously makes their coverage more than one event and independent of each win. There is no valid reason for this article to be deleted in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There should be at least 2-3 independent coverage, all the news website shared till now, give author bylines if you check other news links of those sites, it fails WP:GNG Rest no secondary coverage apart from show winningSonofstar (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have tended to keep the winners of major reality TV shows. Indian TV is a billion-person market. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on winning music contests he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, Please share, where is the album or song published by him??? How come WP:MUSICBIO is applicable for a reality show singer. He is not even Passing GNG as it's all Press wired news he has. He must pass WP:REALITYSINGER which he fails.Sonofstar (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering WP:REALITYSINGER: Assume the subject is only notable for two reality television series. Interpreting the guideline strictly, it fails C2 as the subject is not only notable for a reality television series. But what about the spirit of this guideline? Assuming being only notable for two reality television series still meets C2, may be redirected to an article about the series poses a problem, that is which reality television series of the two should we redirect to? Therefore, the spirit of the guideline is really the same as the words of the guideline.
For by-lines, they are only as reliable as the publisher itself. A dependent publisher can put names that look independent as the authors. Instead, the content itself is a much more reliable indicator of independence. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yazh Sudhakar

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

WP:BLP of a writer and radio personality, not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for either writers or radio personalities. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of the person's significance (e.g. noteworthy awards, critical analysis of the importance of their work, etc.) supported by real reliable source coverage by journalists in real media. But this is basically a résumé, documenting his career but offering no evidence of any distinctions to make it special, and "referenced" solely to his own (deadlinked) personal website rather than any evidence of media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:NAUTHOR / WP:NCREATIVE - lacks reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by Bearcat. Furthermore WP:CREATIVE isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Abdul Hameed

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

WP:BLP of a radio and television broadcaster, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for media personalities. The only references here are primary sources, blogs and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, which are not support for notability -- not a single footnote here represents reliable source coverage about him at all. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with Tamil-language skills I don't have can locate some actual solid sourcing -- but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any real reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm puzzled on why this is relisted. Those above delete arguments are strong enough for the article to be deleted. Anyway. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results return a handful of sources which contain a brief description about him. Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable local broadcaster. Dan arndt (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parimelazhagan Thangaraj

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

Per WP:GNG, subject is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. And too many primary sources used + facebook is not reliable. -- Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems as there is almost 2000 mentioning of him on Google scholar search. Any thought from your WP:BEFORE? Kolma8 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Wikipedia requirements, the information from JSTOR, newspapers, and books were added. The contents are re-edited and modified. The information are linked with external websites. Subject is deserve space on Wikipedia, because he is a well known Professor who contributed so many research articles and books to the research communities. Indian Scientists (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is WP:TOOSOON, he does not pass WP:NPROF#1 (yet). In a high citation field, 2000 citations is not a lot. It is not clear how "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." -- his two most cited works concern extraction methods of metabolits on certain plants, how does performing an acetone extraction on a plant and measuring several properties of it amount to a major "significant impact"? I think the "Research projects and Patents" section says it all. The only argument I can muster is that we have kept similarly weak cases recently. --hroest 16:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, this was a really tough citation metrics project: most of the Indian coauthors (and the subject himself) are indexed under multiple identities on Scopus, including inverted name order (e.g. "Parimelazhagan Thangaraj" also appears under "Thangaraj Parimelazhagan"), and Scopus has an even worse time with his Brazilian coauthors (who have names like "Eloísa Portugal Barros Silva Soares de Souza, where "Eloísa" + any combination of the last four names can show up as a separate entry), so I've been going through and manually merging these people and recalculating h-indices. After doing this for his first 40 coauthors (with ≥5 pubs), Dr. Thangaraj/Parimelazhagan is looking around average (and well above the median) for his field, but I still have another 70 people to address so this will likely change. All this is just to say that his GS citations may be similarly affected. On the other hand, he (and his coauthors) publish a lot in what may be WP:FRINGE journals, which shouldn't count towards notability, so this will probably be a very messy AfD overall. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. the publications in WP:FRINGE journals make me even more confident that this is not a very notable person. Most cited paper is in Journal of King Saud University-Science, 2014. --hroest 02:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can't discriminate the journals based on high impact factors. Many of the highly impacted journals having the Article Processing Charges can sometimes not be afforded by authors from developing and low-income countries. Interestingly, many funding agencies don't support APC. Some times the APC exceeds the annual income of a researcher (e.g. Nature communications; €4,530 = 387649.29 Indian Rupees!!! + Taxes), so it is tough to get published in those journals.

I think T Parimelazhagan deserves space on Wikipedia because he contributes to establishing applied research in Tamil Nadu by educating local Tamil people. Some news about him in news channels are here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3XIEXMSwRc&list=LL&index=33; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDS69CVw2j0&list=LL&index=7&t=14s. He also established an IPR cell in the University. Read more at:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/70940234.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst Indian Scientists (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Scientists thanks for your perspective, however the argument was not about high/low impact factor but whether this researcher is above-average in his field and on top of that I made a comment about WP:FRINGE. You can publish in low impact factor journals but if your research is important, it will generally get cited a lot and this will show up in your citation metrics. Also, many high quality journals have mechanism to reduce APC for lower income countries or waive them as in the example of Nature Communications. Furthermore, while it is helpful to know that he contributed to education of Tamil people, however the question here based on WP:NPROF#1 is whether "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is not about whether he "deserves" to be on Wikipedia, but rather whether he is notable enough to pass either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. --hroest 14:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have a duty to our readers to consider how highly regarded and impactful the place someone publishes is. Passing notability guidelines for academics is not just publishing a certain amount. This guy does not pass the actual inclusion criteria at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how membership and awards from provincial organizations merits passing the prof test. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Butler

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a clear-cut case of BLP1E with no clear-cut merge target. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely trivial information. Does not meet WP:GNG Yinglong999 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A long standing 17-year article with many versions that need scrutiny ~~that should have been tagged for first before coming to AFD~~. I have had a cursory glance and if a WP:BLP1E then Janet Albrechtsen may be a potential nerge target.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply yep, it was created right around the event, with nothing added since as he hasn't otherwise been notable that I can find. It had been tagged for almost seven years. I saw no further action that would have solved the concerns before AfD unfortunately. StarM 11:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having your views cited in a legislative hearing is not at all close to making someone notable. This is a very clear failure of BLP1E guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've added a couple of articles he authored that were published in the Sydney Morning Herald (so not 'independent' but 'reliable') to help bolster the page, but those two articles were the only (remotely) IRS I could find via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than Google). So that's hardly smashing his notability out of the ballpark. I would be inclined to delete fro failing to meet WP:GNG and I agree fails WP:BLP1E. Cabrils (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that notability is not established. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabir Prasad Asthana

