Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reverted
Line 50: Line 50:
<!-- Only if additions to this section do not clearly fit with one of the aforementioned categories, then please feel free to list or transclude. -->
<!-- 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 -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KJ_Dhaliwal}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakeem Nisar Ahmad}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakeem Nisar Ahmad}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KJ Dhaliwal}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KJ Dhaliwal}}

Revision as of 12:07, 24 April 2024

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
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. The author was a blocked sock (G5), and it's snowing down below anyway. Girth Summit (blether) 12:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJ Dhaliwal

KJ Dhaliwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG /WP:BIO.

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Nisar Ahmad

Hakeem Nisar Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he never won a national or provincial election, merely running for an election does not make one notable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for press releases about his part in running for elections to which he did not win. Fails WP:NPOL as not having won any seat-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: [3] Did not win his election so no WP:NPOL pass, and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV of him beyond routine campaigning releases. Curbon7 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The author was a blocked sock (G5), and it's snowing down below anyway. Girth Summit (blether) 12:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJ Dhaliwal

KJ Dhaliwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG /WP:BIO.

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Edunjobi

Kent Edunjobi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about an individual that doesn't meet out general notability guidelines for inclusion of musicians, actors and as the case may be. The sources doesn't seem to be significantly covered and per se, have more of PR and paid writing. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to A-ha. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ratcliff (producer)

John Ratcliff (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I not only re- produced the final masters of 8 of the tracks on a-ha’s 15 million selling first album Hunting High and Low but I also discovered them in 1983 and kept them, gave them £thousands and helped secure a record deal with Warners. I managed them under contract from 1983 to 1993 and without my financial and creative input they would have returned to Norway and never been heard of again! How dare you propose to delete this article. I have nearly completed my autobiography which inevitably contains the entire story of how I rescued them when they had no money left and put them in my recording studio for 2 years without any return for another 12 months. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree that REDIRECT to a-Ha is appropriate. Most sources are primary references. The only third party references are more about a-Ha with this subject being mentioned tangentially. Otherwise, this article seems more promotional than anything else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How dare you presume! You know nothing. In 1983 a-ha came into my studio but ran out of money after 2 weeks. For the next 2 years I covered every housing cost., food cost and leisure costs out of my own pocket because I believed in their talent.I also let them have free studio time for 2 years during which we recorded and produced nearly all of the tracks on their first album. I became their manager in 1983 and their contract lasted with me until 1993!Their best 10 years to date. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I.will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article. My autobiography is almost finished detailing my entire 10 years managing the band and the consequences for both a-ha and myself. 200 million record sales for a start! If you want a copy of my management contract with a-ha just ask. I lost my house and marriage while supporting the band before their success. Buy my autobiography next year and you can read every detail. Nobody, nobody knows the ‘a-ha’ history better than I do. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get your facts right. I discovered the band when they came into my studio and spent 2 weeks recording. I liked what I heard and when they ran out of time and money I supported them for 2 years before Take on Me became a bestseller.I was contractually their Manager from 1983 to 1993. I re-produced 8 out of 10 tracks on their first and most popular album Hunting high and Low. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are two decent sources on the article, both telling the story of the recording of "Take On Me": "Talking Away: A-Ha On The Making Of Take On Me" on The Quietus, and "Classic Tracks: A-ha 'Take On Me'" on Sound on Sound. There may be some claim to notability. However, the article subject badgering us and making legal threats on this deletion discussion makes it difficult for me to vote keep. Toughpigs (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are not going to allow this article to remain then you are ignoring the truth of the matter. I thought the truth was a basic necessity of a site that should only provide fact.I am only writing as a matter of principle. My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise. Buy the album…my name is all over the sleeve. More times than the band members themselves 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To toughpig. I don’t give a damn - oh sorry..is that blasphemy? In this day and age? I am in no way making threats! I am merely standing up for myself and the truth.Who is your superior? Put him/her on to it before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally and properly. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I now understand the reason for your username. Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To tough pig. It says you have ‘2 decent sources’. What better ‘source’ could you have but myself. I discovered, produced and managed ‘a-ha’ for 10 years from 1983 to 1993. I think my knowledge of this entire matter is inevitably going to be seen as the most accurate. Your organisation obviously listens hardest to those names you recognise. You don’t realise that it’s the people behind the names who have a far greater knowledge and understanding for detail than you ever will. Change your username….or is it your real name? I do apologise. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    217.137.18.193, stop your threats. WP:NLT and WP:OUTING are policies here. You can vent, and you can argue for this article to be kept, but you can't harass people. Jfire (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read my opening statements from the top again. Johnratcliff (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not harassing anyone. I am merely pointing out that I am not ‘just’ their producer. I discovered them in 1983, kept, housed, fed and gave them my studio for 2 years,signed them to an extremely lucrative management contract for 5 years and then to a major deal with Warners. That is an awful lot more than ‘producing’ a track don’t you think? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was their manager from 1983 to 1993.I still get royalties!
    Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw your opening statement and I believe you when you say you've done all those things for the band and were important to their success. But saying things like "I will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article", "My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise", "before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally", and "It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are" is not okay here. You need to avoid making statements that can be construed as legal threats or threats to reveal someone's identity.
    "Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry?" is a valid question. The answer is that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that information here is verifiable: readers must be able to check that any information is not just made up. That means we can't rely on what's "common knowledge" in any industry unless it's been published in reliable sources somewhere. When your autobiography is published, we may be able to use it as a source in a-ha (depending on whether it is self-published or not). But we can't just rely on your own personal statements here, even if we believe them. Jfire (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise if you feel I was harassing you. ‘a-ha’ is a very sensitive subject for me. I gave up my home and lost my wife and young child on account of my involvement with a-ha. So it is a passionate and sensitive subject.
    I reiterate, I am very sorry to have upset you.
    John Johnratcliff (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a-ha (with merging in of any useful information) pending publication of the autobiography referred to by the 217 IP (who appears to be the same person as Johnratcliff?). If it gets reviews in reliable sources, the article can then be reinstated based on those in addition to the few good sources currently present. Notability is borderline at present, since it can't be inherited from the band (and since our criterion for an independent page is notability, not admiration). The article is an under-referenced BLP and the last paragraph is stylistically inappropriate: "PS ... John". But it may be rewritable from sources a year from now. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, does not seem independently notable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Yngvadottir. I removed a lot of recent COI additions that were entirely unsourced. Those should not be in a BLP. What remains are 4 sources that I will throw into a source analysis table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.johnratcliff.com/john--a-ha No "In his own words". His own website. WP:SPS ? Reliable but self promotional Yes ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521024623/https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ha-take-me Yes Yes I believe it is. Didn't actually check. No He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him ✘ No
https://thequietus.com/articles/18805-aha-hunting-high-and-low-take-on-me-review-anniversary Yes Yes No He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him ✘ No
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01727601 Yes Yes No A primary source that says nothing about Ratcliffe in any case ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

However the redirect is reasonable as this is clearly someone who gets a mention regarding a-ha and is borderline notable. Although the above assessment covers what is in the page, there could be more secondary sources on him. However the name is quite common and searching is complicated by finding other notable Jonh Ratcliffes. I was not able to find any suitable coverage, but if multiple independent reliable secondary sources with sigificant coverage can be found, then, of course, this would be a notable subject for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to a-ha: Not enough notability outside of a-ha to warrant an individual page. InDimensional (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a-ha. I haven't been able to find sources to support WP:GNG beyond those mentioned here, and none of those support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a-ha I must admit the table really sold it to me Sansbarry (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Vodacom#"Please Call Me". The content is retained in case editors want to reorient this article to be about the court case instead of being a BIO. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkosana Makate

Nkosana Makate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product of WP:BLP1E. Yes, the subject has been making the news in the past few months but this is all just 15 minutes of fame. WP:ATD, a redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" would make sense. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Africa, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this case been in the news for years, not months. It has been extensively covered in WP:RS for that time. So the nomination description of it as “15 minutes of fame” is inaccurate. Makate may, or may not be notable in terms of WP:BLP1E but the case almost certainly is. Park3r (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Park3r, the case may be notable. However, I don't think Nkosana Makate is, the article is composed of this particular case only. Opening statement says "…is a South African who proposed the "Buzz" idea to Vodacom", no description nor WP:SIGCOV, and back to the nom, this is a clear BLP1E. Until relevant sources are brought to light, I think redirecting the article to Vodacom is the way to go. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure I understand the deletion rationale here. The case is definitely notable and as much as Nkosana Makate may not be notable but he definitely deserves a mention in the case because after all he is the central figure to the case. Also, seeing that most articles on Wikipedia are about Europe and U.S and there is a serious lack of African content (including content on languages) I think it would have been wise for you Dineo to be bold fix the issues on this article and go on to translate it to your mother tongue than tag it for speedy deletion. Wikimedia ZA is there to support African Wikimedian like yourself to increase African content and languages on Wikipedia. Please reach out to me on bobby.shabangu@wikimedia.org.za to talk more on how we can support you. Bobbyshabangu talk 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bobbyshabangu, yes he may be the central figure but this is pure WP:BLP1E (meaning he's known for one event only) which is the deletion rationale here. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if there was something I could do to improve it. Nkosana Makate is already mentioned on Vodacom#Please Call Me. Note that your comment does not support your "keep" !vote in any way. dxneo (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. As I read the "Keep" vote, the editor is rejecting the deletion nomination without arguing the specific points of it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Vodacom as per nom, not enough here for a standalone page.-KH-1 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: as suggested above seems fine. One small paragraph covering the individual should be enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Makate v Vodacom or similar. The case meets WP:GNG, having generated extensive WP:SIGCOV over a sustained period in WP:RS and extensive legal commentary in journals, and made it to the Constitutional Court. Park3r (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" per nom. BLP1E, fails WP:SIRS, nothing found with SIGCVO addressing the subject directly and indepth that would indidicate this is anything other than a BLP1E. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Ivanov (model)

Vladimir Ivanov (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model, fails WP:NMODEL. Both references are from 2013 (one is broken). Doesn't seem to have his models.com profile updated since 2017. Does not meet wp:ANYBIO or wp:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Etemadi

Ebrahim Etemadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ebrahim Etemadi likely doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the mentioned sources might not be reliable enough. Waqar💬 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  18:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Speedy is off the table given the time passed since nomination. There is nothing extant to redirect this to, however if a target is created, this can be redirected at editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 02:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Huizar

