Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:28, 22 May 2022

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Pare

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

End-to-end WP:PROMO case. Résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable WP:NOTCV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Hatchens (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Environment, and Social science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator, the article is wholly promotional. Golem08 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get 6 hits, most of the English ones look like advertorials, one in Hindi? that I can't read. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks and reads like a classic puff piece. scope_creep^Talk 14:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Kothari

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Most of the citations are WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Hatchens (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:46, 22 May 2022 (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. Editors are encouraged to add any of the sources to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrwhosetheboss

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

WP:GNG Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason provided by the proposer. Skyshifter ^talk 01:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG? Yes, I do agree that he passes GNG, not unequivocally, but just barely. Now why don't you see if you can change your degree for how you determine notability?

...If you didn't understand my bars, I'm voting a Keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets GNG to an extent, and I did a small search for sources, there are some, so the article could probably be fixed up. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 10:06, 1 June 2022
Comment - After a few days of searching, I have also found multiple other sources about his work in addition to the ones I posted already. For starters, his 3D smartphone hologram video has been the subject of multiple RS, including The Daily Dot, CNBC, Motherboard (Vice), two Huffington Post articles, and even on Time magazine. I added the former two sources in the article a few days ago.

Various other videos of his have been used for analytical purposes regarding technology, such as in Insider, BGR, The Verge, and The Indian Express. Also, one of his videos explaining an Instagram mystery was also the subject of significant coverage as well in an article from UNILAD.

Finally, he won a Streamy Award in 2021 for the category of Technology, passing #2 of WP:WEBCRIT. I think Mrwhosetheboss definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The sources demonstrably show that he is a notable tech YouTuber whose videos have been showcased and described in multiple sources. I stand by my Keep vote. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article fails the notability guidelines. Also the sources mentioned above are just brief mentions and are not good at establishing notability per WP:REFBOMB. Sahaib (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage per above to meet GNG. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Katenda

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

WP:GNG. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious REACH-Namibia seems to be a small denomination, with 14 churches. I amended the article to provide a link to the article on the denomination, but this proves to be a red-link. Possibly there is an article that I have not found. The consensus is that bishops of major denominations are notable per se. My question is whether a denomination of this size is large enough for its leader to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation led me to Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa, which has a section on Namibia. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bishop over 14 churches is reasonably major span, but with a current tenure, we should be able to find online refs covering this somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep New Era seems to quote him all the time, such as [1], which seems to support a prominent role. I'd encourage more eyes on the coverage he gets through Google News--I don't typically add 'weak' to a keep !vote, but the majority of his independent RS news coverage does seem to come from this one source. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: bishops are generally notable per WP:CLERGY. Granted, this denomination is not in the Anglican Communion, but it employs a similar definition of "bishop". In any case, there is lots of coverage in Google News, including The Namibian [2][3][4] and AllAfrica.com [5] as well as the copious amount of coverage in New Era, as mentioned above. He's obviously a big deal in his country. St Anselm (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:RELIG/N ... The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. They are notable, simply due their status. And until that notability guideline is changed, that is what prevails. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
REACH-Namibia is not a 'major Christian denomination'.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per StAnselm this topic meets notability per WP:CLERGY. Worldsolarpower (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2022 (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carey R. Dunne

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

BLP does not meet WP:ANYBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. Most of the coverage is focussed on the cases rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Massachusetts. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The clearest WP:GNG-point I've seen is [6] (which doesn't seem to be Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Bloomberg profiles). There's more than passing mentions on the individual at [7], [8] and [9]. [10] (NYLPI) may be independent enough to be interesting here, and there may be something WP:N+ in this WSJ [11] I haven't managed to read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm super surprised that this article would be targeted for deletion. Dunne has honors from various legal organizations; mainstream media has discussed his role in the Trump cases; and his colleagues, including Mark Pomerantz, have bio articles. Llmeyers (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't see any problems with the sources cited. Please identify ones with problems so we can edit!~~ Llmeyers (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/trump-probe-prosecutor-made-his-name-defending-wall-street-banks~~
~~This isn't a Bloomberg profile, it's an article by a journalist, Greg Farrell.~~ Llmeyers (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry, I'm seeing now that I misread the reason for why the article was proposed for deletion. But I still think @Gråbergs Gråa Sång is right, and that there is info on the individual, rather than only the cases he was involved with. [Also, of course it's going to focus on involvement in cases; he's a high-profile lawyer]. The page also includes discussion of his service for NY State and NYC Bar organizations. Llmeyers (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP: ANYBIO -- well-known or significant award or honor... please see Awards section on the article; there are several. Widely recognized contribution to Supreme Court cases on President Trump (see C-SPAN citations, see New York Times, etc). This is all extremely well-accounted for. Llmeyers (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find the Awards section convincing. They certainly don't have their own articles and seem similar to other awards given within the circles of a specific profession. As an analogy, many wines get awards, but few wines are actually notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Anachronist, I meant to slash my above comment as well. I went back to strikethrough a few things after I understood more about MrsSnoozyTurtle's reasoning. I explained my thoughts below in more depth. But overall I agree with you, that the Awards section of the article is not the most convincing for keeping it. It's more Dunne's role in the New State courts, his role as President of the NYC Bar Association, and so forth. Llmeyers (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to delete because of WP:1EVENT. I am not convinced the awards are notable, and if he hadn't been involved in the Trump case, I am skeptical he would merit an article. The relevant information could be merged into New York investigations of The Trump Organization. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :WP:1EVENT notes that in the case of a highly significant event where the individual's role is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I think Dunne certainly qualifies.
I also think having links to New York investigations of The Trump Organization is definitely important, but doesn't totally cover it. Dunne's colleague on the investigations, Mark Pomerantz, has an individual page which similarly includes his role in the Trump cases as well as his other work as a federal prosecutor.

Similarly, Dunne's page is not only relevant because of the Trump investigations. His work as a white collar criminal defender for Davis Polk is also notable –– as was the well-publicized murder trial of Lonnie Jones and his subsequent exoneration. That case was remanded by the Supreme Court of New York in 2006 and led not only to Jones's exoneration but also an order by the New York Court of Claims that the state pay Jones $1.8 million in compensation. [See info from National Registry of Exonerations here.] Llmeyers (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Llmeyers Hi again! This is your first afd, so when it's done you will have learned some stuff about afd:s. 2 things: Only write keep once on a page like this. You don't have to strikethrough or anything, but remember that going forward. Also, "Mark Pomerantz has an article" is one of the weaker arguments you can make in this context, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If there's one thing Wikipedians don't trust, it's Wikipedia. Which is for the good of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you... ack, learning a lot today! Sorry to clog the discussion page, everyone. Llmeyers (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: It seems that Dunne's presidency of the NYC Bar Association is really notable here, potentially just as important as his role in the Trump investigations. I think there's little reason he didn't have a page before the Trump investigations –– he certainly could have. Llmeyers (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle, can you describe any nonreliable sources used on the page? Vast majority of the page's citations come from reputable independent sources: Washington Post, WSJ, NY Times, C-SPAN, etc. Llmeyers (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llmeyers. The reliability of those sources isn't the question here, it's how they relate to the individual. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! If you read the articles, you'll see that some of them are not ONLY about the cases, per say, but focus on Dunne's background & professional history. This is also true for the articles that discuss Pomerantz and Dunne's resignation. Llmeyers (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my usual standards for lawyers. Past president of the largest city bar, partner in a major and notable firm, significant public service, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding these, per those standards: trying a notable case with its own article in Wikipedia; arguing more than one case before SCOTUS; service to major committees. Llmeyers (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ONEEVENT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Bearian's post. Llmeyers (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James I. Ausman