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

Survived PROD based on the encyclopedia source, but I don't see any evidence of notability and am unable to verify the claims to even see if the chair positions add up to notability together. StarM 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Would be notable if confirmed as former leader of the Indian National Congress, but I fail to find any English sources. Perhaps someone should double check in Hindi before a decision is made? P.S I will edit out the obvious puffery and non-encyclopedic language. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if I'm reading the second paragraph correctly, he was a committee chair, not a leader for the INC itself. StarM 11:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The committee chair of a commitee for a movement in one province of a country is not a sign of notability, and being a person who works with someone who organized a mass movement of protest is clearly not a sign of notability unless it can be documented you were one of the main organizers of the mass movement, which is not documented here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Sutherland

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be a regular Bomber Command member. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear notable for his war service, despite the statement in the lead. He will have been one of thousands of Britishers who served in Bomber Command. The MBE doesn't add to notability, I understand from previous discussions that an OBE is not sufficient in its own right so this will be the same for the lowest class of the order. Zawed (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with two aboveBashereyre (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough for GNG. Intothat darkness 13:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above that there is nothing in the article to suggest that he meets any notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC) - See below[reply]

Comment Does anybody here even bother to look for sources? And possible improvements, instead of deletion? WP:Before Shaw, Allison; The Newsroom (3 May 2014). "Obituary: Alec Sutherland MBE, Bomber Command veteran BORN: 19 August, 1922, in Inverness. Died: 16 April, 2014, in Inverness, aged 91". The Scotsman. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lengthy obituary doesn't mean he's notable. And casting aspersions doesn't help you case, in my view. Intothat darkness 19:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No "aspersions" intended. Nor was I "making a case." I was simply asking a question. If the shoe fits ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that you weren't casting aspersions, but conclude with "if the shoe fits" which undermines your earlier denial. I would remind you of your recent warning at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The obituaries mentioned don't add anything to the article in terms of notability. NOTAMEMORIAL and all that. I did check for RS mention of Sutherland and found nothing that would distinguish him as notable. Obituaries are not neutral, and there doesn't seem to be anything else out there about him. Intothat darkness 01:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the exended obituary in The Scotsman has a lot to say. It goes on in detail about his activities, particularly while in service. And it came out of their newsroom with byline. So it should not be dismissed as a source.

Indeed, he apparently has multiple extended obituaries. I tried to update the article to better reflect that.

Whether Mr. Sutherland meets the thresholds for inclusion of Wikipedia is the remaining question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy obituary doesn't mean he's notable. Actually, if it's in a major national newspaper, yes it does, by longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple awards and multiple detailed obituaries providing lots of the biographical detail so conspicuously missing from the recent FA. The subject clearly passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. Clearly notable beyond being a soldier. Not the article it was when proposed for deletion. WP:Preserve WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone point me to the guideline that says lengthy obits in major reliable publications do not indicate notability? Because that appears to be the guideline the delete votes are based on and I would like to read it more carefully. Thank you.-- GreenC 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay, but WP:OTTO is a good starting point in my view when it comes to newspapers in general. An obituary is not automatically a secondary or disinterested source. In this case, the unattributed obit in the Herald came out before the one in the Scotsman. It's not easy to determine if the first was contributed by the family, and the second one could have been copied from the Herald with some slight modifications. Intothat darkness 16:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an irrelevant essay. The facts and the new and expanded sourcing have superseded the argument.

"North's leading lights honoured". BBC News. December 31, 2008. Retrieved April 2, 2021. A veteran swimmer, a medical professional and a leading figure on the island of Eigg have been recognised in the New Year Honours. They include Alex Sutherland for voluntary services to swimming in Inverness. ... Earlier this year, Inverness Leisure renamed its refurbished boardroom after 85-year-old Mr Sutherland. The Inverness Swimming Club stalwart has been a regular at the pool for many years and has won several gold medals in the veteran sections of competitions.
Patterson, Laura (28 April 2014). "RAF Veteran Inspired Many to Sporting Prowess". The Press and Journal. Retrieved April 2, 2021.

Easily surpasses WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant to the question of newspapers and obituaries contained therein. Intothat darkness 18:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

You might read what I posted and the sources. They aren't all obituaries. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you are entitled to your opinion and assertion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to read GreenC's question again, which was inquiring specifically about long obituaries in reliable publications. As both were technically from newspapers I referred to that essay. Intothat darkness 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the essay and while I understand the concern that some journalists write some articles based on hearsay or whatever sounds good without doing much factual verification, there is no evidence of that being a problem in this particular case. -- GreenC 19:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been significantly expanded since the nomination, both with content and sourcing. Perhaps those seeking deletion should review and reconsider...? Also, both Andrew and 7&6=13 make good arguments. - wolf 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG, WP:NSOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BASIC that in this case come awfully close. gidonb (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please avoid using WP:NSOLDIER. If you actually click on the link, you will find that the guideline is deprecated. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors have posted multiple RS with significant coverage. Further, these appear to be more than just obituaries, but full news articles covering the subject's achievements. The Scotsman article alone gives us enough biographical information for a full article. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rondolinda, please provide a rationale for why all these sources do not meet GNG. Your activity on Wikipedia seems to consist mostly of voting Delete in AfD with the same generic explanation and no underlying arguments specific to the case. -- GreenC 20:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There seems to be some coverage in sources. Article could use some cleanup. Please stop using the deprecated WP:SOLDIER essay. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me: got a third of a page obituary in major Scottish newspaper (The Herald) https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald-1130/20140503/page/18 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to passing ANYBIO and otherwise; reiterating that NSOLIDER is explicitly deprecated and inappropriate. Vaticidalprophet 12:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obit in a major national newspaper like The Scotsman has always been held as equating to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. Obituaries in major national newspapers clearly count as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a user that just joined 2 days ago suddenly find their way to AfD? Have they already read all the relevant policies & guidelines, and everything else necessary for an informed !vote? - wolf 14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  - MADdi0X has been blocked for sockpuppetry. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Make that globally locked (fyi) - wolf 18:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources demonstrate SIGCOV per GNG. Article has been greatly improved since first nom. -- GreenC 03:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has significant coverage in reliable sources such as this: https://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-alec-sutherland-mbe-bomber-command-veteran-1538095 Dream Focus 00:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the improvements to the article, and the additional sources that have been added which suggest notability that was not apparent when the article was nominated, I now think that the case for Keep is much stronger than it was when I previously commented and I would now lean towards keeping rather than supporting deletion. Dunarc (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significantly improved since nomination and sources exists to meet GNG. Riteboke (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moses McCormick