Elias Huizar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A defamatory article based on WP:OR with a non-free image improperly labeled as such and a subject that fails WP:GNG. Lettlre (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete/Convert - I feel like the shooter himself doesn't meet notability guidelines, but the event does, I feel like the article should be converted into something similar to 2014 Isla Vista killings, where the event itself is published, but not focused on the perp. Gonzafer001 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's plausible Red Slash 16:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, we should move the page to focus less on the perp, and more on the actual story. Gonzafer001 (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP. Suspected murderer on the run, not yet captured by authorities. Also, the image of the suspect is not licensed for our use. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G10/A7.Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a speedy. The copyrighted image can be removed. This article is not "entirely negative in tone and unsourced." (emphasis mine). It may be entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, but CNN has covered it, so it's unreasonable to argue it's A7. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the speedy tag and added a link to the CNN coverage. That doesn't mean I think this should be kept: it means I don't think any of our speedy deletion criteria apply. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/speedy delete per WP:NOTNEWS LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - this neither is WP:OR (did you... read the references??), nor does it fail the WP:GNG based on the substantial news coverage. Red Slash 01:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main source is a self-described zine that basically makes a bunch of allegations on a non-convicted individual. That's what I mean by OR. Lettlre (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the only source--it's been covered by national news and extensively covered by local news. Even so, that "zine" article is extensively sourced with interviews from people directly involved, like Elias's former boss at the police department. Red Slash 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To the above user, this article and its tone is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia (WP:BLPBALANCE) and inappropriately POV, incredibly violating WP:PERP; as the subject has been caught there's no use for the article as-is currently. The picture has been removed due to a poor licensing rationale and as the image involves children in no way involved with the subject or the story, and a BLPBALANCE-violating title in itself. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a WP:BLP violation. The article is almost completely unsourced contentious claims about a living person. Jfire (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP issues have been resolved, but this still fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. Coverage is unlikely to be WP:SUSTAINED. Jfire (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely sourced. Red Slash 16:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is all over the news in the Northwest. He was tracked down and committed suicide. It's being presented on the news as factual including interviews with people he worked with. He isn't a living person but a recently deceased person so I realize BLP still applies. The name of the minor victim has not been included here or mentioned in the news but they spoke with her family. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2024 Yakima murder and child abduction case, or something similar. They issued an Amber Alert about this case in the middle of the night, and it has certainly been heavily covered, but I agree that naming the article after Huizar doesn't entirely make sense since nothing about him is notable except for his crimes. See WP:BLP1E (although he is dead it is still relevant).LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you named the wrong city speaks to the fact that he actually was notable for multiple crimes across Eastern Washington. His rape of a 13-year-old at his middle school took place in Yakima; his double murder happened in West Richland, an hour southeast.
    Because of this, it feels awkward to me to name an article about several different, interconnected crimes, afte just one of them... the one thing they all have in common is Elias. Red Slash 16:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per sources indicated. Also no BLP concern. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl von Arensdorff

Carl von Arensdorff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD decdlined w suggestion to AfD instead: This article has been WP:UNSOURCED for 15 years and fails WP:GNG in every search I could do. Maybe there is a case to merge with Friedrich von Arenstorff, but he seems poorly sourced as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There are well-made arguments on both sides and neither prevails in quality or quantity. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Unaegbu

AfDs for this article:
Jeff Unaegbu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came about this article during clean up and saw it's contains a bit vague and non verifiable content. Taking into cleaning up, I became tired at the line seeing almost if not all the sources lacks editorial guidelines, perhaps doesn't go with our policy and guidelines for reliable sources.

On the other hand, apart from the quality percentage of primary sources linking to book that were self published in the platforms such as Amazon, etc., the article generally doesn't meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV, and it contains a bit hoaxes that were made (those like references/acclaims which I have removed when cleaning part of the article). The article in general doesn't conform with Wikipedia's inclusion for authors, journalist too—since he edited a magazine and has written for some magazines per the article. Lacks verifiable source and seem looking like a advert/promotional/vaguely constructed source, and more.

The books he wrote doesn't meet our guidelines for books, so we may try redirecting or WP:PRESERVE albeit there is nothing to be preserved here. I also discovered the previous AFD that reads 'no consensus', and it seems there were no improvement or rather say; the previous AFD seeking for clean up which I've did to some part and found no substantial need for the inclusion of this article. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Reading Beans
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://punchng.com/nigerian-entertainers-born-october-1/ Yes Yes A reliable national daily in Nigeria Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://dailytrust.com/the-occupants-of-nigerias-harmattan/ No Yes A national daily that is has majority of readers from Northern Nigeria No This is an interview-like article talking about #OccupyNigeria and not necessarily about this subject ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120504135846/http://www.newswatchngr.com/editorial/prime/bob/10326094437.htm ? Yes The source is a major newspaper ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail; talks mainly about the book ? Unknown
https://www.gistmania.com/talk/topic,61413.0.html No This is an interview No Gistmania is a gossip blog without any editorial started Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The table above was prepared in response to Royalrumblebee. If we want to talk about book reviews, maybe, someone should write an article about the book itself. With the sources I see, the entry does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Based on the source table, most appear to be non-RS. "Being born on October 1st" is about the best source, but that's not enough. I don't find anything further. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked closely at the sources, but I wanted to point out that WP:NAUTHOR allows people with multiple notable books (per WP:NBOOK) to have articles even without biographical coverage. In the sources listed here, I only see one contributing to NBOOK -- the Newswatch review of This Lagos Na Wa -- but I wanted to suggest that those interested in a "keep" should look for a second review of that and additional reviews of his other books. I think Achidie's mention of Biography of Nigeria's Foremost Professor of Statistics, Prof. James Nwoye Adichie in "Notes on Grief" is probably not enough to contribute to NBOOK for that specific book, but it might have reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that all written was his books where many are self pubs. WP:NAUTHOR also covers being covered per WP:GNG. Strongly, we know this article contains vagues of uncited words. Also trivial mentions doesn't meet notability. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:

Notability as per WP:ANYBIO which allows people with major awards to have articles: His book, “Ode on Lagos” won a national award. This is the Association of Nigerian Authors/ Cadbury prize. This was reported in page 35 of a Nigerian national newspaper, The Nation (November 30, 2011). Below is the online link as hosted by The Nation newspapers. Please turn to page 35: https://issuu.com/thenation/docs/november_30__2011/1

His book, “Freedom in Our Bones” also won a national award. This is the Nigerian Universities Research and Development Fair award in 2008. It is reported in a national newspaper: Edukugho, E. (2008). “Third Nigerian Varsities Research Development Fair: Matters Arising”, Vanguard, April 3, P.43. It is available in the offline archives of this newspaper on phone request but there is no online link yet.

Notability as an academic or creative professional as stipulated in WP:AUTHOR: The subject is an academic as well as a creative professional. He is cited by many scholars as per WP:AUTHOR which allows multiple citing of a subject as proof of notability. This link leads to his book, “92 Days” being cited in an article, “Nigeria’s Leadership Questions: A Re-Appraisal Of Key Issues, 1961-1990”: https://journals-co-za.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.31920/2753-3204/2023/v1n1a4 Another book he wrote, “Fifty Years of African Studies: A History of the Institute of African Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka (1963–2013)” is cited thus: https://ebin.pub/transformations-in-africana-studies-history-theory-and-epistemology-1032277475-9781032277479.html

He is cited in JSTOR too (Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, Vol. 27, 2018, page 36: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48561674?searchText=jeff+unaegbu&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djeff%2Bunaegbu%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A161914275d5e91e6c796bf7c807fce36&seq=13

Notability as per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBOOK: Aside from the review of his book, “Ode to Lagos” by the national Newswatch, the article indicated that his book, “92 Days in Power” was reviewed by Professor Christian Opata in page 40 of the national Nigerian newspaper, Daily Sun of Friday 19 December 2014. This review is available as shown:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A2ZsX_N3K5iih_8jOB2K3bpwhrOgCvNy/view?usp=sharing

Notability as per WP:GNG: The subject has also been mentioned in depth by more national newspapers aside Punch as already mentioned above. Here are two from two different journalists:

Prof. Ozioma Onuzulike. (2007). “I write to Put Right the Wrongs_ Jeff Unaegbu”, Sunday Vanguard, April 8, P. 48.

Oge, O. (2011). “Poet Harps on Need to Educate Young Poets”, Nigerian Compass, Wednesday July 20, p. 16. The two above came from a bibliographical iindex list in a University library catalogue offline and I confirmed them as a journalist. There are no online links yet.

There is a long bio of the subject in this journal: https://themuseunn.com/guest-lecture-writing-and-publishing-trends-in-the-new-decade-mr-jeff-unaegbu/

Most of his books cited via amazon links would have to be changed to the more authentic links from the New York Public Library as shown: https://www.nypl.org/research/research-catalog/search?q=jeff%20unaegbu

And Stanford university library: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?search_field=search&q=jeff+unaegbu

I will help do the clean up now. [ Diamondsee (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Passes WP:NAUTHOR for having their work reviewed on Newswatch and making significant contributions in his field, which is evident from WP:BEFORE. @LEvalyn I definitely agree with you on this. For several reason, I am not comfortable !voting for deletion here. I have taken over 1.5 hours doing BEFORE and have come to this conclusion. I have also personally reviewed short stubs about American authors who I deem to pass WP:NAUTHOR just exactly with the same minimal coverage this person has and having their work reviewed by INDEPENDENT RSs SIGNIFICANTly. The person and his work were reviewed by Newswatch and there's also a bit of SIGCOV at Punch, these two, is enough for me to write a stub. This person appearing in so many other sources (whether reliable or not) also shows a sign that they've made significant contributions in their field. Deletion is not cleanup for Christ's sake, and that is all this article needs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To line up Diamondsee's sources with NBOOK criteria, what I see here is:
    • NBOOK#2 (major literary award) for Ode to Lagos and the ANA award // 1/2 of NBOOK#1 (2 reviews) for Ode to Lagos with Newswatch review
    • 1/2 of NBOOK#1 (2 reviews) for 92 Days in Power with Daily Sun review
The various citations don't really play a role for NBOOK. I don't think that's strictly an NAUTHOR#3 pass, since NAUTHOR#3 (significant body of work) is typically met through multiple wiki-notable works. Looking at the citations and other coverage, though, I see the case for NAUTHOR#1 (regarded as an important figure, widely cited) or simple GNG. I still haven't done any looking for sources myself, but I share Vanderwaalforces' sense that I have seen useful articles with similar or worse sourcing. I also increasingly suspect that the best sourcing will have been in print rather than readily available online. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Raju

Ajay Raju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable lawyer, not known for any notable achievements in his field. Doesn't seem to be known for holding any academic or law journal positions, involvement in notable cases, etc. Reliable sources are mainly smaller local outlets (in the Philadelphia area). Bridget (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Epple

Cheryl Epple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The highest-held position is as an elected trustee/board president to Cerritos College. All references are based on death/obituary. Don't think she meets the threshold for WP:NPOL or wp:anybio. Notability is not inherited through marriage. Doesn't make any mention of business accomplishments. Internet search results are sparse. I suggest deletion or move to draft at minimum. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Pesina

AfDs for this article:
Carlos Pesina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article. No pre or post-wiki sig coverage. Being on the crew in a lot of video games does not automatically inherit notability. Wikipedia Library, Newspapers.com, and current Google search results in hardly any in-depth sig coverage. Passings mentions/brief coverage I could find from major pubs: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7- do not help passing GNG. X (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Martial arts. X (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing has changed in the article since the previous discussion. There's no doubt he was part of the Mortal Kombat animation and motion capture, but there's still no indication of significant coverage of him. A much better case can be made for his brother, but notability is not inherited. Perhaps a case can be made for redirect or merge to the article on Daniel Pesina, but I'm not seeing the rationale for an individual article on Carlos. Papaursa (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Still fails WP:BASIC, only passing mentions, no significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tayler Kane

Tayler Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article with an IMDb external link. Pre-wiki coverage was hard to find, even a cursory Google search today shows nothing. Although the actor seems to have played several minor roles in notable shows, there's no significant coverage of him that I could find. If printed sources exist, one may list them. X (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Roden