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

Appears to be the host of a local television show and the publisher of his own med journal. Sources seem to be mostly to him or to a provided bio or local coverage. valereee (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. valereee (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a way to get Blaylock's book some attention, which is WP:FRINGE in itself. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF Keep Passes C8 of WP:NACADEMIC that automatically confers notability even without meeting WP:GNG. Surgical Neurology certainly passes that criterion, don't know about the other, newer one, but that's not relevant to this decision. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment might be notable as a neurosurgeon, but the "China virus" book doesn't fill me with a sense of notability. Rest of the article appears to be a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article is a mess and includes lots of POV-pushing that is out-of-place in a bio. I tried cleaning up some of it, but lots remain — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the editor in chief of academic journals, he has a clear pass at WP:NACADEMIC criterion #8. Please note this isn't one of these guides that says "are presumed to be notable" it says clearly "are notable". CT55555 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, it's his own journal. He edits and publishes it. It's neither major nor well-established, which is what #8 requires. valereee (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In some way, every journal is/was edited by its owners. Now if it's not major or well established, you'll be correct to challenge this. Do we know? I'm running on WP:AGF with the sources being offline. CT55555 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's major and/or well-established, that will be easily supported. valereee (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both of them are on Wikipedia...see World Neurosurgery and Surgical Neurology International. CT55555 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That means nothing. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. valereee (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surgical Neurology (now called World Neurosurgery) should be a major journal. Has an impact factor of 1.89 which is ok, not great, but not insignificant. I don't know what the guidelines consider "major", though. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsjaffe, can you clarify what you mean by 'should be'? valereee (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my response below. I do think this is subjective: there is no definition for "major". — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be on Wikipedia, it has to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. This isn't a discussion about verifiability, it's a discussion about notability and therefore both journals passing wikipedias notability criteria is a reasonable shorthand for saying they are major or well established journals. If you have a better way to judge what is major or well established, you could say and we could measure against it.

If anyone wants to say that neither of these journals are credible for the purposes of WP:NACADEMIC please say so and say why. CT55555 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, ideally, to stay on WP, you need to do that. Many many many sources don't because no one has challenged them. valereee (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is true and fair. But they seem like reasonable articles. He'd only need to be editor in chief of one to meet the criteria. To discredit him on this basis, you'd need to argue both articles deserve to be deleted and that's a bit of a stretch. CT55555 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and major journal are two different things. To pass the C8 criterion, it needs to be a major journal. That relates to its impact in the field and its respect. For notability see the essay WP:NJOURNAL. Note also that non-notable journals may have articles, as we have lots of articles in wikipedia that don't technically qualify for wikipedia. I looked at impact factor and longevity to see whether these are major. Surgical Neurology (now World Neurosurgery) seems to me to pass these criteria. I'm much more on the fence with Surgical Neurology International. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this comment. He would only need to be the editor in chief of one major journal to meet the criteria, so does this mean you agree he's notable as a result of that job? CT55555 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shortly after the relist, the only delete vote above (notwithstanding a skeptical comment) updated to keep. This is a combination FYI for anyone reading/closing, but also a ping to User:Liz in case that changes the need for more time. CT55555 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think more time is fine. Others may disagree as to whether that journal is “major”. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer another admin to close this discussion. One might come along and close it now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep read the discussions above. Based on meeting criterion #8 of WP:NACADEMIC criterion, it should be acceptable. Samanthany (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bipasha Kabir

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

Proposing re-draftification. Questionable notability from sources given. Moved by draft creator to mainspace ignoring AfC, probably some COI/UPE going on as well. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most popular item girl in Bangladeshi film. Have appeared in more than 30 films among them 4-5 as a leading lady. Abbasulu (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources appear to be tabloids (who she married etc), can't comment on the notability of the sources. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE as the article was declined in twice by AFC review with this diff and this diff but user moved the declined AfC draft to mainspace with this diff, also was deleted 3 times as per the log. The AFC rule violation is also a concern here. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Abbasulu (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC) (duplicate !vote stricken off — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Delete WP:ENT is not getting full filled. All the roles played by her are insignificant and not a lead role. Jimandjam (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2022 (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 while it's unclear whether Dedovic will attain notability, I'm willing to give it time to incubate. Star Mississippi 02:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edhem Dedovic

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

this is a WP:BLP1E - I don't see any coverage of Dedovic beyond the single instances of being airlifted/rescued with injuries and don't see otherwise how he would be notable and WP:VICTIM (sorta) applies and it doesn't appear he had any significant role in the event itself. I dare say millions of people, children included survive war and aren't notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E applies here to a significant extent. I am willing to change my mind if additional evidence is adduced as to notability.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am thinking about taking the article back to the draftspace, and keep working on it. Will link to this discussion on its Talk page TransGobbledygook (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I don't think this article is very promising but I think the page creator should be allowed to work on it in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 23 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 13:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfoa Asamoah

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, lack of WP:SIGCOV, possibly WP:NOTYET? Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty pageant winner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage as it fails to show WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2022 (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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The discussion has drawn minimal participation without decisive arguments in favor of either proposed outcome. (non-admin closure) — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhar Azzam

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

Non-notable Islamist cleric Mooonswimmer 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mooonswimmer 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Mooonswimmer. There are very few hits in Google news, outside of small blogs. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems clearly notable, just search his name in google books and there are plenty of hits. Or google news. Here's one:

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/abu-zar-al-burmi-jihadi-cleric-and-anti-china-firebrand Not likeable and notable are not synonymous. CT55555 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 3 June 2022 (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 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bálint László

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

Unsourced and fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. References were recently removed by an editor who says that he is the article's subject. The removed references were from 2015 and earlier. Two were links to university web pages and one was to a Hungarian-language site that Google translate could not render into English. The "needs additional citations" maintenance tag has been in place over five years and the issue has yet to be addressed. In general if sources are this scarce and this stale then the subject doesn't meet notability standards. Blue Riband► 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Hungary. Blue Riband► 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks sourcing. The previous sources was not even enough to have a page in the first place, shouldn't have survived in mainspace that long. Certainly not sufficient sources to meet WP:NPOL. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Language issues, and it has been PRODded before, so giving it more time for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the lack of notability/sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2022 (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. MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Gaikwad

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

Sourced with press releases etc. Fails WP:GNG. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a notable Indian Civil Servant who holds a Senior Position of the Government and is founder of Road Safety World Series, a billion dollar league like Indian Premier League and English Premier league, which had a viewership of more than 450 million people in its first season, last year. He is a player in the Indian Legends team under the captaincy of Sachin Tendulkar. Passes WP:GNG. CricJan21 (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Discounting the refbombed links about the cricket series, it appears to me that the following are the only ones worth consideration. Hindu article about an impropriety inquiry has nothing usable per WP:BLPCRIME. The Mid-day article is clearly labeled as "Brand Media". The Outlook article is an interview. The Economic Times article carries a disclaimer that it is an opinion piece. Hemantha (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ravi Gaikwad is notable, founder of Road Safety World Series, a cricket series playing for the cause of Road Safety. And he is also playing from the India Legends team, creating a series single handedly on his own is itself notable and an impossible thing.

There are many other articles from reliable resources which passes WP:RS. The Hindu - This article is written by newspaper editor Yukti Joshi and The Hindu is a reliable newspaper check here WP:THEHINDU

Economictimes - Story independently covered by Anand Vasu, one of India's eminent Sports writer and editor. As mentioned it does not carry any disclaimer.