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

The article was created in the immediate aftermath of the death of the subject, and Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:MEMORIAL). The subject does not meet notability criteria. He was not widely known outside of his online followers, and his proficiency in most of the languages he spoke was quite basic. He did not contribute substantially to knowledge on how one can learn multiple languages. Hzae (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Laoshu is a notable polyglot, has significant coverage, meets GNG, and is quite well-known in many ways. By the way, I am typically into academic linguistics and generally do not take many amateur polyglots on social media very seriously, but to me, Laoshu looks like he has made quite an impact on the online polyglot community and is worth including here. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moses McCormick meets notability criteria, he received significant coverage from independent secondary sources. He was wildly known in the language learning community and well beyond thanks to his unique style, method and personality. Clement75 13:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Users claiming there is or there is not GNG should more thoroughly explain why that is the case (by measuring the sources currently in the article; and additional ones if they can be found, with the usual requirements - i.e. WP:42).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per reasons above. The sources in the article (except Twitter) seem reliable. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about him: [34], [35] and [36]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Sagotreespirit. The article is still relatively new, but that doesn't mean it can't be developed over time. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D. C. Anderson

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

When the speedy was (correctly) declined, AfD was suggested, so we're here in lieu of PROD. Anderson has a long career, but it seems to be all small roles with little to no coverage to establish that he's notable per any of the creative categories. This is probably the best source and it's far from enough. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hold on thar! The title role in Pippin is not a small role. Andre in Phantom is not that small a role. It is difficult to research RS's for Anderson because of the initials and common name "Anderson". I don't think this should be deleted unless someone does a thorough job to find more sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as has prominent roles in notable theatre productions including Broadway, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find RS, appears to fail WP:ENT.-KH-1 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not there to justify inclusion. He has had significant roles, but it is less than clear that the productions he was in are notable. It is not enough to be appearing in a play that is notable, we need to show that his appearance was in a specific production of a play that was notable and that is not shown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It should be noted that notability requires wp:verifiable evidence.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, very few citations.Peter303x (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not adequately show notability of subject. TheChronium (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is admittedly a close call, but Anderson appears to be one of those journeymen actors who has compiled a long career but without too much featured notice. He has been on Broadway but in relatively small roles, and he has had larger roles but in relatively small productions. But in the end, what really matters is a shortage of reliable and significant coverage that is actually about him in-depth, beyond listings and credits. This and This are about all I could find in terms of dedicated coverage, and they're still just brief softball introductions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Biased source but the subject does maintain his own press kit if any interested editor would like to parse for significant reliable coverage. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to lack of participation. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Edited per request at 15:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Albert (writer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept at AfD in a very different time for biographical notability. He's had a prolific career, but none of the projects appear notable. I can find no reviews of the novel for which he was a co-author nor any other indication he meets creative notability guidelines. Note: he does not appear to be the Scott Albert who worked on Paw Patrol. StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Writers are not automatically notable just because their work exists; they need to show some evidence of significance (notable literary or screenwriting awards, etc.), not just verification of existence. But this features no indication of significance, and it's referenced 50 per cent to directory entries (IMDb, Yahoo Movies, the self-published schedule listing of a TV channel, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all — and while the other four footnotes are real media, three of them are neighbourhood hyperlocals and/or alt-weeklies (which would be fine for use if there were other, better sources around them, but are not widely distributed enough to carry a WP:GNG pass all by themselves if they're more or less all the coverage he actually has), while the Playback hit ([37], since it hasn't actually been linked in the article) is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a piece that isn't about him, which means it's also not solid enough to vault him over the bar all by itself. And furthermore, I can find no indication that any film called Hunt for the Devil was actually produced or released at all, as there's no film of that title listed in any of Scott Albert's, John McFetridge's or Michael Madsen's IMDb profiles. Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will these publications count? [38], [39], [40]. The urls seem to prove that he is the Scott Albert who worked on Paw Patrol - see his Imdb page - [41]. Кирилл С1 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, those don't help. They're all press releases from organizations that have directly employed or contracted him, where we're looking for third party journalism about him and his work in media outlets. And even if he is the Scott Albert who worked on PAW Patrol, that still isn't an automatic notability freebie that would exempt him from actually having to have any legitimate sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why Animation World Network can not be counted as independent reliable source. I just felt that nomination should be addressed. Кирилл С1 (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging. I struck that part of my nom, although I still don't see notability for his work. StarM 15:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Animation World Network citation is that it isn't a journalist-written piece, but merely a press release from Albert's own employer that AWN reprinted verbatim. (See "Source: SkyFarm Company" at the end of it.) Even generally reliable sources will sometimes just reprint primary source press releases and/or "sponsored advertising content" without actually producing their own original reporting — so we don't just consider the source named in the URL, we also check what kind of content it is, and dismiss press releases and sponsored advertising as being worth much less than real journalism. But even if we were to accept it just because AWN would be acceptable sourcing in some other contexts, it would still take more than just one acceptable source to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Holzer

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

Not notable as an Entrepreneur and Physicist Sliekid (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have not been here, in the English Wikipedia for a long time. But in the Hebrew Wikipedia I have been editing for many years. in my opinion Asher Holzer, a man who founded companies listed on the stock exchange, has many patents registered in his name and a very serious entrepreneur deserves to be in this Wikipedia as well. Hopefully Sliekid will read the sources again and agree with me. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think folks who start and run publicly traded companies are notable. I bet the citations are out there and would like to see the author build this out. It's only been on here for a minute or two.Miaminsurance (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC) (Struck, CU blocked account). ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 23:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep as Holzer meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two keep arguments assert the existence of sources but do not provide any, so they are not particularly convincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG. Sources currently linked in the article include:
1. an interview with the subject

2. and 6. article about company

3. list of patents

4. article about company

5. company homepage

7. article about company

8. company press release

9. company press release

10. WSJ article about his nomination to a position in a company. It's the best source here, and it has 4 paragraphs total. The two seen in the preview are the only two that talk about him.

11. article about company transaction

12. blip about company

13. article about company
Notability is not inherited, so the articles about his companies cannot be used to demonstrate his notability. Mottezen (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per sourcing & therefore notability concerns compellingly outlined by Mottezen. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another person doing their day job, expecting an article. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Arthur Javis University. No policy-based argument for notability has been made. Sandstein 07:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Javis Archibong

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

~~News coverage is not enough to pass GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No true notability, article is literally an advert trying to promote its subject and their works. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I have reviewed the article and removed claims and references that may be percieved as promotions.Tomiwa2020 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Arthur Javis Archibong is a notable Nigerian in cross river state, who contributes to education at grassroot level through scholarship and education grants, He also founded Arthur javis University to help education. This article is in no way trying to promote the subject. His dad was also a notable Nigeria who was a military governor of Cross River state. Tomiwa2020 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTINHERITED, whether or not his father is notable has no relevance Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I know notability cannot be inherited, I mentioned that to butress the point that he is a notable Nigerian.Tomiwa2020 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arthur Javis University: Querying with "Arthur Jarvis Archibong" -wikipedia do turn up some sources about the university along with some minor coverage of the subject. However, this seems to be the only coverage the subject has received so the combined coverage is not enough for BASIC due to overlaps in coverage. It looks like the subject meets none of the additional criteria for biographies (NACADEMIC, an alternative criteria, comes the closest). GNG is not met here due to not receiving significant coverage.
Redirect per ATD-R. The person may also become notable in the future per NACADEMIC, so preserving the content for now is desirable. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This discussion was fairly closely balanced in terms of numerical votes. However, in terms of policy backed positions, the delete !votes had significantly more weight centered around insufficient secondary sourcing to meet GNG/BIO. Those arguing in favour of keep generally felt that the position had inherent notability. While there are certain positions where that holds up on Wikipedia, they are enumerated exceptions - with civil servants in this position not falling into it.