Evan Roden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of an individual who does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, as there are not multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of him. See source assessment below. Jfire (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out" Yes Yes No Roden is not mentioned ✘ No
"NYS Assembly Bill Search" No Primary source Yes No ✘ No
"Opt-Out Organ Donation" No Primary source No ✘ No
"The Ins and Outs of Organ Donation" Yes ~ Blog from medical institution No Roden is not mentioned ✘ No
"College Students Push for More Organ Donations" Yes Yes No Only a quote from Roden ✘ No
"New York State Legislature Passes Living Donor Support Act" No Press release No ✘ No
"Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives" Yes Yes No Only a quote from Roden ✘ No
"Youth Coalition For Organ Donation Strives to Save Lives" No Press release ✘ No
"TEDxTulane" No TEDx Talk by Roden ✘ No
"WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award" Yes Yes No Nomination for non-notable award ✘ No
"Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney" Yes Yes No Roden is not mentioned ✘ No
"Loyola team wins honorable mention in the global “Students Reinventing Cities” competition" No University press release No No ✘ No
"ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden" No Podcast with Roden No No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • I'll leave supporting sources out of this, so skip things like the bill text and citations for references to NY's lower relative rate of donor designation, only focusing on significant coverage of Roden (me; COI already declared, but I'll use third person here). If there's an issue with a small number of sources, tags may be more appropriate, including the autobiog tag. I've only been at this for a few years, so feel free to share any guidance as I work through objecting to this change.
    The first piece, "WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out'" is a video about the group Roden formed, a bill Roden authored, and interviews Roden starting at 0:52, and is the largest of the interviewees.
    The second, "College Students Push for More Organ Donations," includes an extensive interview with Roden, along with an attached article with quotes from him and descriptions of his background.
    The third, a press release from Waitlist Zero, supports the claim that Roden was directly involved with the bill.
    The fourth, "Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives," which also includes a correlate article with a quote from Roden, spends the bulk of the included news reel on an interview with him, starting at 0:31.
    The fifth, a Tedx Talk by the subject, is significant, notable coverage.
    The sixth, "WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award," covers a notable award given to Roden by an arm of an international non-profit.
    The seventh, "Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney," includes a discussion of the former politician's involvement with Roden's non-profit during the included video interview.
    The Eighth, "ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden," is a long-form interview of Roden, again, meeting the Significant Coverage bar. Evanroden1 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:SIRS per the source assessment table. Interviews generally fail SIRS as they are not independent; we don't care what the subject says about themself, we care what others have written about the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source table is very clear-cut about the reliability of the sources and their contribution towards notability. It may also be stating the obvious, but I think User:Evanroden1 might have a COI in advocating for this article to be kept. GraziePrego (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the ref table. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your endeavors. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Weissacher

Georg Weissacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Ineligible, yes, but no one is arguing for retention Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Vitale

Renzo Vitale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar A. Ayaz

Iftikhar A. Ayaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. @AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Iftikhar Ayaz easily satisfies criteria #1 of WP:ANYBIO, having received honours from Queen Elizabeth II as both a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) and an Officer of the British Empire (OBE). On top of this, Ayaz satisfies WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, including this 2016 feature article published by AllAfrica.com, "Tanzanian Bestowed With Honours by Queen Elizabeth", which covers his entire life in considerable detail, from his early life and emigration from India to Tanzania; to his education in Tanzania and teacher training in Kenya; to his early career as a government education officer in Tanzania; his graduate studies in Britain; his return to Tanzania to found the Tanzanian Commonwealth Society; and his activism as a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. (Please log in to Wikipedia Library to read the full article on ProQuest.) The 2015 article in Rabwah Times, "Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad AYAZ awarded Knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II" covers additional detail about his work with the United Nations. Of course, in addition to all of this, as Honorary Consul for Tuvalu to the United Kingdom, he is frequently quoted on issues including climate change (such as in this 2007 article in Herald on Sunday in New Zealand "BRITAIN Plea to stop atolls sinking into Pacific", plus many others now cited in the article including the brief quotes in The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal Online. This article was in terrible shape when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been improved considerably (with room for further improvement and expansion), and overall it's quite a remarkable story of a life of a notable living person. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - now adequately sourced for both GNG and ANYBIO1. Ingratis (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. KBE is not clearly sufficient for ANYBIO1, and regardless the subject should still have received multiple pieces of IRS SIGCOV per N. I'm not totally convinced that the brief announcement in Rabwah is sufficient to meet the "multiple" aspect here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it easily meets WP:BASIC, ::If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. KBE is an indication, but not per se evidence, of notability. In any case, this meets SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Concar

David Concar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking sufficient in-depth coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Sources are purely mentions of his appointments. Fails WP:NBIO. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The one keep !vote was a statement that has been, to my opinion, adequately rebutted referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeseha Wuraola Becky

AfDs for this article:
Adeseha Wuraola Becky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has not starred in a single notable film; a Google search of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are primary sources that involve the subject granting interviews to several publications. The article was previously deleted via an afd discussion, which can be seen here.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't G4 on a prod/soft delete. Desertarun (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The refs check out. She doesn't pass Nactor, nor does she need to because she passes both Basic and GNG. Desertarun (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact there is that there isn't much verifiable source(s) to verify whether she acted those films or not, that's part of WP:NBASIC. For the refs, there are WP:ROUTINE like made from interviews, etc and points towards WP:MILL—not notable for now! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Same as last AfD, nothing has changed, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article are promo or mentions, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. Article looks like a promo bio to me.  // Timothy :: talk  09:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas Puranik

Shreyas Puranik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, appears not notable. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article i would like to suggest keep, as it passes WP:MUSIC. The musical artist have received full fledged coverage from independent media sources for his work such as [6], [7], [8].[9]. Further the artist also passes one of the criteria of winning or being nominated for a notable award, as he won the notable Filmfare R. D. Burman Award in the category of upcoming music talent.[10][11]

Hineyo (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are either paid placement or Press Releases. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Note - This account (Hineyo) is blocked. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked for 24 hours. That doesn't invalidate their opinion on that basis alone. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pass WP:MUSIC, Also, there are significant reliable sources availabe which talks about the subject. Grabup (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He has won awards which indicate notability and the articles references indicate sufficient coverage InDimensional (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please share best three references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhtar40 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma Saningong

Akuma Saningong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely promotional and written by a UPE. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSCIENTIST, other claims are spurious, nothing on Google that isn't press-related. BrigadierG (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — obviously promotional, not much more to be added. — Biruitorul Talk 20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Puffery and made up creation. The article doesn't provide variable importance for inclusion, while begging the fact that it lacks context and SIGCOV for WP:NAUTHOR (probably self published books), WP:NSCIENTIST. Doesn't show the need for entry here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is a single-purpose account. Biruitorul Talk 06:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a UPE article filled with lots of refs that are mostly blogs/press-releases/non-RS entries (I deleted most of them but the blocked UPE returned under a different name to restore them). Several other of the UPEs creation are also at AfD (e.g. Iulia and Delia). The subject is not a notable scientist but they are an active speaker who needs a Wikipedia page to construct notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep | Article is not promotional and written in neutral voice and it meets and passes WP:GNG. Article is well researched and backed with secondary references. Anyone doubting should go and check and they aren’t press releases as purported. I happened to have stumbled across this article on the web and I am not the UPE who is claimed to have written the article and there is no proof for that. I have studied other articles of the alleged UPE which were elected for deletion and they weren’t deleted e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Bernstein. It was kept on merit. Why all this hating on Wikipedia? Articles should be kept on merit and in the case of this one it passes Wikipedia guidelines for WP:GNG, WP:NSCIENTIST and WP:NAUTHOR. I might be a single-purpose account because I had the urge to intervene for justice to be served. It shouldn’t infringe my rights not to comment and stand for justice and the truth. Let the facts and evidence speak for themselves. Visit the talk page of the subject in question, where other two seasoned editors and contributors have made comments in favour to keep the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Akuma_Saningong Sword-Emperor-dev (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking 2nd !vote by the article creator. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other UPEs from User:CharlesBNB include Iulia and Delia, Renzo Vitale, and Georg Weissacher. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai

Yuri Lushchai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person seems like a wonderful Wikipedian, but I do not see a claim to notability here or case for one as an author. He is unfortunately but one of many war casualties. Projectify as an obit might be an option? Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if final vote is delete, someone should merge this article, or post an archive link to his user webpage. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20240413164446/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Lushchai
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9B.
  • Delete: my saddest vote to date (maybe ever) but nothing to meet WP:42 (yes, he was 42). RIP ♡ .. what a legend! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rogan

Tom Rogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged as not establishing notability since 2017, apparently still unresolved. -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lack of independent coverage other than possibly regarding one single event. Persingo (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ keep. First, there is the issue of the G5 speedy deletion criterion ("Creations by banned or blocked users"). The WP:G5 policy clarifies:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others.

At the time of the nomination, and the speedy delete votes early on in the discussion, this did apply and the page would have been a valid speedy deletion candidate. However, during the course of the discussion, an admirable effort to expand and rewrite the entire article has taken place, so the "no substantial edits by others" part of the criterion is no longer applicable. Indeed, consensus now appears to be that the subject passes notability requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Pryadkin

Sergey Pryadkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a banned sockpuppet, and most of the coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Considered PROD, but decided against given that the sources here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look more carefully: Tass is a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and it is also generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. But, here, we're not debating the veracity of a claim by the Russian government, or something similar. This is about notability. And Tass, among many other sources, reports that our subject is president of a top sporting organization and has been for a significant number of years, with information about the office and other bureaucratic details - a position which, per se, renders him notable. One can hardly imagine the BLP of any person in charge of a country's (and not a small country's either) top football authority not having a Wikipedia article!
The Associated Press report is but one of the many reports, a lot of which are, as expected, routine, about the doings and sayings of the person in charge of the top Russian football authority, i.e Pryadkin. As to The Guardian report, I'm afraid we'll disagree. I find nothing "shallow" about the Russian footy top honcho claiming in depth on British media that racism in England is worse than racism in Russia. I wonder if you watched it but that's not too important: perpaps if they had a transcript instead you'd see it better. Anyway, the person is famous per sources; not only Wikinotable. -The Gnome (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject of significant coverage in Sport RBC, TASS, AP, and has an entire dedicated video from The Guardian. Allan Nonymous mentions that the role at Russian Football Premier League is WP:BLP1E but the individual's role is very well documented, as explained by The Gnome. Coop (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Added information & sources. -The Gnome (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, as improved by The Gnome. BD2412 T 19:31, 27 April 2024 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Conway (actor)

Craig Conway (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to locate much beyond fairly trivial mentions. Not seeing in-depth coverage specifically about him and his career. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. This kind of Wikipedia criterion, we emphasize once more, does not reflect in the slightest the person's professional abilities or anything else related to the subject's life. But Wikipedia is not some complete directory of actors. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It seems that two of four sources are actually about notable actress Jill Halfpenny in which the subject of this article gets a brief mention as her ex-husband which is grasping at a straw of inhereted notability. Another is only about him doing the Great North Run, which good for him but that is what we'd call routine coverage and not worth an article. The last is a single mention of him playing one role, which is not significant coverage at all. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Barley (disambiguation)

Charlie Barley (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary dab page per WP:ONEOTHER. Hatnotes can be added to both articles if necessary. CycloneYoris talk! 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator note, aren't you supposed to wait a reasonable time (at least ~a month) before nominating the article for deletion, as the states? Besides, there is a YouTuber with this name, albiet without spaces that plays cosy games but is unlikely to be written anytime soon. See also: Talk:Undertale Yellow JuniperChill (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sure, but for disambiguation pages, it's normally really simple to fill out the rest of the article, so there's a bit less patience. If more relevant articles can be found (even if they're redlinks), maybe, but if not, there's no need for this. (And it'd be trivial to recreate if more articles ARE found.) Note that there is a comedian in the NYC area known as "Charlie Bardey" [14] who would be a valid addition to the disambiguation page as well if he's ever found notable enough for a separate article, but currently he doesn't have an article. SnowFire (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Couldn't find any other notable entries. What purpose is served by delaying the inevitable? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maeve Kennedy McKean

Maeve Kennedy McKean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this here because I expect it to be complex and I'm not sure whether a merger or a move is the right outcome, and given the subject matter it's too complex for a talk page.