Free Press Journal - An article by Joe Williams and news website by The Indian Express.

Asianetnews - A story covered by Asianet News and meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

Outlook - A reliable newspaper, story written by Soumitra Bose, a famous sports writer and editor in the country. Please note this is not an interview.

Rajbhavan - An article by Government of Maharashtra, Again a reliable resources. Passes GNG.

The news Indian Express - An article covered by The New Indian Express, a website by The Indian Express. Passes GNG.

Times of India - The story covered by The most famous and trusted news website Times of India. passes WP:RS, WP:GNG.

The Hindu - An independent story by The Hindu editor Alok Deshpande. Please check WP:THEHINDU.

DNA India] - An article about Guinness World Records covered by DNA India. A reliable news agency in India.

Times Now - An interview by Times Now with International Olympic player Yohan Blake. An appreciation by Yohan Blake.

Guinness World Records - An achievent link from Guinness World Records. passes WP:RS and WP:GNG.

NDTV - An interview by NDTV's sports editor Vimal Mohan. Reliable resource and meets GNG.

Sportstar - An article by Sportstar magazine by The Hindu. written independent and meets GNG. GuliverJack (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This person is notable looking at the position he is and held such as Chairman of Handball Federation of India, Chairman of Shant Bharat Surakshit Bharat, President of Uttarakhand Football Federation,founder of the Cricket premier league Road Safety World Series and many more. This can actually establish absolute notability and has pass WP:GNG Again, most of the sources are independent reliable source with a significant coverage. Katobara (talk) 24:33, 06 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article has been properly sourced and thus passes for WP:GNG. The sources provided are credible under WP:RS and WP:AFSL : The Hindu, Times of India, and other cited sources. More importantly, this deletion may be of result of frustration or competition as the user who nominated the page for deletion was created on the same day and after account creation, he made 11 edits on the first day and 7 of them are for AfD. Check user contribution from here. How crazy it is that a new user who starts their editing directly by deleting the article without prior editing knowledge and understanding? How a user with 0 edits understands what's paid editing or non-notable on Wikipedia? Sound fishy, please check out it too. I want to bring this information to the decision making admin. Also, please reconsider the deletion of other nominated pages by the user Balchandra Upendra. Daringsmith (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article that meets the WP:GNG criteria.--Tysska (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (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 Move and rewrite to William Henry (company). Not much feedback after @Jayron32:'s proposal, but no dissent either and it's a viable AtD. I don't see a 3rd relist being helpful in changing the outcome. Star Mississippi 03:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Conable

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

Topic does not appear to pass Wikipedia's notability standards and I did not find any other evidence to support the contrary. Source 1 is a trivial mention about topic's company, William Henry. Does not discuss the topic himself. Source 2 and Source 3 does not exist. Source 4 is a trivial mention about topic's company halfway down the page. Source 5 does not exist. Source 6 does not exist, and was linking from the topic's own website. Source 7 does not exist. Source 8 is just about topic's company, William Henry. Source 9 is actually a decent source, however, it's from PitchEngine which is $14.95 a month to publish your own stories. Moving on. Source 10 is from the topic's own website. Source 11 is a product award given to the topic's company, not him personally. Source 12, 13 and 14 are awards given to the topic's company. None of the sources are SIGCOV about him, as the main topic. There's a couple mentions of him in some blogs and rag newspapers, but none constitute RS for Wikipedia inclusion. I don't believe this topic is notable enough to establish an entry here. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability, and have failed to find any. Most of the article isn't even about the subject, it's about the brand he created. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rewrite to William Henry (company). There's probably enough here to establish notability of the company, there are just enough reliable sources about the company already in the article, plus a few others I found doing a WP:BEFORE search, here's a review in a Jacksonville, FL magazine, Here is a writeup of the company from The Oregonian, Here's an article from Forbes, Here's one from the New York Times. I think there is enough here to establish notability for the Company, and having a short paragraph on the founder in the article on the company seems reasonable. The founder themselves doesn't seem notable outside of the company, so there really only should be an article about the company. --Jayron 32 13:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that's fair. The New York Times article you mention is Source 1 in my AFD. It's a trivial mention of the company. The Jacksonville Review isn't notable media. However, the Forbes article counts. So there is at least 1 source. The other source of consideration I found is the Blade Magazine sources. The awards mentioned in Source 12 and 13 just state "Investor/Collector Knife Of The Year®: William Henry Studio ST-4010" for example. The coverage isn't SIGCOV, however there is an article here in Blade Magazine and so that should get the company 2 sources. And the Oregonian article you cited should count as a third. But for the founder himself, I haven't found enough to constitute his own Wikipedia page. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the Forbes one is WP:FORBESCON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did not see that - Excellent call out Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Megtetg34 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 15:01, 2 June 2022 (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 23:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Funt

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

I initially PRODed this with the following rationale: "Non-notable individual who does not pass the WP:GNG. The only claim to notability in the article is his relation to his more notable father and brother, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Searching for sources turns up nothing but minor mentions, and no significant coverage." However, it turned out that the article had already been deleted via PROD way back in 2009, and then recreated, making it ineligible for deletion via PROD again, so I am bringing it here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nominator has proven that notability is not asserted here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability has not been shown. The article clearly fails WP:GNG. This is a case, as noted by the nominator, that WP:NOTINHERITED. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Street light interference phenomenon. Valid AtD with even one of the deletes supporting this Star Mississippi 01:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Priestman

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

WP:SINGLEEVENT. – Ploni (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Ploni (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything I found on Google covered the same basic information about her (her ability to collect static electricity on her body), plus some sites I believe are irrelevant to her. As this article is about a person with a major role in a minor event, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, because the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. But, the event does not have enduring historical significance and will not likely impact the future. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Street light interference phenomenon - there is a 2004 Guardian source in the article, as well as a 2000 The Sunday Telegraph source in the WP Library, via ProQuest, "When people and machines don't get on ELECTRICITY" that mentions "Michael Shallis, a science tutor in Oxford, made a four-year study of 600 people exhibiting extremes of bioelectricity, and published the results in The Electric Shock Book in 1988. One woman studied by Shallis was Jacqueline Priestman of Sale, near Manchester, who had ruined 30 vacuum cleaners, five irons and two washing machines in 10 years." The 1985 New Straits Times source in the article focuses on her, but seems questionable as a source. The sources seem to clearly indicate this is not a single event, but also do not appear sufficient to support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely agree about no enduring historical significance and will not likely impact the future. Also not enough to make her notable. I think content about her could be added to the Street light interference phenomenon article, does that count as a merge? Chronotime (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ATD-M, Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles. Also, the diversity of sources over time and the broad geographical scope seems to be more clear if this BLP is merged into its larger context. Beccaynr (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2022 (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 03:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Vera Davis

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

The lead states "One of her most notable achievements was her obtaining a Master’s degree from Midwestern University in 1954." which is great for her but not quite Wikipedia level notable. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a family history piece and not an encyclopedia entry. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A search turned up no reliable sources to show notability. I agree with Mccapra that this reads like a family history. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Sorely fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a beautiful little bit of family research, and no doubt a good and worthy person, but WP isn't the place to publish family history. If only our articles on genuinely notable people were so nicely written and illustrated. Elemimele (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "While she made no significant contributions to the betterment of mankind, her legacy of education and material objects is still important to her surviving family." So she herself admits it's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of encyclopedic notability per WP:GNG. Not a subject for an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would be great information for a family genealogical newsletter, but has no encyclopedic worth. The article says it best: "Grace Vera Davis was an average woman. While she made no significant contributions to the betterment of mankind, her legacy of education and material objects is still important to her surviving family." --Kbabej (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst well-researched, I agree with the above this isn't encyclopedic material. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is just a genealogical entry, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The article even admits that the subject lacks notability, strange but true. Anyway, a Google search I conducted only produced a few hits, which were all passing mentions of her. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald A. Coggan