There were also several comments about likely alternate routes per ANYBIO in the future. These are certainly possible, and I will draftify the article on request, but are not sufficient as things currently stand.

There wasn't agreement on a redirect target, since the proposed one isn't an exact category match. If users want to add in, or discuss first, that is certainly fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceri King

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

Non-notable civil servant; search finds nothing, and no ex officio notability either despite the grand-sounding titles (certainly not for _deputy_ posts). Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Crown Office is a key part of the inner workings of the Monarchy in the UK. It is not well known mainly due to being very secretive - the only way to get information out of them is through Freedom of Information requests. That being said, the Crown Office article as well as the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery page explain the duties of the Crown Office. The Deputy Clerk nowdays runs the Crown Office due to the titular Clerk being the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. As a matter of fact, it is the Deputy Clerk (Ceri King in this case) that takes the title of Head of the Crown Office. If you google “Ceri King” I am aware theres little to no results (the same will happen if you google Elaine Chilver and Ian Denyer, both of which are former Deputy Clerks of the Crown in Chancery), but I have just explained why that is. Creating articles about the Crown Office will make it more accessible to the public, and isn’t that what this website was created for? If not that, then tell me whats the purpose of Wikipedia. Mrs King will probably be on the list of candidates after Antonia Romeo retires, and with that become the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. She currently holds 2 senior appointments within the civil service, and that should be enough to give her a place in this encyclopedia. Some information is missing, such as her birthday, which is currently being researched. Her appearances in Parliament will be added tomorrow, as well as her career within the Privy Council Office, which started over 10 years ago. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With respect, this article isn't about the Crown Office, or even the post of the (Deputy) Clark of Crown Office, so whether or not those are notable isn't relevant. This is about the individual, and civil servants are not inherently notable, so she would need to satisfy the GNG criteria, and she doesn't. Besides, I can't see how having an article on this person does anything to 'make the Crown Office more accessible to the public'. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @DoubleGrazing: Civil servants are very notable indeed. The departments of the UK Government would not run without them. They do not all deserve an article, as most of them are simply secretaries and other "normal" jobs, but the senior civil servants are what keep the civil service going. In the case of the Crown Office, it is the Deputy Clerk of the Crown (Ceri King) that takes the title of Head of the Crown Office - she is the one that runs the Crown Office. As if that wasn't enough, she is also Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Head of Secretariat, and runs all the paperwork and background work of Privy Council meetings. She is indeed very relevant and notable, even if she does not get press coverage. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the key to Wikipedia is verifiability. People may actually be very important, but if we do not have the sources to show that, then they are not. For example Gerrit W. Gong may have been the most important person in the Bateman and Samuelson administrations, but without adequate sourcing of how his actions were key to the university functioning we would not have created an article on him, although evidently his academic contributions in the 1980s were actually at a level to make him notable, and his current position as a member of the quorum of the 12 of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is clearly enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Johnpacklambert: I have just updated the Ceri King article with the sources that speak of her career. Alex Galloway was Clerk of the Privy Council (Ceri King's boss), and still has a page with half of the information I've put in for Ceri King. I believe both persons (Alex and Ceri) are relevant to the Privy Council Office, but if we are talking about quality of sources, my article on Ceri King is far more advanced, but still the discussion is based on only my article, and not on the hundreds of articles with less than 100 words about people who never contributed to society or to their home nation at all. Ceri King has indeed, and continues to, contribute to the UK Civil Service in the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) and Cabinet Office (Privy Council Office), and deserves to have a page to certify that. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see why people would think Ceri King (or any Deputy Clerk of the Crown Office for that matter) wouldn't be important to warrant an article in here, but having made various Freedom of Information requests to the Crown Office, I am well aware of their importance, and of the recognition they deserve. Their work is usually under the shadow and is very secretive, which is why news outlets do not cover them, and also why there aren't that many sources talking about them, except of course the Gazette, the Court Circular and Acts of Parliaments - there are many books that speak about the Crown Office anyways, it just takes a bit of searching for them. A recent one, "By Royal Appointment: Tales from the Privy Council", even thanks Ceri King for her contributions to the book. Making this page will change that and will allow for their activities to be known to the public as they should - what they do is not illegal, its just they prefer not to be all public about it, and until now no one has cared to change that. Well its time for a change. Kaceymontaguu (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't help noticing how remarkably similar your arguments, and even the language you use, are to those of MaximusWikipedian. How curious. Anyway, let me say it once more: how 'important' someone is, or how much in your opinion they may 'deserve' to have a Wikipedia article, isn't what is being considered here. I suggest you revise WP:N, and especially the section dealing with significant coverage, to understand better the concept of notability, which is the basis for this AfD. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is wholly lacking in reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject (GNG fail). It has been WP:REFBOMBed with primary sources such as employee listings and letters, but none of these prove anything other than she exists and has a job. WP:SYNTH and OR has been used to try and weave this into an article. This should be discouraged. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Unable to find any secondary sourcing, but anyone looking for her will likely be looking for her related to that position. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That would only make sense if she actually held that post, but she doesn't. Otherwise someone searching for Ceri King and being directed without explanation to an article on the Clerk of the Crown would probably be confused. (And yes, I know she is currently listed in that article, for having served for a few months' interim, but IMO she should be removed from that list anyway.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current page is clearly better than proposed alternatives such as redirect to Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The subject clearly had a significant ceremonial and adminstrative role and they show up in matters such as Privy Council warns BIS not to alter ‘sensitive’ word list and The Curious Case Of Camilla And The Privy Council. Our policy WP:PRESERVE applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With respect, PRESERVE does not apply here, nor does it override the need for notability. And as for having a 'significant' role, that largely goes for the 5,000 or so Senior Civil Servants (and that's just in the UK alone); should notability be waived for all of them on the basis that their work is important? If so, can someone point to the relevant guideline providing for this? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a general rule, civil servants are supposed to be non-notable. The job is to apply the law as written, in an apolitical and broadly agreed-upon fashion. This is not to say that civil servants do not do important work, I myself am a civil servant. But with the exception of a few people who work in the communications department, none of us should appear in the news. If this person was known for some sort of scandal, some sort of mistake, some sort of misconduct, that might make her notable. But for a civil servant in the normal conduct of their business, no, I don't see how they become notable. Ideally a civil servant should be generally indistinguishable from their predecessors or successors. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Civil servants are usually not notable, except when they actually performs duties that grant them relevance. Ceri King is a constant figure for the Crown Office, and has attended Parliament numerous times to perform her duties publically. No other Deputy Clerk had ever been as active as she has, specially in regards to Freedom of Information requests MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a lot of debate for someone who will probably soon be awarded the CB and become notable under WP:ANYBIO #1 anyway! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is the point I am trying to make. The previous Clerk of the Crown, Ian Denyer, was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) and a Member of the Royal Victorian Order (MVO), and considering Ceri King is also Clerk of the Privy Council, it is likely she will become an Officer or Commander of either of the said orders, if not, as you said, a Companion of the Order of the Bath. I would even go as far as to say she would qualify for a knighthood (to be a dame, considering she's female). MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael "Wise Mike" Stepovich