Townsend/McKean's death was in the news because she was a Kennedy who died young/tragically. While there is sourcing for items that pre-dated her death, none of those positions convey notability, nor did her CUNY role nor her son's role as the first great grandchild of RFK & Ethel. Most of the coverage of her work came to light not because of her work while alive but in light of her death. I don't believe her death was notable as it was ruled an accidental drowning. A merge to her mother is possible as this article could be trimmed without losing much.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions. Star Mississippi 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Richey

Rashad Richey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, most of the sources cited lead back to pages from his own website and/or really low-quality suspect sources. I suspect this guy created his own Wikipedia page. Perfecnot (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imaan Zainab Mazari

Imaan Zainab Mazari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She fails WP:GNG as there is no sources covering her in depth. The article is created based on recentism because she just received nominal coverage due to her few days arrest and she being the daughter of a notable politician Shireen Mazari. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating. As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted. The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV. I'll leave it to the community to decide. I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer. The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events. Although she marginally satisfies the WP:GNG, the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature. Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance.  samee  converse  02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 (see this) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014. Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG. With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here? rspεεr (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
off topic discussion
@Rspeer: personal disagreements. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculous. I recently endorsed your nomination just a few days ago. If I had personal disagreements, I wouldn't have supported it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't even mention your name. Isn't this ridiculous that you just recently created this BLP on a non-notable police officer, an unknown figure who just received some recent press attention. This a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. You cited a video source multiple time as a reference to back up claims in the Early Life and Education as well Career sections. Yet here, you even didn't care to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. This clearly suggest that you've some sort of issue with me which I'm trying my best to ignore. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ANYBIO, award recipients are considered notable, video source is Geo News, a reliable source. You should assume good faith, you ignored the part in my previous comment where I showed you the evidence of my recent support for you. I did not even know that you were the creator until after AFD submission when I saw bot added message to your talk page in my watchlist. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She did receive an award for the recent incident that garnered press attention, but this is falls under WP:RECENTISM. However, the WP:ANYBIO also states that receiving an award does not automatically confer notability. Regarding the citation of a Geo News video as a reference, it's important to note that this video is an interview, and thus a a primary source. Citing video interviews as reference could set a problematic precedent for BLP articles. Despite my efforts to AGF, it seems reciprocity is lacking. And as for your support vote, it was not solicited nor necessary. I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you were unaware this BLP was created by me. Following our disagreement on this BLP, you promptly nominated this for deletion. Therefore, Assume the assumption of good faith. Anyways, let's avoid further escalation on this matter, at least on this page. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the reasons (be it her detentions and her activities, or her parents-as it's not a case of coverage limited only to family relations) she has received lasting media coverage (not every coverage has to be sig/in-depth), and the sources present in the article, some of them are mostly fine and can be considered sig cov - with everyone here acknowledging she meets GNG/WP:BASIC. X (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reviewing the sources and content of this article, I believe it does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The available coverage is limited in depth, often focusing on her arrest for hate speech or her association with notable figures, rather than any significant achievements or unique contributions. The focus on these incidents and connections does not provide the sustained, in-depth, and independent coverage required to establish lasting notability. War Wounded (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth & WP:N doesn't demand individuals to have significant achievements or unique contributions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - it took me more than 2 hours to review the sourcing and verifying. After this prolong review before I !vote, I am not convinced in favour of this subject to be keeped. My statement stands with War Wounded. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

As a Soft Deletion, this article could be restored if this absent chessplayer ever pops back up on the competitive chess radar. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schulman (chess player)

Mark Schulman (chess player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. The sources in the article are all databases, and a WP:BEFORE check only comes up with passing mentions such as [[17]]. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes. Not voting one way or the other at this stage, just noting that he represented a large country (Canada) at chess, and most of his activity was in the 1960s where sources are not so easy to find on the internet. He played in 3 Canadian Championships. His Elo rating on the first FIDE list in 1970 was 2260, and it seems he didn't play any rated games after that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several mentions of him in the Chess Life/ Chess Review archives at the USCF site (https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives), usually in connection with either the Canadian championship or the annual Minnesota vs Manitoba match (he was one of the top players from Winnipeg). I haven't found any 1960s Canadian chess publications digitized on-line. Still, he satisfies two of the informal WP:NCHESS criteria, having played in 3 Canadian championships (1963, 1965, 1969) and represented Canada at the Olympiad. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete. I wanted to keep it, I really did, but in the end I couldn't justify it to myself. It's true that there are probably a lot of off-line sources from the 1960s, but he just doesn't really have enough achievements to get more than a few passing mentions in specialist chess publications. We haven't even confirmed a date of birth or death (chesstempo says he was born in 1934 but no better source found; a memorial tournament named after him was held in 2018). Playing in 3 Canadian championship (https://www.bcchesshistory.com/canchslate.html) and 1 Olympiad (https://www.olimpbase.org/players-ind/2/28e2amqe.html) doesn't really add up to notability since Canada has never been a major chess playing power, and his achievements in these events was a little underwhelming. His published FIDE rating of 2260, while not to be sneezed at, suggests that he was of below International Master strength. It appears he was strictly an amateur, a lawyer who only occasionally found the time to play competitively. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCHESS doesn't mention playing in a national championship, it mentions winning a national championship. And it doesn't mention playing in the Olympiad, it mentions earning a ... medal at an Olympiad. So, I don't think we can rescue this article. That said, I enjoyed learning these little tidbits about a Canadian chess player whom I had not otherwise heard of. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted elsewhere I found a DOB for him in the Chess Federation of Canada's 100th anniversary booklet by Daniel Yanofsky. I'll note here that he disappeared from the FIDE rating list on the January 2008 list, after being present in the October 2007 list, indicating a likely death in 2007. I've found references to a Winnipeg lawyer who is probably this person, but no obituary (he has a namesake from Maryland who also died in 2007, and another namesake who was P!nk's drummer). The lack of an online obituary does not bode well for notability. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber

Ossanda Liber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable
Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anamor

Anamor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, created in 2013, lacks significant coverage from reliable sources in the intervening years. Southati (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scilla Sclanizza

Scilla Sclanizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any reliable sources, does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Southati (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Lisi

Simona Lisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any reliable sources, does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Southati (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fritz Behrendt

Richard Fritz Behrendt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Possible that WP:NPROF is met but I'm not finding the sources to show it JMWt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Simmons

AfDs for this article:
Timothy Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No useful secondary sources. Very little content. Per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Amounts to a Pseudo-biography: "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life" AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep satisfies #1 criteria of WP:ANYBIO, however it's a very short stub and I'm not opposing deletion either. A09|(talk) 20:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: it makes that explicitly clear - "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. AusLondonder (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an ambassador with no significant coverage in independent secondary sources (WP:BIO) does not merit inclusion on en-wiki. The CVO honorific should have generated coverage, but it hasn't, which is further proof that this individual is not notable under our guidelines, and AusLondoner is perfectly right in pointing out that ANYBIO does not supersede BIO, we have to strike a balance when they seemingly disagree. Pilaz (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Supposedly holder of the CVO, which has pretty much always been considered to confer notability per WP:ANYBIO #1. ANYBIO doesn't supersede BIO (or vice versa) because it's part of BIO! They are not separate guidelines. However, I have been unable to find any indication in the London Gazette that he did receive the CVO, which is very surprising. The Queen made a state visit to Slovenia in 2008 and he may have got it then, but you would still expect an official record of the fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).
    WP:ANYBIO states in black and white that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says. AusLondonder (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated. This announcement from 2004 doesn't reference the CVO. Pilaz (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). It has been discussed several times on talkpages and a consensus has never been attained one way or the other. Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says. I'm not. I'm restating general consensus at AfD, as you very well know. Please "stop repeatedly misrepresenting" what I say. Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated. According to Who's Who it was conferred in 2008, as I said above. As I have also said above, I have been unable to find it in the London Gazette, which is surprising if it was conferred. You will notice (if you botherered to check) that I have not expressed a "keep" opinion on that basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) many editors were incredulous at the suggestion that ANYBIO confers notability and eliminates the need for significant, in-depth coverage in multiple secondary sources. As one editor said "Per Necrothesp's list, what usually happens is there is a flood of !votes from a small group of editors who insist that certain awards make a person per se notable, notwithstanding whether there is any SIGCOV." Another said "The problem is that people use ANYBIO #1 to !vote to keep articles at AfD where other editors have conducted WP:BEFORE searches and found no significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources." From my reading of the discussions there, most did not even realise the problem of editors citing ANYBIO as a keep rationale in itself, irrespective of the lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. We're going to have to go for an RfC eventually and completely deprecate ANYBIO unless this stops. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the discussion (and the others) you will, of course, notice that you are cherrypicking comments to support your own view. Many editors clearly disagree with you, hence the overwhelming number of people with high honours kept at AfD. Just because a handful of editors come along and start saying "we're right and you're wrong" does not make their argument any more valid than that of those who have consistently argued the opposite. But I have put my view more fully at the discussion you have started. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements. You're arguing with the black and white words of your own favoured ANYBIO which says unambiguously that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" AusLondonder (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements. But higher participation than in those other discussions, frankly. And not the same editors every time at all. I could equally say it's the same editors every time arguing against keeping them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Dring