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

Appears to strongly fail notability guidelines. A quick Google search ("Donald Coggan engineer") yields basically nothing. – Ploni (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Engineering. Ploni (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. No results other than his books and his own website. -eco ^{talk to me} 21:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With both the sources listed and sources available online, fails to meet WP:GNG. Reads like WP:RESUME. Firsthand accounts for sourcing without outside support. NiklausGerard (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2022 (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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Coldwater

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

Failure to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; insufficient independent & secondary sources; article reads like a CV (see: what Wikipedia is not) WikiEditor93B (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's on the edge, but I think the coverage in Reuters, the multiple mentions in an O'Reilly book on Kubernetes, and the several references to Coldwater as an influential Kubernetes and computer security community member put this into keep territory. I've cleaned up the cites a bit and swapped out some independent ones. I disagree that it reads like a CV, though even if it did that is a surmountable problem. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One mention in a hacker book, but it looks like an interview they did with this person. Not really much else found for sources, was a panelist at an EFF talk recently on LGBTQ issues, and the pronoun used is "They" as well. I can't find any coverage of the event itself. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable and the article should not stay because the guidelines have not been met. The interview does not help .IrishOsita (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajinkya Bhasme

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Lacks quality book reviews to support his author claim. Also, the "Critical reception" or "Reception" section are generally used for books, not for authors. Besides that, most of the citations are WP:ADMASQ. High probability; the page is a WP:UPE by an WP:SPA . Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Hatchens (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very promotional, I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 23 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 03:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Bardales

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

Nominating on behalf of Kaltariel (talk · contribs) who prodded the article; as it was previously AFD'd in 2020, it's not eligible for prod. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police and Law. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it because the topic didn't seem to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. There doesn't seem to be wide enough interest in the topic. Kaltariel (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still stand by my view stated in the 2020 nomination that the sources are too tabloidish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third nomination..we need to establish a limit on nominations because otherwise, in 20 years we will still be debating whether an article merits being deleted or not. I think two or perhaps three nominations would be enough and then if it's not deleted after that, snowball. As it is I will again vote weak keep. The subject was involved in a big scandal, the Monica Lewinski of Peru if you will. And we are not nominating Monica for deletion. Antonio El Donado Martin (aca) 19:56, May 17, 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and this establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above sources are WP:SIGCOV, there are a few more in English at Newspapers.com, and she is certainly not any less notable than she was in 2020: notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Jacona (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2022 (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 13:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cari Guittard

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

Lacks independent sources, so she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Business. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, sources are her bio in the Huff Post as a contributor, and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not there to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2022 (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 two relists, too little participation to establish a deletion consensus for an article that is not eligible for soft deletion. RL0919 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izabela Kisio-Skorupa

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

This woman does not have any causes of encyclopedism. Sources provided in this article describe only vagueness and non-important facts and information. That person is only a small polish influencer who isn't known besides the circle of her fans. She is not all-polish-known celebrity. She's running only yt channel and not so big Instagram profile. She's most recognisable due to the fact of having a daughter actress who additionally isn't so much recognized polish actress. In Polish wikipedia article about her was repeatedly deleted and she comes back over and over again due to trolls, probably psycho fans who wants her to be visible in wikipedia. However, they don't have any rational argument proving her encyklopedysm. The Wolak (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Wolak (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, News media, and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What little SIGCOV there is is limited to Polish equivalents of gossip websites and taboloids (WP:DAILYMAIL-like). IMHO fails WP:NBIO. PS. Deleted at last once from pl wiki, now forked (both forks about to be deleted), seems like a case of persistent spam. WP:SALTing might be worth it, just in case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC) PS. Deleted from pl wiki, where a sock has created this article under several alt names too. See https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Izabela_Kisio-Skorupa&action=edit&redlink=1 and https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Izabela_Kisio&action=edit&redlink=1 . If this is SALTed here (as I recommend), please also salt Izabela Kisio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion contested on the talk page, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the one argument made is on policy - relisting for further policy discussion from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (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 02:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilraj Singh Rawat

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

WP:GNG. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 01:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Znidaric

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

Reviewed as a part of new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability including no suitable sources. IMO looks to be expert wiki spinning up. Also have concerns about the editor who has 48 lifetime edits which at first glance all appear to be wiki-expert promotional work regarding 30+ individuals. North8000 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely promotional and non-notable / I agree that the other edits of the contributor need to be examined. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems clearly notable, He was nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Picture Editing for a Nonfiction Program and won two American Cinema Editors in 2018. Good reference. Paavaover (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC) sources - ^[1]^[2] Paavaover (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Will Znidaric". emmys.com. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
^ "Eddie Awards 2018". americancinemaeditors.org. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the Academy Award iis one of the very few awards where being formally nominated is of considerable significance, and two eddy's is probably by itself sufficient. I don't see how the article is "spinning up" it's limited almost entirely to a list of films. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs expanding, but seems to be a marginally notable person in the documentary industry. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:55, 23 May 2022 (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 11:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jujhar Singh Nehra

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

I checked it for reliable references and didn't found anything which can be called as reliable. The article has no WP:RS reference for many days. I don't think the article meets WP:GNG, apart from it most of the content of the article is from community based mirror sites like jatland wiki. Considering all this, I think this is the best step here. RS6784 (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The fact that he has a statue in his native town suggests he is notable. The article alludes to a book (without naming it clearly). That might be a RS. The test is that articles must be verifiable, not that they are verified by citations. Articles without citations should be tagged for improvement, not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, statues in India are also built for fake ( non-existent) figures. I couldn't find a single RS reference for this personality. The book named is from a mirror website related to a community. RS6784 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Not only the article is not notable for wiki, there is a high chance that this historical personality probably didn't exist. There is hardly any mention of this person in any reliable historical sources. About statues, I agree with RS6784, the current statue politics of the country is such that there have been many small squares, roads are named after fake and made up character from history and so are the statues made, mostly it has to do with caste politics which is prevalent in India. The content is mostly copied from a website called Jatland.com see the same page in hindi language on Jatland[12], the website is notorious for creating and making fake history specially of Jat caste to which this blog cum website belongs. See Sitush's list of sources which are to be removed on sight,[13], jatland.com is listed on top. The book eluded in the article i.e. 'Rankesari Jujhar Singh' written by Kunwar Panne Singh is either a fake book or written for castecruft of which there is no shortage in india, but the not reliable that is for sure. The note at the end of the article that this story was told by Thakur Deshraj, Deshraj was another such fake history writer also from the same community i.e. Jat. He was never reliable to begin with.Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously added the template to the article due to a lack of sources. Nothing seems to have changed in that time. The article has been up for far too long without a single reliable source.RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2022 (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 23:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jamieson

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, so the only option I see is WP:NAUTHOR. No luck - neither book is even in my institutional library, let alone any full academic reviews of either; some citations on google scholar but I didn't see anything substantial. WP:PROF also looks like a no. asilvering (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Theatre, and England. asilvering (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this Artaud maven does not meet WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The clearest line of notability would be WP:AUTHOR but that requires published book reviews and I couldn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2022 (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. If the article can be re-created with more sources, let it be done. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Ujudud Shariff