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

This person's claim to fame seems to consist of a) having a son who was a governor, and b) being inducted into the Alaska Mining Hall of Fame. Poorly sourced, and a search finds only passing mentions in his son's obits etc. Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a book about this person. Also found this source. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is about this person's widow, rather. And in any case written by her relative, so not independent of the subject. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a son who becomes governor of a state does not make an individual notable. That is the only way we could find Stepovich notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any information about Marko Stijepović being inducted into the Hall of fame could be placed on his son's page. 81.131.132.199 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Indian journalists. While by a pure nose count this might appear a "no consensus", the "keep" arguments do not refute the argument that there is not enough source material available to sustain an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burhaan Kinu

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

The sources are primary and of his own website, the other sources mentioned aren't articles on him rather then article's which have his pictures. He works for Hindustan Times. but it doesn't demonstrate notability. Also there are sources like gettyimages where anyone could upload pictures to. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards holder. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 06:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes WP:ANYBIO as he is the winner of Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s Comment, as above stated by two editors that this article should be kept just because he has won an notable award. This doesn’t justify or demonstrate his notability. Because WP:NAWARD is a failed proposal. Apart from this award this journalist has no other source to demonstrate his notability, it’s clearly evident from The sources and references on this page. And if this article is kept because of the Award, then the WP:NAWARD page should be updated because it’s misleading. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 13:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to nom: Dear nom Jammumylove, I am not saying about WP:NAWARD. I am saying about WP:ANYBIO. Please interpret things properly.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough to have this BLP on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This old article may have COI concerns and needs heavy cleanup. But the subject seems notable while passing WP:GNG. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if more !votes address whether the subject meets WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG instead, perhaps through searching for sources. Skimming over the sources in the article, the deletion rationale does not seem baseless.

Per WP:NBIO#Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria, if the subject meets WP: ANYBIO or other additional criteria but fails WP:BASIC or other guidelines to establish notability (such as WP:GNG), it might be more appropriate to merge instead.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shows notability within local news outlet and some even outer aspects. Not reasonable for quick deletion. Future guides. --203.87.133.197 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Indian journalists. There is no doubt that his work has been acknowledged in journalism, but unfortunately listed sources only shows Image courtesy: Burhaan Kinu at Hindustan Times. I found only one source [42] that talks about the subject independently, but since it is a BLP article, it should be supported by multiple independent RS. Therefore, it be redirect it to Indian journalist list. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: agree with TheBirdsShedTears that it should be redirected to the List of Indian journalists as the subject lacks secondary coverage defcon5 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After substantial improvements to the artice just before the last relist, the consensus has changed to the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Sundarlal Sharma

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

Nothing to suggest notability; the two sources cited barely provide passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG, and by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not substantial enough to demonstrate Sharma was a notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, while I'm not offering this as a WP:RS, this blog post indicates that there is more to this person than this Wiki stub. Perhaps someone that is familiar with the history of Chhattisgarh could comment. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this looks good enough to me. I will expand the article now.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a third time given the recent efforts at improvement to see if that establishes notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now, whoever reads Hindi, there is a book about this guy.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a very notable figure in Chhatistisgarhi history. Aside from the information already included, here is a link to an academic source for his role in the Kandel Nahar Satygraha [43] and a link showing India printing a stamp in his honor 50 years after his death. [44]

I would normally let the links speak for themselves, but the process by which this article got to AFD is, quite frankly, abusive. An Indian editor creates a stub article on a prominent regional figure, giving two sources in support. Six hours later it has an incorrect BLP tag and gets nominated for deletion. Aside from ignoring the clear advice given at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, the nominator overlooked criterion #1 at WP:ANYBIO, which explains that people with significant honors, such as having a university named for you decades after your death, are likely to be notable.

Although the editing process has improved the article, the fact that two of the first three comments are basically drive-by deletion support leaves me concerned that articles that actually pass the 100 year test [45] do not last for 400 minutes before going to AFD. I hope Wikipedia never reaches the point where editors believe such deletionism is good for the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:660e:ede0:e827:9d4b:3e61:4271 (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:HEY, and passes:

WP:ANYBIO #1, “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor,” – the Pandit Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University is named after him.
WP:ANYBIO #2, “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.” – his involvement in the Indian independence movement and the Kadel Nahar Satyaghara.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The person in question seems notable. But yes the article needs significant work.defcon5 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ignoring the personal attacks and aspersions of editors' motivations, I note that several sources were uncovered that were not refuted by those !voting "delete". Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Shibli