James Dring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD requested, but denied for being Grammy nominated. However, WP:ANYBIO requires winning once, or being nominated multiple times. Is twice good enough? I read multiple as something greater than two. So, fails ANYBIO. Even more, none of the references pass WP:SIRS, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Sources are database entries and press releases. No significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — to add to what UtherSRG said, he was nominated for one Grammy, not two, together with four other people. Also, the article is by a banned sockpuppet and paid editor, which we shouldn’t reward. — Biruitorul Talk 18:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per this link [19], as well as the Grammy nomination, he has been nominated for a Golden Globe. Also - clearly WP:MUSICBIO applies here. ResonantDistortion 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With named nominations for two three notable awards, that is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO#8. There's also sufficient WP:RS to show the subject meets WP:COMPOSER#1. I have cleaned up the article including removing non-RS citations and adding several more, which may not be multiple lines in depth but do contribute per WP:BASIC, so any "whiff" of paid editor contribution no longer applies. ResonantDistortion 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per the Billboard reference just added to the article - Dring was a named credit in the nomination of the Feel Good Inc. Grammy award. So he does have two Grammy nominations, plus the Golden Globe; I've updated my !vote. ResonantDistortion 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per ResonantDistortion. X (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete also per WP:NOTINHERITED. Article is rife with the requisite heavy namedropping and coattailing (Jamie T in particular) in attempt to cover for lack of individual notability and weak press-release sourcing. Being nominated just once for a soundtrack song all the way back in 2010, signing an agreement, and his recent production for an unknown indie artist (Terra Twin) aren't enough for SIGCOV. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 00:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) "all the way back in 2010" The date of the Grammy nomination is irrelevant as per WP:NTEMP, (2) Dring has been a Grammy nominee twice not once, the first in 2005, which is verified by a RS in the article, (3) The reason the article is "rife with the requisite heavy namedropping" is because the subject has made credited and verified contributions to a number of notable works, (4) two credited grammy nominations does rather indicate that notability by association does not apply, and (5) There are c. 14 words devoted to Jamie T, which does not appear undue, given that, for example, on the album Trick "sees Jamie T play all instruments alongside longterm collaborator James Dring" ([20]). I know I am probably repeating myself, but WP:BASIC, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER all apply. ResonantDistortion 07:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG. Can’t find independent reliable sources giving significant coverage. Contributor892z (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This discussion is leaning towards Delete but I don't see a rebuttal to the assertion that this subject meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. It's also common for subject in music production to mention artists they have worked with and albums they have produced so that doesn't seem like name-dropping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has been edited further - which includes a certain mount of tidying up, but also more text and RS that confirm further songwriting/composer credit on notable works. ResonantDistortion 22:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the producer has worked with lots of notable artists and worked on notable songs and albums, however he doesn't seem to have the individual notability required to have an article. He has passing mentions in many references, but few of these could be called significant coverage of the subject himself. InDimensional (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Karachi Kings cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ameer

Abdul Ameer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This guy fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. A search seems to only one article with his name in it and it only covers him tangentially. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, zero SIGCOV to be found and no evidence that anything exists offline. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing found or presented which meets SIGCOV. This is a BLP. Subject has received bare mentions from a single source. Everything else is unsupported assertion and a stats database. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found in article or in BEFORE which meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rox De Luca

Rox De Luca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Italy, and Australia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please let me know what is missing to make notability.louibu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Louibu (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute significant critical attention, nor is the subject's work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction. Star Mississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.roxdeluca.com/images/Gleaning_for_plastics_defying_wastefulness_by_Paul_Allatson_2020_.pdf Yes No This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article (WP:SELFPUBLISH). No See WP:SELFPUBLISH. ✘ No
https://www.roxdeluca.com/index.php/artist-cv-curriculum-de-arte No This is the artist's CV. Yes See WP:ABOUTSELF. No See WP:ABOUTSELF. ✘ No
https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/sea-of-plastic-an-artists-quest-to-address-ocean-pollution Yes Yes Yes This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist. ✔ Yes
https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object?keyword=anna%20de%20luca&searchIn=artistOrCulture&searchIn=title&searchIn=medium&uniqueId=127158 Yes Yes No Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother. ✘ No
https://gunyah.blogspot.com/search?q=rox+de+luca No This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog. Yes See WP:ABOUTSELF. No See WP:ABOUTSELF. ✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/features/artists-giving-materials-a-new-life-2512531/ Yes Yes ~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work. ~ Partial
Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193. Yes Yes Yes Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book. ✔ Yes
Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). "Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca". Eyeline. 35: 22–24. Yes Yes Yes Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview. ✔ Yes
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/45398/2/The%20Transcultural%20Edge.pdf Yes Yes Yes A paragraph mention on the subject and their work. ✔ Yes
Allatson, Paul (1996). "Men and Mettle". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26. Yes Yes Yes Offline source, accepting in good faith. ✔ Yes
https://www.gq.com.au/style/trends/the-style-download-15324/image-gallery/a1114634ed7db996d49f80ed40e73536 Yes Yes Yes Very short mention of the subject and one of their works. ✔ Yes
https://www.projectvortex.org/ No This is a project with which the artist is associated. Yes No Name doesn't even feature in the source. ✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/reviews/review-deakin-university-contemporary-small-sculpture-award-2018-256473-2360787/ Yes Yes No Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention. ✘ No
https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/07/the-inaugural-ravenswood-australian-womens-art-prize--finalists Yes Yes No Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/sponsored-content/turning-waste-into-art-is-a-community-affair-261135-2368551/ Yes Yes No Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No
https://www.woollahragallery.com.au/Artists/Artist-in-Residence/Rox-de-Luca No This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject. Yes No See WP:ABOUTSELF. ✘ No
https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2192259/deakin_university_art_collection_artists.pdf Yes No No Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO WP:BASIC is marginally met. X (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consort Chen Farong

Consort Chen Farong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing useful refs but they may exist in other languages. At present there are various claims on the page which should be removed per WP:V JMWt (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. JMWt (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having written this a long time ago, I agree that it could and should be sourced better. However, as the mother of an emperor of a large state, she is inherently notable. --Nlu (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nlu, any chance you remember what sources you used to write it? -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reluctantly. I don't see the sources. There's a paragraph in the Southern History [21] that discusses her. But secondary sources in English seem to be absent, and those in Chinese appear (I'm skimming here) to mainly be from Chinese Wikipedia or Baidu Baike or scrapes of those articles, or to be brief mentions in articles on her son. Oblivy (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) 223.204.68.123 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've redacted the comment. Thank you for your research on the sources below and for improving the article. These sources were difficult to find since it required four searches (the subject's two Chinese names and in the traditional and simplified Chinese representations of those names). It is not surprising that editors did not find sources. Oblivy does lots of good searches for sources for AfDs and is one of AfD's more thoughtful participants. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Chen, Huaxin 陈华新 (1992). 中国历代后妃大观 [A Grand View of Chinese Concubines Through the Ages] (in Chinese). Shenzhen: Shenzhen Publishing House [zh]. p. 168. ISBN 9787805424675. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "陈法容发生性关系,于 469 年(宋明帝泰始五年)生了皇三子刘准(后来的宋顺帝) , 471 年封刘准为安成王,晋陈法容为昭华。 472 年明帝死,陈昭华为安成王太妃。 477 年刘准即位为宋顺帝,陈氏为皇太妃。 479 年顺帝禅位,萧道成称帝,建立齐朝,宋亡。陈法容被废去皇太妃称号。她大概死于齐朝初年。"

      From Google Translate: "Chen Farong had sexual relations and gave birth to the third son of the emperor Liu Zhun (later Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty) in 469 (the fifth year of Taishi reign of Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty). In 471, Liu Zhun was granted the title of King Ancheng, and Chen Farong of the Jin Dynasty was granted the title of Zhaohua. When Emperor Ming died in 472, Chen Zhaohua became Princess Ancheng. In 477, Liu Zhun ascended the throne as Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty, and Chen became the imperial concubine. In 479, Emperor Shun ascended the throne, Xiao Daocheng proclaimed himself emperor, established the Qi Dynasty, and the Song Dynasty fell. Chen Farong was deprived of the title of Crown Princess. She probably died in the early years of the Qi Dynasty."

    2. 皇后妃嫔传 [The Queen's Concubines] (in Chinese). Hainan: Hainan Publishing House [zh]. 1994. pp. 126–127. ISBN 9787805907451. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 126: "陈法容,生卒年不详,宋明帝的昭华。... 明帝的陈昭华名叫法容。"

      From Google Translate: "Chen Farong, whose birth and death dates are unknown, was born in Zhaohua, Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty. ... Emperor Ming's Chen Zhaohua was named Farong."

      The book notes on page 127: "顺帝就是桂阳王刘休范的儿子,以陈昭华为母亲。明帝去世后,陈昭华被拜为安成王太妃。顺帝即位,进封陈昭华为皇太妃。顺帝将皇帝位禅让后,陈昭华被取消了皇太妃的称号。(赵元译)【原文】明帝陈昭华讳法容,丹阳建康人也。"

      From Google Translate: "Emperor Shun was the son of King Liu Xiufan of Guiyang, and his mother was Chen Zhaohua. After the death of Emperor Ming, Chen Zhaohua was worshiped as Princess Ancheng. Emperor Shun ascended the throne and granted Chen Zhaohua the title of Crown Princess. After Emperor Shun abdicated the throne, Chen Zhaohua was revoked from the title of Crown Princess. (Translated by Zhao Yuan) [Original text] Chen Zhaohua, Emperor Ming, was a native of Jiankang in Danyang."

    3. Dan, Bo 淡泊 (2006). 中华万姓谱 [Genealogy of Chinese Surnames] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Archives Publishing House [zh]. p. 1438. ISBN 9787801666819. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "陈法容( ? ~ ? ) ,女,南朝宋丹阳建康人。宋明帝昭华。宋顺帝即为陈法容所抚养。宋顺帝即位,进为皇太妃。"

      From Google Translate: "Chen Farong (? ~ ?), female, was born in Jiankang, Danyang, Southern Song Dynasty. Zhaohua, Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty. Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty was raised by Chen Farong. Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty ascended the throne and became the imperial concubine."

    4. Tang, Xiejun 唐燮军 (2007). 六朝吴兴沈氏及其宗族文化探究 [Research on the Shen Family and Their Clan Culture in Wuxing During the Six Dynasties] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. p. 371. ISBN 9787500465034. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "考中華書局點校本《宋書·后妃·明帝陳昭華傳》云"

      From Google Translate: "According to the "Book of Song·Concubine·Ming Emperor Chen Zhaohua Biography" compiled by Zhonghua Book Company, it says"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chen Farong (simplified Chinese: 陈法容; traditional Chinese: 陳法容), also known as Chen Zaohua (Chinese: 陈昭华), to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

    Cunard (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep happy to see this article kept, and it's justified based on the discussion in Southern History, the Chen Huaxin article and the lesser treatment in 皇后妃嫔传. Per WP:NBASIC we can combine multiple sources with less substantial treatment for biographical articles. Oblivy (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The issues raised in the debate (promo and such) can be addressed by careful editing. Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Kalabić