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Ploni (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Nigeria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged this as a BLP PROD since there were no refs about the person. The article seemed to be largely an advert for the books written by the subject. The originating author removed the PROD without improving the referencing. Very unclear where notability is supposed to lie. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She sounds like a lovely person and I'm sure she is a great herbalist, however I am not finding anything in either the article sourcing or in an online WP:BEFORE search to substantiate her notability per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC criteria. It may be WP:TOOSOON for the subject of the article. Netherzone (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Googled about her, she seemed enough notable to me. I can try improving the article. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 13:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Joanne Pedersen

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

As this article says, there are 258 missing children in British Columbia. There was some coverage of Pedersen on the milestone anniversaries of her disappearance, but there is no evidence her disappearance was notable. As she was only ten at the time, no clear indication of notability prior. Star Mississippi 15:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and British Columbia. Star Mississippi 15:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While missing children cases are always disturbing and sad, the media coverage of the subject's disappearance appears typical for missing-person's cases. Most of the coverage was, in fact, local. Also, the article reads like a press release issued by the police. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for missing-person's cases. Plus, notability has not been shown and it, therefore, does not pass WP:BASIC and fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2022 (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 12:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanendra Pratap Singh

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, only interviews and mentions. Priya Ragini (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE as per nom. There is no SIGVOC about the person, nor he is holding any top position of State or India. I would rate WP:TOOSOON. --_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There are many special directors of police in every state. No point of listing before he gets a top rank of any noted branch. Nang Nandini (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2022 (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 23:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neza Patricia Masozera

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

WP:GNG, perhaps WP:NOTYET? Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ontario. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The subject doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. May be "Most Promising Artist in Africa" by the All Africa Music Awards could give her some leverage, but not sure if the award is notable enough for consideration. Cirton (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not there to justify an article on a musician. "Most promising" anything awards are not merit awards, but awards that say people think you have potential but are not yet at that level, I do not think there is a "most promising" award anywhere which would be grounds for someone getting an article based on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is referenced to short blurbs and blogs, not to substantive WP:GNG-worthy media coverage, and it claims nothing about her that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than that. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 02:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harold C. Washington

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

I don't think this is a WP:NPROF pass, unless someone in theology has some good arguments otherwise? Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR - the one single-authored book (Wealth and Poverty) has at least three academic reviews, so it passes WP:NBOOK, but it's just the one. The only footnote is "Discussion with Dr. Washington, November 17, 2009." asilvering (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Christianity. asilvering (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning move to draft. Google Scholar returns a decent number of hits, but the most cited piece has 95 citations, which seems to be on the low end. BD2412 T 05:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The nature of the publishers indicates that his books are fully academic works. Tag for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For an arts subject, 95 citations is a high number. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. It's not in dispute that he's an academic. It's in dispute that he meets WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #1. In fact, 95 citations is very high for biblical studies. (I also see a 72 and a 59.) His standing in the scholarly community is best demonstrated by the fact that he is asked to write articles for major dictionaries. (See the list here.) The article certainly needs some cleanup, though. St Anselm (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2022 (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. Technicaly ineligible, but I don't see any input forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H. L. Dusadh

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

Notability and cn-tagged since 2015. I don't see a WP:GNG pass when I look, but there are lots of things complicating the search: his books are in Hindi, he writes on marginalized topics (Dalit/Bahujan empowerment), and he doesn't speak English or work at a university. In principle, he could well be notable - can anyone find sources to prove it?

He's "Dusādha, Eca. Ela." in my library catalogue (at least, I think these are the same person), but that didn't help me find anything for WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK (to get WP:NAUTHOR). Leaving that in case it helps anyone else. asilvering (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Politics, and India. asilvering (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 23 May 2022 (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 12:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Schoenfeld

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

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. See also Talk:Wayne Schoenfeld#COI tag (May 2022). – Ploni (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something seems "off" about this article. I had a look at some of the sourcing (not all) and the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, have zero record of him nor the author in their archives. The Los Angeles Times and others did not check out either. This might be a possible hoax or fake sources? I'll spend some time to look deeper into the sourcing before coming to any firm conclusions and !voting. Netherzone (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, it seems apparent that this person does not meet our notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR, WP:NARTIST, nor WP:GNG. I searched the databases of the newspapers and other publications that supposedly had coverage, but most of them showed no mention of this person at all, or were simple name checks or calendar listings. The permanent collection claim is false, as this too was a name check that he was in a show not a permanent collection. His books are mostly self-published. A Google search reveals only social media, a few press releases and wikipedia mirrors, a Newspapers.com search shows no in-depth SIGCOV. The sourcing is dubious and the article seems to be a PR effort, and as mentioned in the nomination a COI creation, (possible UPE). Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if nothing else, for the blatant falsification of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:37, 22 May 2022 (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. As no one is actually contesting deletion. 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. Star Mississippi 01:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Shabanov

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

I came across this article a weeks or so ago following a complaint aw WT:BLP. As it stands this is a BLP with woefully inadequate sourcing. This article currently cites two sources, an interview with Zavtra, an extreme right newspaper, and a piece by the Strategic Culture Foundation which is predominantly about something else but repeats some interview quotes by Ismail Shabanov from another source. Both of these sources are way, way below the level of reliability we should be using in a BLP, and both of them do not count towards notability as they are simply interviews. I tried to do a WP:BEFORE search but was hampered by not speaking Russian - there is the possibility that I missed some coverage in reliable sources somewhere else. Over its existence this article has been BLP prodded once, normal prodded twice and tagged for A7 speedy deletion, so it's probably time this came to AfD. 192.76.8.71 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created discussion page on behalf of IP nominator[14] WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Russia. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I am not automatically against using interviews to source BLPs, but this one is quite weak in coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2022 (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 02:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Conrad Therrien

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:NPROF. Ploni (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Architecture, and Museums and libraries. Ploni (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - 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, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails to meet the subject notability guidelines mentioned above. It also fails the WP:GNG, with three primary sources, one non-sigcov source, and an article in which the subject is mentioned twice, none of which count towards the GNG. Finally, the article is written a little too much like a resume. Toadspike (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Head of a curatorial department at the Guggenheim is definitely something that could lead to notability, either through WP:GNG or WP:PROF, but we don't have evidence that it has in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2022 (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 10:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Farid

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

Being an astronaut candidate is not in itself sufficient to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Reads like a résumé more than anything. – Ploni (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-leaning. As WP:SCHOLAR, notability is not established. I don't see him selected for any mission or formally selected as an astronaut candidate, either - can't find him [[here or elsewhere.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see him quoted in reliable independent sources fails WP:N PaulPachad (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-leaning - He's in Arabic language news as follows:

here primary source
The only Egyptian and Arab in the German Space (does include an interview)
Egyptian astronaut Ahmed Farid: NASA borrowed the name “Mars” from the ancient Egyptians I think this is significant coverage

In summary two of these involve him, but there is also details that are editorial, so I think overall this could justify a keep. I am unqualified to assess Arabic language media, so I'm assuming they are reliable, they seem reliable to me. CT55555 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of those links are either direct interview of him, or just as a minor figure. I do not know about anything about Egypt; I am from Nepal myself, but believe me when I say that in developing countries like ours, a person would get an interview and be featured in multiple news articles just for getting a scholarship in MIT (which I have once witnessed) and then fade into obscurity after that. Having said that, it would probably be better if someone from Wikiproject Egypt could provide a comment or information in this regard. Shirsakbc (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the hits I get are for an artist with the same name. Unsure how notable this fellow is. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too few sources in Scholar, news, etc. --mikeu ^talk 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Thakur