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

Trivial mention in Time, apart from that no other wp:rs, all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Time never is a trivial mention, and it is not right for you to assume that Kashmir journalists are being manipulated whom I think you should apologize to. As you say on your user page, you edit with a Pro-India sentiment for articles related to Kashmir.--Lohen11 (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lohen11, The TIME source has no byline, And isn't a significant coverage of him. Kindly share how does this meet WP:GNG. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibli was ranked fifth on Time's list (not a local little newspaper) of "10 most urgent threats to press freedom." You want to make the article disappear to deny a reality of this state.--Lohen11 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Every other source is just reporting on him being jailed or being released. That isn't enough to make him inherently notable as it isn't significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has a bias regarding articles related to Kashmir as stated on their user page. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 09:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seemplez, Ive mentioned that i might sometimes ' ' ' edit ' ' ' with a pro indian sentiment, that clearly doesn't mean that i put up these article for deletion because of it. There are 100's and 1000's of other article's out there related to kashmir, if i was biased to kashmiri article's i'd have posted all of them for deletion.I Check thoroughly the article's before putting them up for AfD, If i was biased i could've PRODded or CSD'd them. I am trying to clean up the wikiproject:jammu and kashmir, and clearly i've nominated multiple article's earlier which were unfit for mainspace and hence deleted. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, this is neither a personal attack nor an assumption of faith. You have disclosed a bias on your user page and I have transcluded it here. Also your point that you don't have a bias because you didn't put every Kashmir related article up for deletion isn't really a point. You have disclosed a bias in editing. Why wouldn't your bias extend to AfD? Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominating a lot of Kashmir related articles/articles about Kashmiris today. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 11:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seemplez, As mentioned i'm trying to clean up the unfit article's. There are plenty of them that don't fit the encyclopaedia 's standard and must be removed or corrected. What's wrong in there? I've done the same earlier as well not just today, check my AfD history. Why are you making it like a PA? -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seemplez, My Bias wouldn't extend to AfD because i properly write why it just be deleted. i don't give out biased opinions, i state the WP policies. and i am a human as well i make mistakes sometimes while nominating but i immediately rectify them and withdraw my nom. This article clearly has no Significant Coverage and hence i've nom it for AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jammumylove, I do not wish to continue this. Happy editing. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By Nominator: By Manipulation of these article's i meant that the source are from local jammu kashmir based media agencies and these journalists can easily get themselves posted on there. There are no proper significant WP:RS. Also this article looks more of an WP:BLP1E i-e Significant for the Arrest of Qazi Shibli. And it can be redirected to it just like Arrest of Kamran Yusuf if not deleted. Also the only WP:RS Time Has no byline. Thanks. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 10:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite having some concerns regarding this subject's notability, I strongly recommend not to have any assumptions like Kashmir journalists are being manipulated. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki either read things properly or kindly don’t misinterpret. I’ve clearly written that these kashmiri media houses can be easily manipulated by these journalists. Not what you’re saying.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove,I havent misinterprated what you said. all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists ; this is your comment. You havent said they can be manipulated. You just said they are being manipulated. So its clear who is actually trying to misinterpret the statements. Do you have any evidence to prove your assumption? If dont,please dont make such type of comments in AFD's. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, you’ve written that Kashmir journalists are being manipulated and I’ve written all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists the difference can be spotted b/w these two by anyone who can read English which I doubt you can’t. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, whether it is mostly or leastly or whatever it may be,I just wanted to say that you made up such type of baseless argument in an AFD. And in this encyclopedia, you dont have the right to say that they are manipulated unless you provide reliable sources or any other means as proof. Finally, such type of arguments should not be used in AFD discussions and this encylopedia is not a place to show your Pro india sentiments against its policies. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, There’s no way that could prove the internal things with these kashmiri media agencies but being from jammu and kashmir i know how easily jammu and kashmir based media agencies are manipulated. And moreover i never tried to push this as the reason for the AfD, My reason is simple, this article doesn’t have WP:RS and if it has kindly show, or maybe research and add them to this article I’d be happy to withdraw the nom. But until then it’s clearly evident that this article is eligible for AfD, and yes my pro Indian sentiments have nothing to do with this, i never said that kashmiri articles should be deleted for no reason. I have withdrawn many AfD related to kashmir just because they later were improved to be fit on pedia but this one isn’t at this version.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, As of now, I have no objection with your nomination of this article for AFD. What I said is that you should not add your own findings anywhere in this encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. This is applicable to everywhere in wikipedia. Your activity here has real consequences, because Wikipedia is in the real world. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable person to have a BLP in WP.Kolma8 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Particularly significant is a peer reviewed journal article which focuses on Shibli in more detail: Bilal Ahmad Pandow (September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index On Censorship. 49 (3): 17-19. The Time article is also significant and there are other sources which I will list here. See Christian Science Monitor, Mint (newspaper), and "India: Abuses Persist in Jammu and Kashmir". Asia News Monitor. August 5, 2020.. All put together and this meets GNG. Appologies for no urls for some of the sources, but I accessed them through my university library and they are not available for free online. 4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 4meter4, Hi, CS Monitor and Mint is again a trivial mention, it doesn't discuss shibli significantly. Moreover they discuss more about his arrest rather then him. Check out Arrest of Kamran Yusuf, If shibli gets a stand-alone article then most of the arrest related article's deserve it as well. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 14:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated earlier, the most significant sources are the peer reviewed journal article and the feature in Time. Neither of those are trivial mentions (no matter how much you insist otherwise), and support WP:SIGCOV. The fact that international press in multiple continents is interested enough in this journalist to mention him in context to world events in addition to these two significant sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Lastly, you seem to have a WP:POV agenda here which may be impacting your editorial judgment.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, I Don't have a WP:POV agenda here, i am speaking on facts only. WP:SIGCOV states that Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail I don't see any of the WP:RS covering this subject in detail. They do cover his arrest in detail and i've suggested that as well. This might certainly seem as WP:POV but you can check my AfD history,Being the nom it's my responsibility to discuss and I always reply to all the comments made to discuss things in detail. And moreover my POV won't be considered, because the closing admin's would obviously be more experienced than me to decide whether my comments made make sense or not. Also as far as Time Is considered, Macktheknifeau has already stated that above Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Closing this discussion now. Peace. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that assessment and I disagree with the characterization. The Time article is clearly divided into 10 sections with headings profiling 10 individuals. One of those headings, and it’s succeeding section is devoted to Qazi Shibli. That’s not a trivial mention, but a featured profile. The fact that the magazine chose to simply biline the entire article with TIME Staff is not surprising or unusual in this kind of article, but it doesn’t change the fact that the article would have gone through TIME’s well respected fact checking and editorial review process, and therefore doesn’t diminish the quality or verifiability or significance of the work as a piece of evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:As per the latest findings by 4meter4. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the article, i am a notable and famous journalist from jammu and kashmir and founder of the kashmiriyat which is the most famous media agency in kashmir, people use wikipedia to read and know about me. Do not delete this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2D8D:3916:6159:30D1:6F74:9CBA (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, why are we even using the news-site he's associated for an article on him. -- Eatcha 05:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs multiple independent sources giving significant coverage- he has one and several local ones he may be connected to. Perhaps a WP:TOOSOON, but not currently notable. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. The offline peer reviewed journal article I cited above is a significant source. The deletion votes have not accounted for the offline reference when weighing WP:SIGCOV. That and the the Time story in addition to the global press coverage is enough to meet the multiple sources requirement of GNG in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content is irrelevant for determining notability at AfD; limited evidence of BEFORE process. Extensive, multiyear, indepth coverage available,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] discussed by Amnesty International^[9] and in the 2020 Freedom House annual review.^[10] UCS, easily meets the GNG.