Zoran Kalabić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written in a blattantly promo way WP:PROMO. While there are some resources, there is a problem of WP:SNG, since most available resources are very promo-like, and there is no secondary and reliable coverage. After an online research, most available resources lack of independency and are written in a blatant way to promote this person, and most of these resources in a similar way are presented in his website: https://zorankalabic.com/biography/. It should be noted that there is a weird editing history, since the main editor created almost entirely a few months ago both the English and Serbian Wikipedia articles of this person, having a very minimal presence in editing other articles of Serbian people. Lately, the templates with notability issues were removed without any valid explanation, and the photos that are blatantly promo and were initially removed, were restored. Apart from notability issues with lack of reliable and independent resources, there may be a strong problem of WP:COI. Chiserc (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is quite strange request here. Article is not promo, as there is nothing in it to make it like that. Subject is notable and i already explained that i have seen this person on television receiving highest medal of Republic of Serbia after some large donation to the hospital, and wanted to create article as it was incredible for me the person of such importance does not have article on Wikipedia. Some parts of the article were edited and fixed by other editors that actually wanted to contribute instead of this user who only insisted to tag the article and inform others to delete it, without actually working on article. That is normal way of working on article. Notability is without questions no problem at all, many sources are top level independent news agencies of the world so nominator also misrepresented sources quality. Photos were not deleted because they were promo, that is another blatant lie by nominator but because it took some time to confirm original ownership of them by website where i found them. When that was done they were restored as in many other articles. In the end article history shows only good proper editors who are actually trying to make article of this notable person better, and nominations without any proper Wikipedia work which fails good faith guideline, making false accusations about original author of the article. Also, templates with notability issues are not intended to indefinitely tag the articles, but to make explanation that further work is needed. Bit if none is actually trying to fix the article and tags are standing there for weeks without any further comment on talk page or edit, wiki guidelines allow them to be removed. You are not allowed just to restore them and never to point in detail what do you find problematic with this article. I feel that I should protect the article I wanted to create but not because I have COI, i dont, but because this person received highest awards by several countries and donated to many causes, which make it more then valuable and notable addition to Wiki. It baffles me is there anything else behind this request as most of the things article is nominated for are actually misrepresented, also having in mind nominator agenda to delete it for quite some time. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage from reliable sources Good day—RetroCosmos talk 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:RetroCosmos, Most important national public news services of European countries are very much reliable sources. Talking like Radio television of Serbia for example, there isn't anything more important and reliable than that. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Sources that appear to be should not be acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability Good day—RetroCosmos talk 21:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Initial reaction is Delete. Article is a gushing account of this subject. Definitely MOS:PEACOCK. In conjunction with the simultaneous creation of English and Serbian articles, and a block of photos going up on Commons (lifted straight off subject's own website, with release emailed to VRT by the subject - WP:COI much?), this has the feeling of a PR job. Also the fact that the Wikidata Description was "one of the most successful Serbian businessmen in the diaspora" instead of a more appropriate "Serbian businessman". HOWEVER, this is only a Weak Delete. There might be a case to keep given that there appears to be a legit and (minorly) notable award in the Order of Karađorđe's Star. I'm mindful of WP:Globalise - I would not expect a lot of coverage in English language media and a lack of a profile in the BBC or NYT does not imply a lack of notability! Coverage in Serbian or German would also be acceptable. In that case though, this article needs an end-to-end rewrite to encyclopaedic style (WP:MOS). About 30% of it needs to go, and the rest needs to be backed up by independent cites, not the subject's personal website.Hemmers (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hemmers is there a way to ask you to change your mind to week keep? I will be more then willing to follow your guidelines and to make article better, but he is really notable in more than a few countries following his donations and support. I find out about him over news following his donation of equipment to children's hospital, and it was incredible to me that such a person does not have Wikipedia article. There isn't anything of those things you mentioned. I was the one who took the photos from website because I found them there, and wanted to make article better as other articles look better with images. There are many important news services publishing about him, including central national ones like Radio Television of Serbia. Would be more then interested in fixing the article, even if it would be smaller, but i cannot understand why would we delete notable subject just because some of the content is not ok. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. wikidata description was the first sentence of the article, but that was deleted after other users explained it to me that we cannot use "big words" in articles. I didnt know that, and that's why it was like that. Please assume good faith, i didn't mean anything bad, and its not promotion, i just wanted to create nice article for someone who created many good things for many countries. That is my only motivation. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difficulty is that I have searched for sources using google.at, google.rs and google.sr in an attempt to find additional coverage. Each search (for both Zoran Kalabić and Зоран Калабић) returns very few results, at the top of which are these wikipedia articles and the subject's personal website and social media.
    Whilst he does have the Order, this is not itself enough to establish notability. There are lots of people who do a great deal of philanthropic work, appear in local media and even get an MBE (in the UK). But they don't all get an article. WP requires sustained and substantial coverage which I am struggling to see.
    I am open to the idea that there is coverage which has not been indexed by google (because their coverage of non-English material is often flaky, particularly for Cyrillic and other non-Latin scripts), and that is why I am wary of deleting articles for subjects covered by those languages simply because Google does not trivially surface a load of English-language sources. There are undoubtedly many notable Serbs, Kenyans, Indonesians and Malay who are omitted from Wikipedia because native-English speakers are notoriously bad at foreign languages.
    Nonetheless, you need to bring those sources to bear, because I am increasingly unsure that they exist. A mention in RTS is not notable (everyone who receives an MBE is listed in The Times, but that does not automatically earn them an article). Likewise several of the sources are basically press releases or interviews - not substantial independent coverage.Hemmers (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are many more sources in Serbian I didn't included in the article, but I will list you here and add an article more if that will help, now I understand it will. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why this article is nominated for deletion. It is quite relevant; this person is a well-known public figure. The article has reliable sources, and it is generally well written; there is no need to delete it. If someone is missing something, they can add or edit it.Bandzimir (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is generally well written "generally" is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there Good day—RetroCosmos talk 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to agree with Hemmers that the only minor and possible aspect that may imply some notability is the Order of Karađorđe's Star. However, I have checked that these state awards and orders have been given by President of Serbia to many people, and, only during the last very few years, hundreds of institutions and people have taken this or even a higher state order - check the website: https://www.predsednik.rs/predsednik/ukazi-o-odlikovanjima. For this reason, while this award can indeed establish some notability, I see that this one fact cannot validate the notability of WP:ANYBIO for a well-known and significant award or honor, especially if the article continues to be a WP:SOAPBOX. Chiserc (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but this is again very misleading I don't understand why are you doing this. The list you sent is a general list of all state awards that have been given by president, every single metal and awarded that was given throughout the years. That does not imply that quantity diminished quality, as it is one more lie in this nomination. Only 10 was given for entire year for entire country. So this award recived by this person is by far something important as it is for other countries. Please stop with this anti propaganda. Article is NOT the soap, and you have never pointed anything that is wrong with the article but you just keep repeating and tagging it without any proper explanation this is actually disruptive editing. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article should stay since there is sufficient evidence that he is a public figure, but it should be reduced to appropriate size. For example, two photos from ERA events are absolutely not needed. One is more than enough. Parts of some sentences like "and is currently preparing for a doctorate" (Why is this relevant?) and "After a series of successful business years" (What's the evidence?) really make this article look like a PR project. Whoever wrote this should take care of it. But I still think that article should not be deleted. Tresnjevo (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your productive comments, i will fix and delete all of those great guidelines you pointed out. This means a lot to me to understand editing style, thank you. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I believe this meets WP:ANYBIO#1, for Order of Karađorđe's Star. I don't agree that this one fact cannot validate the notability of WP:ANYBIO for a well-known and significant award or honor, especially if the article continues to be a WP:SOAPBOX; notability is a property of the subject, not the article. Furthermore, I agree with Pane.Vino.Wiki that this has been a disruptive, not a collaborative process. No one should be saying things like if the main author does not fix these issues, I will aggressively delete the offending texts. -- asilvering (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children. On balance, the arguments for redirecting are stronger than those for keeping, not to mention more numerous. Owen× ☎ 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nicolas of Sweden, Duke of Ångermanland

Prince Nicolas of Sweden, Duke of Ångermanland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for failing to prove notability by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This is an 8-year-old child and should be redirected and merged into the parent article until such a time there is independent notability.

Move to restore redirect to Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children section. Similar to Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (9th in line for Succession to the Swedish throne). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all Royals and those of Scandinavias children have separate articles. Why should the Swedish royals be any different. Still passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is independently notable. His titles as prince and duke belong to him, not to his parents. The deletion of Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium was probably a mistake. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain - it was likely not a mistake. A great number of adolescent children of nobility redirected to their parents regardless of their title/station. As noted above, please see previous AFDs of children of nobility. Additionally, King Gustaf's grandchildren no longer have royal titles (albeit a bit more nuanced). Just being a noble is not automatic notability (see the failed WP:NR discussion). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where most of you have it wrong including the Harpe Bazzer article cited the child of prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine only lost their styles of His/Her Royal Highness but they are still prince(s) and Princess (s) of Sweden, Duke(s) and Duchesses and still in the line of succession[1] they are listed by the royal court of Sweden as members of the royal family and are not required to perform any duties incumbent of the head of state Ug culture (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] Ug culture (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. The fact that this article contains no information about his life since his christening suggests that he is probably not in the public spotlight. In fact, he and his sisters have had their royal status downgraded since they were born; since 2019, they no longer have the style of "royal highness" and are no longer considered members of the Royal House, although they remain princes and princesses and members of the Royal Family. [22] Practically speaking, this means that as adults they will be expected to pursue careers outside royal duties rather than being paid by the monarch from government funds. (That's not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned at the redirect target.) If, in the future, Nicolas does go into the public spotlight, whether as a socialite or as anything else, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His grandfather's sisters(The Haga princesses) are nolonger members of the royal house and their articles are in existence.why then should articles of those who is in the line of succession be deleted and members who are not be retained Ug culture (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The criterion we use is not "Is this person in the line of succession?" but rather "Do we have enough significant coverage of the person in reliable independent sources to warrant an article?". Among persons related to monarchs, there may be some who are excluded from the succession but remain public figures and thus generate significant coverage, while others may be in the line of succession but out of the public eye at least for now (particularly young children). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is an approach that can be strongly questioned. Princes and princesses of reigning royal families are per definition important persons who warrant their own articles. Therefore, this article should be kept, and the deleted articles of his siblings and cousins should be reinstated. Marbe166 (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if we are to go by this then Former Monarch of Denmark's grandchildren (prince Joachim's children) whose titles have been taken away and they do not generate significant coverage their articles have not been withdrawn and like Marbe166 said the deleted articles of prince Nicolas's siblings and his cousins should be reinstated Ug culture (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.kungahuset.se/english/royal-house. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://people.com/royals/princess-madeleine-and-prince-carl-philips-kids-were-stripped-of-their-royal-titles-by-the-king/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Keep addendum: over 4 000 hits in Mediearkivet Retriever [sv]. Okay, some of them are about the Greek prince and the remainder is ~90% gossipy tabloids, which still leaves a couple of hundred hits in Swedish mainstream newspapers. I don't buy that we should have special rules for the nobility, it's the 21st century after all, but neither should anti-royalist sentiments cloud our judgement. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Articles shouldn't be recreated in violation of a previous community discussion. There's insufficient here for a standalone article at present. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Grandson of a ruling monarch and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect First, I can't see how he meets WP:GNG. In many AfD discussions the phrase "Meets WP:GNG" seems to be just an elaborate WP:VOTE. If you think that he falls into WP:GNG, please explain why, otherwise your contribution does not provide much progress into a discussion. Second, please refer to the 2020 AfD discussion. If you want to reach a different consensus, you should explain what changed since then. Third, just beeing related to someone notable, like a ruling monarch, does not mean automatic notability, see WP:BIORELATED. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Titles are not, and should not be, part of the criteria for NBASIC. All of the coverage is about him as a relation to his parents and even then a lot of them are just photo galleries which do not amount to substantial coverage, which is to be expected as a christening is a pretty routine event - so they do not meet GNG by my reckoning. I don't know what is meant by Marbe166 saying per definition important persons who warrant their own articles, what definition is this refering to? Being an heir to anything shouldn't confer notability since notability is not inhereted. It is reasonble to assume that there will be coverage of this subject once he grows up, but since that's in the futre there's no good reason to have an article at the moment. ---- D'n'B-t -- 17:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children: Per Nom. Lacks notability. Wikipedia is not a genealogy outlet nor is notability of royal households inherited (Example: Just being the grandson of a ruling monarch is not a stepping stone to an article), See WP:BLPFAMILY. Lacks significant, reliable, and independent coverage for a stand alone article. Bringing in that other stuff exists means there might be more AFD's needed. Notability (royalty) is a failed proposal. It states: "Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable", which is against current community consensus. There is no compelling evidence that anything changed since consensus for the redirect. The people magazine source stated they "lost their official HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles" and further, "will no longer be members of The Royal House". The parents of the children involved all made statements they support the Kings decision so their children can have more privacy. Wikipedia should honor this for children. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with this. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent (WP:OUTCOMES). What's good for Great Britain is good for Sweden. Bearian (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant section of WP:OUTCOMES -- which isn't even a policy or guideline anyway -- doesn't particularly support keeping this article. It says, "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone. The principle that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries is often mentioned in this context. But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline." (See WP:MONARCH.) Prince Nicolas, as an 8-year-old child, is not exactly "active" in the capacity of a member of a royal house. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Redirect to mother and revdel everything. Nicolas is a non-public figure, a child that has done nothing notable, and the only coverage about him is from royal-watching tabloid publications. The keep votes basically amount to "he has a royal title" or "he's in a royal family", but there's no SNG that says every royal gets a page no matter what. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Several of the keep !votes above rely on the fact that other article exist and that we'd also have to delete other articles if this one is deleted. WP:WHATABOUTX is a bad argument because we evaluate each article on its individual merits, not in reference to what other articles we may or may not have. Those !votes should be completely discounted. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment: Otr500 provides a great reason for REVDEL here: these children are no longer in the line of succession and the press coverage is about them existing, not about them doing anything notable. Our policies (BLP) require that we respect the privacy of these children. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. One look at Swedish-language sources shows that the guy gets sufficient coverage to warrant an article. Cortador (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS, mentions are not indepth coverage, notability is not inherited from family connections, and crystal balls do not establish notability. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  17:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan

AfDs for this article:
Mehr Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.
also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The subject's claim of appearing in numerous films lacks verifiable evidence, thus failing to meet WP:ARTISTS. The available coverage appears to be routine per WP:ROTM and lacks the depth required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Courier-Journal article wasn't routine, and by what sources we have, Hassan was in these films, noting that the sourcing of the related film articles was light (thus my 'Weak Keep'). I suspect however that her appearance in some of them was exaggerated to make it appear she was a lead when she wasn't. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, The Courier-Journal is great however unfortunately it's no where near enough to establish notability, Not sure if her roles have been major or minor but either way I cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NACTOR says "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films" and we know she was in several notable films (i.e., films with articles). If you're saying the subject fails NACTOR, are you saying these linked films should be reviewed in AfD? Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But NACTOR states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films which I can't see reflected here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Partial filmography" in the article links to five notable films (currently adjudged by Wikipedia) and I suppose it's our opinion as to whether her roles were significant in them. It's part of why I say "Weak Keep" as I don't want to overjudge. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to say whether she fails NACTOR #1 but personally I would say she does and despite the The Courier-Journal link imho she still fails #2 too, FWIW all of her roles could've been one-bit/minor roles so article linkage doesn't mean anything here, (and leading on to your last point nicely) There's just not enough info to determine whether she meets NACTOR #1 or not but either way I would obviously say she still fails #2, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In NACTOR, it says #1 or #2. The subject doesn't have to meet both criteria to pass it. I accept that we would need to judge whether the roles are significant but as it was difficult, source-wise, to drill down on these films, I don't want to rush to judgment, thus my "Weak Keep". I still say the key here is to look at the film articles and see if they should be kept. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked the articles and their sources as well as looked online - The Gold Bracelet is just about notable with the rest not being notable so imho one notable film and one notable paper cite is still not enough irrespective of what role she played, I guess the article can be redirected to The Gold Bracelet if really desired,
    You're more than welcome to search for these films for yourself and judge for yourself, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for welcoming me to do something I've already done. :) So, if only one film is notable, why do the others have articles? (can be taken as a rhetorical question) Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. If you've searched these articles before now then why the fuck are you here questioning their notability ?. Go nominate them if you think they're not notable.
    Because get this Stefen - some articles go undetected and unnoticed, ever thought about that ?, I suspect not :). –Davey2010Talk 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also for future reference go read WP:BLUDGEON. You've !voted keep so as such you don't need to reply to every single delete !vote regurgitating the same line again and again. –Davey2010Talk 18:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion, and it is eminently reasonable to challenge a position. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the need for you to be cross with me here. I have been professional and I expect the same in return. The fact that the articles exist show that they are currently presented as notable subjects, whether they deserve this determination or not. I may well prod the articles in question, but for the time-being, they cannot be dismissed. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but there nothing here to indicate a pass on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Ojala

Anton Ojala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is fair coverage, but it does not have consensus to remain an article with no significant thing happening in years. Fails WP:BLP Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not seeing SIGCOV of this individual. Yilloslime (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu

François Mathieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu, a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Patkar (social activist)

Tara Patkar (social activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Patkar * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as an article on this subject has already been considered at a previous AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt promotional article on a non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bhathal

Alex Bhathal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a perennial candidate with no notability outside of her repeated unsuccessful candidacies. The sources presented do not demonstrate in-depth coverage of her as a person, focusing on her various campaigns and a dispute with her party. After politics she appears to be a low-profile individual and this BLP amounts to a Pseudo-biography - "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? In the second case, it is likely that the event or organization is notable, but that the individual is not." AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several reasons. She didn’t meet SIGCOV in the past, but does now in my judgement. There are a number of articles specifically discussing her- including several not yet featured on the article. See here:
Since the last deletion, she has also been the subject of a 2019 documentary, since shown at a number of film festivals. Just one example: https://cdocff.com.au/the-candidate/
https://amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/greens-candidate-horror-show-comes-to-the-big-screen-20190708-p525ae.html
it won an award at a film festival too
https://fan-force.com/films/the-candidate/
(The first screening of the documentary got its own article as a fun side note https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/strewth/green-alight/news-story/34f16b93c3f2d45b59addbf7c21a6053?amp)
I think the previous deletion was 100% correct- but in my opinion, this new content brings her up to notability. GraziePrego (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more to my vote
I understand the deletion arguments if all the coverage about her was solely about the 2018 by-election, but that isn't the case. The SBS articles (two from 2016, one from 2017) are about her at a previous federal election, and they do indeed provide "in-depth coverage of her as a person", describing her religion and the history of her father and grandfather. All of these articles are coverage from before the 2018 by-election. She's not just notable for a single event, she has notability through coverage over years.
Also, I would love clarification as to why Amelia Hamer is notable enough to keep, but this article isn't- Hamer is a candidate at an election that hasn't even been called yet. Bhathal has significantly more coverage. Both are notable enough to keep.
GraziePrego (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While other stuff exists is not the best argument to make at AfD, I have nominated Amelia Hamer for deletion as she is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2018 Batman by-election - the articles that GraziePrego posted were published in 2016 and 2017, nearly in the height of her political activity. Most coverage I can find is concerning controversies of the by-election, which is also the focus of the documentary. I didn't find any coverage of her after she quit her party in 2019 at all, other than on her own website. This is effectively a WP:BLP1E, and I don't think there's any more to write about here than what is already covered in the by-election article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think it's been made evident that this article passes the WP:GNG. I don't agree that this article is a WP:BLP1E; she has been separately notable in the sources based on her previous candidacies; her final candidacy for the Greens; the allegations made surrounding her candidacy and the review that was undertaken by the Greens; her not seeking re-election; her leaving the Greens; and the documentary. To me, the coverage is about separate things. Although it could definitely be argued that coverage of the documentary is about the documentary and not her, given the documentary is not necessarily notable, it makes sense for it to be included in this article. Separately from the GNG, this individual was at the centre of a national media story with persistent coverage for multiple years. She does not have to continue making the news in perpetuity to be considered notable. J2m5 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject comfortably meets WP:GNG. The argument stated above that "we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates" is unsupported by Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. We accept articles as worthy of inclusion on the basis of their subject's notability. A political candidate could be chronically failing to get elected but be notable all the same, e.g. Ralph Nader who has never been elected U.S. president. Extensive and repeated reports and articles in major Australian media testify to subject's notability. She's been in the news for more than a decade. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This person has run for Australian parliament which doesn't have the same international standing as running for US president. In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Was originally closed but was reverted following talk page message. Closing admin, can you please give me some advice and how this will be closed? ToadetteEdit! 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: Unfortunately, the subject of this article does not meet notability outside of her candidacy. (WP:NPOL). I have thought quite hard over the past couple of weeks on what my !vote would be on this AfD and have come to this decision because I think it is important for a consistent policy as during an election cycle, most candidates will receive some level of press attention, and to have every single candidate to ever run for an election would ultimately be to the detriment of Wikipedia. So taking into account the sources present (and on Google) that are outside her candidacy and inside her candidacy (to an extent) I don't think that notability is established through GNG or NPOL. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[25] ,[26],[27]. Possibly a WP:BASIC pass. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muksamse'lapli

Muksamse'lapli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems very obscure biography. Very little references found through Google search. Seaweed (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Pre-Internet persons covered in three reliable sources are probably notable. I am extremely hesitant to delete articles about indigenous folks. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I’m fine with deleting promotional articles about Indigenous people, but this article is well-cited and is notable. Yuchitown (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dug around and found enough online to satisfy myself this passes GNG. Desertarun (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Passes criteria for WP:NPROF — CactusWriter (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I agree with the nom's arguments. There is a lack of independent sources that would meet WP:ANYBIO. If we're going with GNG, I'd vote delete. However, I'm a bit more hesistant in regards to this article on a WP:NPROF basis. The most recent deleted revision of the salted page mentions that they are a Fellow for the Institute of Physics. This is literally wikilinked as an example of meeting criteria #3. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, which is why I voted Improve which to me is a version of Keep. I find it very strange that the page was edited to remove key information that is an automatic #C3. While these were unsourced, removing them I consider to be very harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B., I just reinstated with sources the key awards that were removed. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, revised vote. After adding a few sources and restoring his FInstP he qualifies under #C3. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. North America1000 05:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hereford

Henry Hereford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference to his employer's website; but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and do not think he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article for deletion - definitely meets the criteria for actor. Multiple credits in major film and tv shows. 2600:1700:4640:E70:ECCA:5D5:421E:ECB4 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "employer". Henry is an established actor having been on several films and TV shows as referenced in IMDB and trade magazines. There is no reason this page would be deleted. Thefilmsorcerer (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG or NACTOR. A 21st-century actor and yet yields no results in Google News tells a lot. General searches also did not produce anything of use. Other than 1-2, the used refs aren't about him rather the films/shows he's starred in. X (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. A merger discussion can continue editorially Star Mississippi 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald

Michele Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable for only winning Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge, where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:BIODELETE. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think more independent reliable source are needed.--Meligirl5 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do independent reliable sources make BLP1E or BIO1E inapplicable? Even meeting WP:N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion because of her performance in both of her Survivor seasons, but I agree more independent reliable sources are needed. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meligirl5 and JohnAdams1800: What are your thoughts on redirecting the article to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, an alternative to deletion? George Ho (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this because I love survivor. 75.132.100.119 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would suggest the article should be move to draft space, since she seems to be notable for a particular event but fails WP:GNG. Maybe before the 6 months time more proof of notability would have been gathered for the subject to be on the main space. If no improvement after 6 months, the draft page will be deleted as per wikipedia draft page policy under WP:G13.--Meligirl5 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. No P&G-based deletion argument brought up. The page does not qualify for speedy deletion under G11, and WP:TNT is not a deletion guideline, but an essay about editorial preferences. If the subject is notable but the tone is promotional, the page can be edited, perhaps from scratch. BLP violations, if any, can be removed, by selective REVDEL, if needed. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Jansson (photographer)