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

This article is not enough notable to stand alone article the references do not show the significant coverage of the person. AlexandruAAlu (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AlexandruAAlu (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks to fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 23 May 2022 (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 23:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Deshraj

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

After closely going through the article, I found almost all references to be from the community mirror site Jatland wiki. One reference of writer Robert Stein which has been quoted here doesn't give single mention of this personality. I am not convinced that this article meets WP:GNG including WP:N, WP:THREE. Considering all this situation, I think this is the best solution. RS6784 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RS6784 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person appears to have been a government functionary in a not very important princely state. We do not have the sources to show notability. I also have to admit saying he was from Rajasthan seems odd when Rajasthan was not created for decades after his birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not even convinced that he was any govt functionary at all in a princely state as no reference is provided for it. His only contribution seems writing some new claims for his community. RS6784 (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the findings of nominator and John Pack Lambert. No proper citations. Craigwikiman (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2022 (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 relisting the discussion the responses to the AFD have been to keep the article and since sources are provided to back up the content that view has merit. Note that it was suggested that the article could be retitled (i.e. moved) to focus on the event and circumstances surrounding Figuera's death, but that discussion can be had elsewhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Figuera

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

The overall notability of this biographical article is unsubstantiated. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets WP:GNG and has particular importance in the context of the Venezuelan protests. A move to Death of Orlando Figuera can also be considered if there are still doubts about notability. I will try to expand the article and explain further this point soon. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have further expanded the article, a lot compared to the its version when it was first nominated for deletion. In short, Orlando Figuera is arguably the best known case of violence in demonstrations in Venezuela, and has been used as a rallying flag by the Venezuelan government to label opposition demonstrators as violent, fascists, racists, and whatnot. Not only does his death have wide coverage in Venezuela, where he died, but also in Spain and other international outlets that have reported on the protests as well. Pinging nominator @Ari T. Benchaim:. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the rationale provided by NoonIcarus, the subject is enough notable as it passes WP:SIGCOV. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 per WP:SNOW. There was no further discussion in two weeks, during which further comments were not added. There was still some time left to add comments, however the outcome of this AFD has become almost certain to the point it is not going to change before the time closes and no need to prolong discussion further. Not relisted for a third time per WP:RELIST (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crosshill

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

Article is sourced almost entirely to his website. Can't find any sources with WP:SIGCOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found. I wonder if he has 900 gold medals like the fellow above does? Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Looks like the sole objections (limited sources/no sources found) have been addressed by User:MaryMO (AR), leaving, it appears to me, nothing to debate. BPK (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BPK2 I looked at the sources added. I don't see any of them that are independent, reliable and have significant coverage. I also don't see enough for WP:NAUTHOR (there's one review [15] I found of one of his novels but that's all I could find in terms of non-blog reviews). The sources in the article right now that are not by Tom Crosshill himself either verify that he was nominated or got an award for one of his stories, are interviewing him about some financial topic. There's one interview with him about himself but interviews are not really independent and one WP:INTERVIEW by itself is not enough for WP:NBIO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Vishwanath Shetty

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

Non-notable person for single event. Does not meet WP:NCRIME Whiteguru (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. Whiteguru (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NCRIME really just tells us to make sure there are good sources (I think there are) and directs us to the full guidance at WP:CRIME. WP:CRIME, as I read it, cautions against a separate article for the person (all good, that's not the situation here), cautions about BLP compliance (I think this is fine, but will update my !vote if someone says otherwise) and that it's well documents (I think it is, there are multiple news sources). So to me, I think it's in line with the guidelines, which supplement the WP:GNG, which I think is met. But if I've missed something, please specifically tell me how and I'll revisit my !vote CT55555 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CT55555 NCRIME is in the EVENT page. This may pass WP:EVENT as there are articles from 2015 and 2022, so durability is there. And there were section 144 after murder.

If an article passes NEVENT but fails NCRIME, then such articles should be deleted? And how is this biography article as the nominator is saying? Ivan Tsar (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A merge might be appropriate if there is a suitable target, but the nom makes no argument for deletion. Facially, this article seems to cite to ample independent reliable sources to meet the threshold of WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. As for WP:NCRIME, in its current entirety that section reads as follows:

Articles about criminal acts,[5] particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources.

The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.
NCRIME thus does not provide any distinct grounds for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Mancini

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

BLP sourced mostly to IMDB and fansites. The sources that weren't those, that I was able to get back from archive.org don't even mention Mancini but just talk about the search for the missing relative. The article does mention some appearances on some stuff so maybe there are some sources that I can't find through a search, but for now I don't see enough for WP:GNG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Draft would be a good option rather then delete as I saw many mistake on this article on referencing sector. Fade258 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no sourcing for WP:N, then there's no point to draftifying. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing isn't there. What I have been able to find is mentions in context of the notable people whose cases he takes, but that does not confer notability on him. Star Mississippi 18:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 23 May 2022 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Ferrer

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

This stub was created shortly after Ferrer's death, which made some news due to her family's role within the broader entertainment industry. However I'm unable to find evidence she was notable as a screenwriter, blogger, or fundraiser for her son's health condition. There's no lasting coverage beyond June 2021 and I'm unable to identify a viable merger target Star Mississippi 23:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and COVID-19. Star Mississippi 23:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. TJMSmith (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There appears to be plenty of RS'ed aftermath of her death via Google News, to include stuff her husband has been doing in her honor that has been getting plenty of press. Still, absent notability during life... why cover her? Maybe an entry on a list of those dead by suicide after long haul covid? Seems morbid to me, but I don't make the rules on good taste around here. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is two obits and more coverage available. The obits push it over the line. I think a lot of it is because it was suicide due to Long Covid, but the obits are genuine secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times and People have features about her, I think with the other sources we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2022 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Myers (CasaGrande)

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

Lack of notability, article based on primary sources (and even then lots seem unverifiable). Redirect to New Almaden#New Almaden Quicksilver Mining Museum is a possibility, even though the article title is a very unlikely search term (including the typo in the disambiguation). Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, California, and Louisiana. Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is worth keeping. It's more that about a house so he should have his own page. He is a biographical representation of someone who came to California either right before or during the gold rush (newspaper sources vary on the year) with little money and did well. Many from this time did not marry since there were far fewer women in California. He is well documented with many sources. Very few homes built in the 1850's survive in California. It's part of the story, but not all of it. Thehusband (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources. There is a lot of information about Mr Meyer's online. Occasionally some of the sources have him listed as Meyers, instead of Myers, but Myers is how his name is spelled on his tombstone, voter registration and personal letters currently stored at Louisiana State University. Thehusband (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheHusband (or anyone else), can you point to the links which are actually reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage? I see unreliable sources like familusearch and findagrave, and things like this which don't really help either: but I don't see the sources which actually help to establish notability for Myers. Fram (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think A Contested Election in California is the best source[16]

He's on pages 54-56. He is the Election Inspector for this case that is being questioned. There are newspaper articles from his death as well as the 8 letters on file at Louisiana State University from the 1840's and 1850's. One letter is addressed to Francis Myers, City of Sacramento. No street address. Another one says "Francis Myers, San Jose, CA" on the envelope. Still no address. The towns were much smaller back then. I do not think there are many early letters from this era in California. All of these things make him interesting. I had included a lot of sources like the census and voter registration so I was clear that there was just one Francis Myers at this time. Thehusband (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone coming to California before 1850 was considered a California Pioneer [Category:California_pioneers]. This is not very common. This San Jose newspaper article mentions that he's a Pioneer[17]. The death of this Pioneer was even published in San Francisco[18] in addition to San Jose. The term Pioneer doesn't carry the same weight or meaning as it does today. In 1894 there was no road between San Franciso and San Jose, so I find it impressive for his obituary to be in both cities. What's even more remarkable is that California was still part of Mexico in 1846. Americans were not allowed into California legally at that point. You can read more about the [Society_of_California_Pioneers], which you need to prove that your ancestor came to California before 1850. There are other societies where their relatives arrived later, but this one is the most respected of all the groups.