References

^ "Kashmir: Missing Journalist Sums Up Total Breakdown Of Democracy". HuffPost. 18 September 2019.
^ Malik, Irfan Amin (6 May 2020). "Why Are Kashmiri Prisoners Happy About Coronavirus Pandemic?". TheQuint.
^ "India: Police detain Kashmiriyat editor Qazi Shibli / IFJ". International Federation of Journalists. 3 August 2020.
^ "Indian Journalists Union Demands Scribe Qazi Shibli Be Released From Custody". The Wire. 3 August 2020.
^ "South Kashmir-based editor, journalist, Qazi Shibli, again detained by Indian police: IIOJK". Associated Press Of Pakistan. 1 August 2020.
^ "Jammu and Kashmir police launch investigations into 3 journalists". Committee to Protect Journalists. 22 February 2021.
^ "Plan for Cyber Volunteers to Police India's Internet Draws Criticism | Voice of America - English". www.voanews.com. 25 February 2021.
^ Pandow, Bilal Ahmad (1 September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index on Censorship. 49 (3): 17–19. doi:10.1177/0306422020958271.
^ "JAMMU AND KASHMIR AFTER ONE YEAR OF ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370" (PDF). Indians For Amnesty International Trust. 2020.
^ Freedom in the World 2020: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 1372. ISBN 978-1-5381-5181-5.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Goldsztajn, limited evidence of BEFORE? how? I've already commented above that the subject Shibli does have SIGCOV but for just one event i-e his arrest which would be a BLP1E. Moreover i've suggest it to be changed as Arrest of Qazi Shibli, Just Like Arrest of Kamran Yusuf. Even the source's you've shared have covered his Arrest. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 17:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD nomination only deals with the content, it does not address the issue of notability, hence "limited evidence of BEFORE". If you wish to have a discussion about renaming the article, AfD is not the place. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, AfD arises only when there’s the issue with the Notability. What else venue do you think the notability should be discussed at, if not AfD? As per my knowledge, we raise articles at AfD when they have notability issues and aren’t fir per standard of an encyclopaedia. If i am wrong do correct me.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove: To be precise: *your* entire nominating text was purely about the present contents of the article, which is irrelevant for the purposes of AfD. This is why I stated that there was limited evidence of WP:BEFORE...If I wasn't AGF, I probably would have said, "no evidence." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Times article cannot be considered trivial. There is significant coverage available on the subject though the article does require more details.defcon5 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a notable journalist and has enough reliable news links references. User talk:Jammumylove Created account few weeks back and looks like purposely nominating profiles for nomination.

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arny Schorr

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

Poorly-sourced promo piece about non-notable exec, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable individual. If we are going to throw around words like "pioneer" we need lots of sources to justify it. Extraordinary claims (being a pioneer in a field) require sourcing that match them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As one of the executives since the start of the home video business, the claim is legitimate and is supported by the articles included, but I will add more today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmarcus (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The two billboard sources are significant enough to establish notability, which is all that matters. The comment regarding being a "pioneer" is irrelevant to a deletion and should be taken up on the talk page as part of the editing process. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs a lot of work, and is probably my Terrible BLP Image of the Day. I've come around about "articles that might be notable but need a ton of work"; a lot of stuff is worse than a redlink, in terms of ever actually getting improved. That said, I don't think this is worse than a redlink. Those sources might be difficult to draw up at first, and if they aren't, there's likely even more that is considering the era involved (trust me -- any newspaper coverage on Google from the 70s/80s is about 5% or so of what you can get in paywalled search sites). I think there's enough demonstrated here for people to be encouraged to rewrite it. Vaticidalprophet 17:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most newspaper mentions are in wire service articles where he is quoted in his capacity at Rhino in 1989–90. I'd merge or redirect to Rhino Entertainment, personally. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with no prejudice against recreation if someone can find adequate sourcing. With the sources that are in the article right now, I don't see notability as established – I can't see the online Billboard source, but the book one doesn't strike me as very significant coverage, and the NYT pieces go into the same direction; since this is a BLP, I believe that we need to take special care when it comes to sourcing standards, and unless the remaining Billboard source backs up all the content currently in the article, I don't think it's sufficiently verifiable to stay up. Blablubbs|talk 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rhino Entertainment, with no prejudice against restoring to draft if additional sourcing can be found. Removing the unusable content from this article would leave nothing worth calling an article. This level of introduction of material should not be rewarded with any measure short of deletion. BD2412 T 05:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted a rescue: I have tried to fix its tone to be more professional, please take a look there. I do not know, however, whether it is really that notable, and I am neutral over that. --DePlume (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - content rescued and additional sources added. Article also reorganized and the lead was expanded. Two companies that he founded got sparing coverage, which just barely puts him over the top, and also argues against a single redirect. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - his direct connection to Rhino and the Variety story are the bare minimum for notability. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYT source is a single passing mention and one the Billboard sources is a 404 error. Nothing here convinces me of notability and in my book this fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adrian Cheng#Personal life. Content worth merging is available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Yu Cheng

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

~~There are not indepth sources to passes her WP:GNG Gritmem (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking comment of blocked nominator. Cunard (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gritmem (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the nominator for WP:UPE, however I wish this nomination to be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Adrian Cheng#Personal life, her husband, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The sources I found primarily covered the subject in the context of coverage about her husband. I am willing to switch to supporting a standalone article if substantial coverage about Jennifer Yu Cheng can be found.
This 13 November 2020 article in Apple Daily notes, "新世界發展（017）執行副主席鄭志剛（Adrain）大家唔陌生，佢太太余雅穎（Jennifer）就相對低調，主打家族嘅教育事業，不過近排悄悄地有新搞作，華華聽聞佢上個月成立咗間新公司「鄭余雅穎培菁女性創效基金」，英文就係「Jennifer Yu Cheng Girls Impact Foundation」，用自己個名嚟命名，唔知搞邊科呢？"
From Google Translate: "Adrain, Executive Vice Chairman of New World Development (017), is not unfamiliar to everyone. His wife, Jennifer, is relatively low-key, focusing on family education, but there are new things in recent days. She established a new company named 「鄭余雅穎培菁女性創效基金」. The English name is 'Jennifer Yu Cheng Girls Impact Foundation'."
If Jennifer Yu Cheng receives more coverage in the future (which is possible if she stops being "relatively low-key"), there is no prejudice against undoing the redirect and restoring the standalone article.
Cunard (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does not appear notable and no reliable secondary citations.Miaminsurance (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mrs Cheng is in different sector with Mr Cheng, and really a different person. --Kgarden.finder (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC) — Kgarden.finder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you are the creator of the article please disclose any paid editing. And as a new editor, i advise you to read WP:GNG and WP:BIO first.