Here are three additional secondary sources I've found mentioning him in regards to Grande Casa

[19]

[20]

[21]

On each of these three links, you can click on the picture on the left to see the brochure/article/document. Thehusband (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Redirect to New_Almaden#New_Almaden_Quicksilver_Mining_Museum: There is a chance this person might be notable per WP:GNG, but there is a ton of really bad sources here (primary, unreliable, etc.). Familysearch, Find a Grave, and census records are not reliable, and the frequent use of newspaper citations with only a trivial mention of the name "Francis Myers" risks building a Frankenstein article out of multiple people with the same name, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or undue emphasis on trivialities (e.g. providing witness testimony is not what gets somebody into an encyclopedia, and mere verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion). Is it reliably established that the builder and judge are the same person? One obituary states: "The deceased was a carpenter by trade but he accumulated considerable means and retired and has for some time been rated as a capitalist"). We can't have an article based primarily on snippets, census records and primary sources, nor mere mentions of a name on signs, picture captions, or tombstones: that is the realm of historians and biographers to analyze and publish elsewhere: only then can the info be summarized into a tertiary encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider whether there could be more than one Francis Myers in San Jose and Almaden, but these were small places at the time, and I have not found more than one Francis Myers in the local census and voter records, or anywhere else showing more than one. For some perspective, in 1870 there were only 9000 people in San Jose, while New Almaden was even smaller. He spent most of his time in California in New Almaden and only moved to San Jose at the very end of his life. In this book "A Contested Election in California" [22], Francis Myers mentions on page 54 that he built the Casa Grande, on page 55 he mentions that he owns some houses in New Almaden and rents them out, and then on page 56 he says that he was a member of the Elections Board in 1886 as well as the Inspector of the Election in question. The 1894 obituary mentions Francis Myers owned at least 4 different properties and other promissory notes[23]. So it looks like the builder and the judge are the same person. The next person to be interviewed in that book is G.E. Lighthall. What's interesting is that there is a photo of both Lighthall and Francis Myers at this Santa Clara County Park website[24]. The page says that they were both "prominent Almadenders". The disputed election in 1886 in Santa Clara was between two Senators(Felton and Sullivan). It was widely covered at the time. Thehusband (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But looking beyond the primary records, do you see significant coverage in reliable independent sources? His content in A Contested Election in California appears to consists only of his testimony, making it a primary source. Wikipedia articles cannot connect the dots or infer unpublished statements, no matter how likely or credible they may seem. This article on the whole is too close to WP:OR with too much interpretation: holding up scraps and building a narrative around them. I think a redirect to New_Almaden#New_Almaden_Quicksilver_Mining_Museum or deletion is in order, at least until a professional sorts through the sources and can characterize his contributions and biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some other secondary sources.

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29] Thehusband (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source document called Three Pioneer Rapides Families, by Stafford. Francis Myer's is listed with a short biography on page 121. These links lead to the same document. One of the letters in the Louisiana collection is also mentioned on this page.

https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/765772-three-pioneer-rapides-families-a-genealogy-by-george-mason-graham-stafford?offset=14

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5802c4d9414fb5e45ce4dc44/t/5cd2d8ff1905f458727c9119/1557321989627/Jaudon-Robert+3.pdf Thehusband (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the familysearch, finda grave and census records references. Thehusband (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three Pioneer Rapides Families is the same source as this PDF. The biographical info on Myers on pg. 121 I don't see as significant coverage. The brief obituaries in the SF Call and San Jose Herald, are fairly trivial as well, and the similarities in wording and structure suggests they might be syndicated obits written by only one source and reprinted elsewhere. The Santa Clara County Parks sources are trivial mentions, primary sources, unreliable, and/or mainly about Casa Grande. We can't have a Wikipedia article based predominantly on names appearing briefly in brochures, letters, archival documents, databases, genealogies, or even newspapers. Nobody gets into an encyclopedia just because they are "mentioned buying nails" or verifiably got married and died. To satisfy WP:GNG and WP:42 we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I'm just not seeing that. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that's so interesting about Francis Myers buying nails is the book that it's in. It's not any book, but it's Sue Eakin's book that was the basis for the 9 time Academy Awards the movie had "12 Years a Slave". Sue Eakins is the person who rediscovered this 100+ year old book and researched it. I have not seen the movie but "Myers" is part of the book. What's also interesting is that the collection of Francis Myers letters also mentions other people that are mentioned in the book.

The link you included for the entire pdf on the Three Pioneer Rapides Families shows the party that Francis Myers came with to California. It says he went with his brother in law Thaddeus Robert, via the Isthmus of Panama and a few other people. It definitely confirms that they were California Pioneers since they get to California before 1850. Here's the page that talks about how they got to California. [30] Thehusband (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Since most of the documentation we have talks about his journey to California and life there, I think he should be listed in the category of [Category:California_pioneers] and his page should be changed from [Francis_Myers_(CasaGrande)] to [Francis_Myers(pioneer)]. There are several sources talking about his pioneer status. The letters at Louisiana State University archives and other books do not mention CasaGrande but rather his early arrival (consistent with a Pioneer) in California. It would not make sense to fold him into Casa Grande. Thehusband (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Myers was the largest property owner with 16 homes that he owned in New Almaden. ^[1]. This source is on page 28, and was from Henning Jennings, and not Mr Myers. So it can't be considered a primary source. Thehusband (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Contested_Election_in_California/I5ALAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=largest

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I have made a lot of changes to this article over the past few weeks and addressed the concerns that were mentioned. I have removed the primary sources and replaced them with secondary sources. There were a significant number of sources for someone who died 125 years ago. I find his biography interesting and worthy of note. Thehusband (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to SHOUT, and please don't vote twice. And as far as I am concerned, no, Myers still isn't notable, the main source are court transcripts which are primary sources. I see no evidence of notability at all. Fram (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Santa Clara County documents that I'm seeing (i.e. [MEYERS, Francis - b.1812 in South; to NA 11/54; built Casa Grande; at NA until 1877; last built Sta. Isabel shafthouse. __ this]) give his name as "Meyers". Searching on that name might yield better results. Also, I don't understand why this article has "(CasaGrande)" in the title - if it is to disambiguate the person, then it would be better to use something like "California Pioneer". I'll read through the links provided by Thehusband. I am leaning toward keep even though many sources are primary. It is hard to apply today's criteria to a historical figure. For example, there were very few news outlets in California at that time so even a few mentions should have heavy value. Lamona (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I went through the sources and don't see how his accomplishments meet WP:GNG. It is all passing mentions. Nothing in-depth. I understand the difficulty in finding old sources, but anyone today who owned 16 houses and was an architect and also a judge would have a hard time qualifying either unless there was something more significant. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reading the article in its 1 June 2022 state, I'm not seeing any concrete critera of notability per WP:ANYBIO. The third sentance describes him as "prominent" based on a photo caption. Somebody did a lot of work to find supporting citations but they are passing mentions at best. He was an influential local real estate holder but there is no broad coverage outside his geographical immediate area. The 1873 citation confirms that he was a judge but by my reading he was a county judge, a level that does not normally pass the bar (excuse the pun!) for WP:JUDGE. Blue Riband► 02:39, 2 June 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 01:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Clark (host)

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

Non-notable host. Most of the shows he hosted are redlinks. Zero sources found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:03, 4 May 2022 (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)} 03:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:48, 15 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Kwangshin Kim

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

Pastor of unclear notability. Article has no secondary sources. His ministry may be notable, but unsure if Kim is notable. Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Zero hits elsewhere, but I find one mention in GBooks ("The Religions of Los Angeles") and what looks like a brief mention in JSTOR about missionary churches. Leaning non-notable, might find more detailed sources in Korean language items? Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as he is the head of a notable ministry. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, KO Wikipedia cites to nontrivial coverage in several sources, including the Kukmin Ilbo[31] and Mission Times[32]. Even if these sources were rejected for some reason, there seems little doubt that others could be found with some effort. -- Visviva (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears more than notable and article should be able to be improved upon with available sources.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2022 (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeralean Talley

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

In the previous deletion discussion, people have discussed that she is known for her longevity. I think that there isn't anything special about this particular individual that makes her longevity unique. Interstellarity (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From a longevity point of view she is less notable than Gertrude Weaver whose article was deleted with a redirect but no mini-bio. Assuming WP:BIO1E trumps WP:GNG then the one event was "oldest living person" (which only applied for 2 months), and is insufficient to maintain a separate article. Redirect only if it is agreed she is worthy of a mini-bio at List of American supercentenarians. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of American supercentenarians#Biographies (create a mini-bio on it). There have been a number of examples of "merge" results in AfD so far, and this time it should be done as "merge" rather than completely delete. As a once WOP titleholder, this person is more prominent than anyone else who merged into "List of American supercentenarians" (like Barnice Madigan and Bettie Wilson). I personally like these articles, but I know English-version Wikipedia's standards in recent years seem to be strict so I will not vote for "keep".

If a lesser-notability person like Bettie Wilson (only world's 3rd oldest person at the death) is allowed to survive as a mini-bio in "List of American supercentenarians" page, then Jeralean Talley, clearly much notable than Bettie Wilson, is should at least survive as a mini-bio. Also, from my point of view, the Gertrude Weaver case should also have been merged into "List of American supercentenarians" rather than completely deleted, but the result was completely delete.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively: Bettie Wilson is even less notable than Talley and her mini-bio should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like she was discussed in depth in several sources. I'm not sure about the previous deletion discussion, as the nom mentioned, but in my opinion, being the oldest living person on the entire planet, is very notable. More notable than professional sports stars who have wiki articles . DerbyCountyinNZ's point about Gertrude Weaver is a good one and I think that policy should be re examined and perhaps Gertrude Weaver should be nominated again. PaulPachad (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change my mind. She died in 5 years+ ago so sourcing will more difficult, but no reason to this page. Many reasons...one of reason is considering that the content is very long, merging is not suitable and keeping is reasonable. The key here is being validated as the oldest person in the world out of 7 billion people at a point and there are sufficient sources that verifies this. --Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mean she was old, the article doesn't tell much about her other than straight, to the point facts. She got a letter from Obama, lovely. How many others got one? Not seeing notability from what's used as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably it passes the WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2022 (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 is neither the awards nor sourcing is sufficient. Star Mississippi 02:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan McDermott

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

Contested PROD; this BLP stub has been around since 2009 with little movement, development or sourcing. I've been hunting for references, and frankly can't turn much up. The Dana Award has been defunct for some time, and the archived reference to the Bridport Prize does not mention this subject. If anyone can turn up sources, great, but at this point I don't feel this subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deprodded this in the hope that further sources might prove findable. The Bridport Prize source does in fact mention McDermott, but I agree that it isn't enough on its own. His author bio at Barnes & Noble[33] states that one of his stories is in 100 Notable Stories list in Best American Short Stories, but I can't find the details, and there's a long list of relatively minor awards for individual stories listed at the B&N page. Perhaps someone else will be more successful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notes; I've been browsing the Best American Short Stories lists, and it appears that the reference is to a "100 Other Distinguished Stories Of..." that appears to possibly be included in the anthology, with a list of stories the editor deems worthy of consideration. I mean, I'd love to have one of my pieces on a list like that, but I don't know that it does much for him notability-wise. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete this page. McD is my 6th grade ELA teacher. He is the nicest teacher ever. People really like him at my school. 2601:248:500:D090:C99F:794F:E187:4951 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 01:33, 24 May 2022 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Wayz

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

~~Unable to find enough resources in published reliable sources. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)~~Blocked sock Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Music. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's reporting on her from The New Times and so I added it in and she seems like a notable musician in Rwanda. 11:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The above comment was by me at 11:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC). CT55555 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Delete nothing more than paid for vanity spam. Merely having your name appear in a notable publication doesn't make it inherently reliable, doubly so when said publications take pay for publication without disclosure. The sourcing is weak and there isn't anything better to be found. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request on my Talk, I have reverted my close, restored the article and am relisting for further discussion as to whether The New Times content is editorial or promotional.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I've just realized/remembered, the nominator is sock blocked so I should have relisted this regardless of the query on my Talk. Apologies. Star Mississippi 17:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I already !voted keep above) I think this hinges on if The New Times is a reliable source. I honestly don't know. Here's what I can ascertain:

It's the first listed newspapers on BBC for Rwanda newspapers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14093244
The Wikipedia article and the BBC note it's proximity to government
Of course, plenty reliable sources are proximate to government, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, although I would suggest The New Times is not a reliable source for Rwandan politics.
The Wikipedia WP:RSPSS noticeboard is silent on The New Times. A search of the archive reveals nothing.

So my question is: does anyone have any evidence, any reason to assume it's a bad source? CT55555 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She has a good career as a musician being both a solo artist and the lead vocalist of a band, and being reported by The New Times is very remarkable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2022 (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 per the sources identified during the discussion. Star Mississippi 02:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1833)

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

No evidence of notability, a passing mention in a book and an entry in an apparently unpublished database (Hambrecht 2015)? Fram (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Georgia (U.S. state). Fram (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an entry in American Medical Biographies (1920), there's also an obituary viewable on Chronicling America Piecesofuk (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: thanks. Do you know if any similar sources exist for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1805)? Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can find is an obituary in the Georgia Telegraph on Newspapers.com but I don't have access to read the full details Piecesofuk (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN has failed to prove existence of sources beyond a superficial mention Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was WP:BEFORE carried out? Aside from American Medical Biographies and the Savannah Morning News obit, he has a 2.5 page obituary in Transactions of the Medical Association of Georgia. Note that research is somewhat tricky due to there being several fathers and sons of the same name, all physicians, e.g this subject's father (1805-1835), his son (1863-1920), and his grandson (1895-1955) were all Dr. Thomas Jackson Charltons, and their lives can be traced from journals and newspapers (here's the obituary of T. J. Charlton died 1955), although not all are necessarily Wiki-notable. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources dug up by Piecesofuk and Animalparty. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Will Znidaric". emmys.com. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

[2] "Eddie Awards 2018". americancinemaeditors.org. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

[3] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Contested_Election_in_California/I5ALAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=largest

[1]

[2]

[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/Ankur Pare}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rishabh Kothari}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrwhosetheboss}}