And your username, is it a short form of "kindergarden finder"? Not sure it violate username policy or not. Matthew hk (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her role is building girls and women's impact, and investment from the group she is strategic director of is cited in edit.Kaybeesquared (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant news coverage, enough IMO. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The news coverage is far from significant . They are routine coverage. Also per user:Cunard. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and still vote forKeep - at the risk of adding more fuel to the delete votes, her daughter is an award winner too Sonia Cheng, should mother be merge into Sonia's page than with her husband, given her interest in developing women and girls, or replace all of them with a Cheng family page if none of them are cited as notable on their own, the son (also Adrian) does not seem to have an article? ^[1]Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to their articles, Sonia Cheng is a year older than her supposed mother Jennifer Yu Cheng. Something seems to be wrong here. Furius (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like it is either merge or keep. Currently heading towards merge as some keep !votes are not as based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Cunard, we'll have to trim it down and maybe re-write it, since there are not a lot of reliable sources. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 20:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 11, 20 and 21 qualify as significant independent coverage from reliable sources. That passes GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/meet-adrian-and-sonia-cheng-power-siblings-behind-some-of-the-worlds-most-luxurious-hotels-11549290552

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adrian Cheng#Personal life - The sources are not significant enough. Sun8908 _Talk 15:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Macktheknifeau has identified several independent reliable sources. Merging with her husband seems highly unsatisfactory.
P.S. She can't be the mother of Sonia Cheng, as claimed by this article, since the latter is a year older than her.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs)

If you can read Chinese, Jennifer is the wife of Adrain Cheng , while Sonia is the sister of Adrain . Matthew hk (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, her "notability" is derived from Cheng family's investment. Merely as a director of an Education provider is not notable and those "coverage" are just gossip. Matthew hk (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Sonia Cheng's GNG. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Matthew hk (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teja Tanikella (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyoti Tripathi (2nd nomination)

[Blic.rs_2021-1] "Jutjuber pronašao najjeftiniji hotel u Evropi: "Toliko je jeftin da nema ni ime, a da im vidite tek sobe!"". Blic.rs (in Croatian). 2021-03-22. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[Nikolić_2021-2] Nikolić, Ivana (2021-02-18). "Da nije bilo srpskih doktora umro bih: Čuveni britanski Jutjuber opisao svoju borbu sa Kovidom". Telegraf.rs (in Croatian). Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[Kroonika_2021-3] "VIDEO - Maailmakuulus reisivlogija külastas retrotrammiga Tondit: lõpuks olen jõudnud Nõukogude Eestisse!". Kroonika (in Estonian). 2021-02-01. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[DER_STANDARD_2020-4] "Verschwörungstheoretiker attackieren Youtuber nach Video über schwere Corona-Erkrankung". DER STANDARD (in German). 2020-07-13. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[daily.afisha-5] "Британец снимает свое путешествие по всему СНГ. Такой России вы еще не видели". Daily Afisha (in Russian). 2020-07-13. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[Харьков_2021-6] ""Приключения в Гопниквилле". Популярный британский блогер снял видео о Харькове". Харьков (in Russian). 2021-03-15. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[Radio_Prague_International_2020-7] ""Prague is the most liveable city"–YouTuber Bald and Bankrupt on his new home and Soviet fascination". Radio Prague International. 2020-09-11. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[Magazin_2021-8] Magazin, Index (2021-03-22). "VIDEO Pogledajte kako izgleda unutrašnjost hotela u kojem noćenje košta 26 kuna". Index.hr (in Croatian). Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[Famous_Bald_People_2020-9] "Bald and Bankrupt". Famous Bald People. 2020-02-18. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[BelarusFeed_2020-10] "British Vlogger Who Visited Minsk Military Parade, Now Infected With COVID-19". BelarusFeed. 2020-07-10. Archived from the original on 2020-12-17. Retrieved 2021-04-12.

[11] "A-Cold-Wall*'s Samuel Ross: 'Streetwear used to be a class thing'". the Guardian.

[12] "A-COLD-WALL*'s Samuel Ross: "Reconstructing the identity of Britishness is happening in real time"". i-D.

[13] "Samuel Ross, Designer Of A-Cold-Wall*, Talks Streetwear And Breaking Down Social Barriers". British Vogue.

[14] "Samuel Ross and Virgil Abloh on the power of mentorship". British GQ.

[:0-15] DelhiApril 16, India Today Web Desk New; April 16, 2018UPDATED:; Ist, 2018 13:59. "From Little Champ to Rising Star: How Hemant Brijwasi won millions of hearts with his breathtaking performances". India Today. Retrieved 2021-04-04. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[:1-16] Saifi, Javed (2018-04-20). "Straight from the heartland". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2021-04-04.

[:2-17] "Singing reality show winner attacked in Vrindavan". Hindustan Times. 2016-06-12. Retrieved 2021-04-04.

[:3-18] DelhiApril 15, India Today Web Desk New; April 16, 2018UPDATED; Ist, 2018 10:51. "Rising Star 2 grand finale: Hemant Brijwasi is the winner of the show". India Today. Retrieved 2021-04-04. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[:4-19] "'Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Li'l Champs' winner Hemant Brijwasi wins reality show 'Rising Star 2'". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2021-04-04.

[20] "Kashmir: Missing Journalist Sums Up Total Breakdown Of Democracy". HuffPost. 18 September 2019.

[21] Malik, Irfan Amin (6 May 2020). "Why Are Kashmiri Prisoners Happy About Coronavirus Pandemic?". TheQuint.

[22] "India: Police detain Kashmiriyat editor Qazi Shibli / IFJ". International Federation of Journalists. 3 August 2020.

[23] "Indian Journalists Union Demands Scribe Qazi Shibli Be Released From Custody". The Wire. 3 August 2020.

[24] "South Kashmir-based editor, journalist, Qazi Shibli, again detained by Indian police: IIOJK". Associated Press Of Pakistan. 1 August 2020.

[25] "Jammu and Kashmir police launch investigations into 3 journalists". Committee to Protect Journalists. 22 February 2021.

[26] "Plan for Cyber Volunteers to Police India's Internet Draws Criticism | Voice of America - English". www.voanews.com. 25 February 2021.

[27] Pandow, Bilal Ahmad (1 September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index on Censorship. 49 (3): 17–19. doi:10.1177/0306422020958271.

[28] "JAMMU AND KASHMIR AFTER ONE YEAR OF ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370" (PDF). Indians For Amnesty International Trust. 2020.

[29] Freedom in the World 2020: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 1372. ISBN 978-1-5381-5181-5.

[30] ttps://www.wsj.com/articles/meet-adrian-and-sonia-cheng-power-siblings-behind-some-of-the-worlds-most-luxurious-hotels-11549290552

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 <!-- Only if additions to this section do not clearly fit with one of the aforementioned categories, then please feel free to list or transclude. -->
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damodar Sharma}}