Mikael Jansson (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" that has no foot notes and resume like contents. WP:TNT. There's been no substantial edits besides the name drops I've removed and content additions by model management company associated WP:SPA. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Also qualifies for deletion per reason Deletion policy reason #1 "Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion" "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion" While WP:ATD should be considered, the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors. Graywalls (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:TNT it, unless someone pulls a WP:HEY on it first. the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors is right. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd support either TNT or !draft, but I can only find the Wall Street Journal article, we'd need a few more sources about him to pass notability. This is very PROMO and badly needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it appears to meet G11, I think deletion reason is satisfied. Notability failure is not the only reason for deletion. I thought of draftifying, but last time I did that, it got undraftified by Liz. Graywalls (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: Not promotional enough for G11, but meets notability due to WSJ article, other articles in Vogue and fashion/photography magazines. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. A rough consensus finally materialized after the last relist (thank you, Liz!). Owen× ☎ 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semzi

Semzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCER. Sources are either passing mentions, interviews, PRs, or not even mentioning the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I'm almost certain the award nominations are notable, but we still need better sourcing for more biographical information. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More research would be done to support article with more sourcing for biographical information. The subject is quite a notable individual with just probably limited press publications ReoMartins (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReoMartins Well, now you’re taking. As far as I know, there are a lot of notable people in real life who can’t a Wikipedia entry because they don’t meet the necessary Wikipedia notability criteria. Wikipedia’s notability is not exactly real world notability. The current status of this article doesn’t meet up, not that they’re not notable or influential in real life. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not meet any criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. None of the sources cited in the article actually discuss the subject. His nominations at the Beatz Awards aren't enough to justify a stand-alone article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I agree with Oaktree B that this is a weak keep due to the award nominations. His other sources are weak.Maxcreator (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: and mark as promised. Majority of the sources in the article doesn't meet SIGCOV and while the awards merits notability: it's still not much for a standalone entry on Wikipedia. I will remove some sources that didn't add to notability. For my vote (if draftified) can be marked as "promising", since there is a partial way to notability in the future! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/02/bad-boy-timz-is-one-of-nigerias-best-singers-ive-worked-with-semzi/amp/ Yes Was talking about the subject Yes Vanguard is reliable per WP:NGRS ~ Much like an about music interview ~ Partial
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/weekend-beats/producing-songs-for-davido-mayorkun-the-highlight-of-my-career-so-far-semzi/ Yes Ditto Yes Guardian Nigeria is reliable per WP:NGRS No Normally, Weekend Beats sounds like PR ✘ No
https://the49thstreet.com/49th-exclusive-semzi/ Yes Above No Blog sites No Interview and blog post ✘ No
https://pan-african-music.com/en/nigerian-producers-2022/ ~ A list that mentions articles, more of featuring, no PR here ~ See editorial No List ✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/music/review-dj-consequence-vibes-from-the-future/jhle44r No No mention Yes Per WP:NGRS No No mention ✘ No
https://culturecustodian.com/bad-boy-timzs-mj/ No No mention Yes Ditto No No mention ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/11/nicki-minaj-nas-ifeanyi-adeleke-feature-on-davidos-a-better-time-album/ No No metion Yes Per above No No mention of the subject ✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/music/mayorkun-features-victony-on-holy-father/jbrp0lg No Ditto Yes See above No No mention ✘ No
https://www.okayafrica.com/joeboy-drops-new-music-album/ No No mention Yes Okay Africa is reliable No Applied same as above ✘ No
https://www.morebranches.com/omah-lay-couples-with-more-emotions-on-the-deluxe-version-of-boy-alone/ No No mention No Not a reliable source, blog or PR No Same as above ✘ No
https://guardian.ng/life/listen-ajebo-hustlers-featuring-fave-in-love/ No Mention! Yes Why not? No More like PR—get away magazine mention; just mention ✘ No
https://culturecustodian.com/bad-boy-timz-serves-new-visuals-for-faya-from-empires-where-we-come-from-vol-1-compilation-album/ No Passing mention Yes Per WP:NGRS No Inherent mention ✘ No
https://www.max1023.fm/boy-spyce-releases-new-single-relationship/ No Les or no mention Yes Max FM is a Lagos based television channel No Inherent notability only on Boy Source ✘ No
https://culturecustodian.com/no-bad-boy-no-party-highlights-significant-moments-in-bad-boy-timzs-journey/ No Passing mention Yes Culture custodian is a reliable source No Still on production. Inherent notability ✘ No
https://soundcity.tv/afropop-sensation-bad-boy-timz-unveils-debut-album-no-bad-boy-no-party/ No Focuses on Bad Boy Time, a Nigerian artist Yes Sound City TV is a Nigerian television music channel No Focus lacking on the subject ✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/music/victony-features-14-artists-on-new-song-ohema/8988dbp No Passing mention Yes Like above No Doesn't meet notability ✘ No
https://randr.ng/nominations-list-the-beatz-award-2021/ No List No Rhythm and Rhyme is a blog site No List ✘ No
https://thebeatzawards.com/winners-perfecto/ ~ List Yes For the award but not for other citations No Being nominated doesn't mean notability. Per WP:ENT, the subject must have been nominated multiple times of a major award ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete: After analysis of the source above, I was convinced of the many "passing mentions", "no mention" and more generated in citing sources relating to PR. Nothing to draftify again. It doesn't meet WP:THREE for sources, WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. Each of the sources either mention, or not at all, or about a music one of an artist he had worked for previously. Delete is the "best" alternative. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 13:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In one of the discussions and sources, it submits an evidence about this act who just recently co-produced a track that has over ten credible and notable artistes from Sub-Sahara Africa featured. These artistes have their wiki pages, I believe the professional who takes up the task to fuse these different acts into a single musical project is worthy of an article on Wikipedia as well. ReoMartins (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ReoMartins It is imperative for you to know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for you to think an article should be kept. You should also importantly see WP:INHERITED. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, there is already a consensus here if by analysis of the arguments above. Isn't see the reason for relisting. Most importantly, the keep isn't strong enough or showed how the article meets inclusion. The source table can also be reviewed to see blatant addition of sources that doesn't mention the article. (Just a 'simpler' suggestion. ) — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Hehe, if I was an administrator, I would have relisted this discussion too, so don't worry, Liz made the right decision. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanderwaalforces, Sure. It's just that Liz doesn't take time analysing such deletions. Welp, it's good getting clearer consensus. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Safari Scribe, well, that's quite an insult I didn't expect to see when I was reviewing open AFD discussions tonight. I'll just leave this one for another closer to handle since you are unsatisfied with how I'm handling things. Again, this is a volunteer hobby, not a job and nothing obligates me to close or relist any AFD discussion but I try to use my best judgment. But I'll leave this one alone and someone else can eventually close it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Working with subjects that pass GNG is not enough to provide notability. While I see subject having some nominations, I fail to see WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCER here by secondary sources.Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Aiyar

AfDs for this article:
Yamini Aiyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim

AfDs for this article:
Saira Shah Halim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed WP:NPOL, even WP:BASIC. No in-depth articles, she presents her point of view on national media every day. But this does not prove notability. Only one article is better from India Today. Rest of the news is also non reliable. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article. WP:NPOL isn't the only criteria, I have already told you on another article. She handily passes WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. The criteria needs multiple reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of any source with in-depth coverage, the criteria also accepts combination of multiple sources with limited but not insignificant coverage.
In here, there is presence of multiple sources with decent in-depth coverage so even the supplementary point isn't needed. The main WP:GNG requirement itself is met. I had added four of them. Indian Express, The Wire, The Print and News Click.
But someone had changed the article completely and turned it into a resume kind of page. That someone had removed all these references and replaced it with an article in
India Today which was written by her and some other things like TedX and "enewsroom.com" but I have fixed it now. MrMkG (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That someone is User:Cikisshpedia who made an account just to do this, I don't know why. MrMkG (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has a good writing. It covered the cause of her notability for being "involved in social work and activism through 2014 to 2018, and eventually came to the limelight during the CAA-NRC protests". It just need a little bit of cleaning i guess. Hi Bree! (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE)[reply]
  • Strong Delete part of an big sockpuppet campaign, and clearly fails WP:NPOL.
Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NPOL as there is no in depth coverage of her.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself have 33 edits, all of them in AfD. How does that happen?
    There is in fact in-depth coverage of her. Maybe there is a "sockpuppet campaign" around this article but it shouldn't matter if she actually passes WP:GNG. They should just be kept away. MrMkG (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus/per the request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an expert in NPOL or NEWSORGINDIA but there does seem to be decent coverage of this person in RS. However, these are all from spring 2022 and WP:N requires sustained coverage. Perhaps @MrMkG could find coverage from other time periods? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay Sure. Most of her coverage is in Bengali media and newspapers. Some recent ones are these. Sangbad Pratidin, News18 Bangla. MrMkG (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Additional input regarding the sources presented herein would be beneficial toward establishing a solid, guideline- and policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.
    Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.
    It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. This close is with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination should any editor wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Yıldız

Fatih Yıldız (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, I don't want to mention WP:NPOL here at all because it does not apply. Just being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, especially if they do not pass WP:GNG independently. BEFORE returns nothing to establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Numerous secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage exist to demonstrate notability. Some are cited in the article. Most are in Turkish but that is not an impediment to their use to demonstrate notability nor to their use on English Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I know that that is not the case here, there's no source here to establish GNG, this is not a matter of whether the language of the sources is Turkish or not, sources can be translated if they're not in English. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Vanderwaalforces, please don't make assumptions about what I might know. [29], [30], [31], [32] are a few examples that go to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My rationale/comment does not read like I am making an assumption, Dclemens1971. You should read comments properly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally wrote "you and I know," which makes a statement about me -- a statement that is definitionally an assumption since we have never interacted before this AfD. Please keep the debate focused on policies, not on what "you and I know." I came here in good faith to offer a policy-based opinion after reviewing available sources. I'm done with this discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions in connection to statements they made, but these have nothing to do with the subject, but statements made in relation to their job. BLPs require strong sourcing and an individual does not inherit notability from the position they hold.  // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Paranoia (role-playing game). Owen× ☎ 13:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gelber (game designer)

Dan Gelber (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a non notable game designer. Lacks SIGCOV and no verifiability whatsoever. If he has created a notable game, he should have appeared on reviews ad multiple news source. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass notability requirements- the only sources I'm seeing online mention his name in passing, as a game creator, but are not written about him. Editing84 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is unfortunate, as Gelber's fame predates the Internet. I found Lawsuit info where he is named once only, ditto in this article by Allen Varney. I suspect sources which cover this individual to be substantially offline. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then provide them. There is barely offline sources for a notable American whose work dates in 1980's till date. If we're talking about Africa or otherwise, it will be a total case of WP:System bias. Not much work or sources for his works, and the ones listed in the article is lacking verifiable sources to show he was the real creator as wikipedia's policy mandates. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had them, I would. I think there are people who have complete collections of The Space Gamer; I am not one of them. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Paranoia as the designer's apparently most relevant contribution. About the nomination, the opposite of no verifiability whatsoever seems to be the case here, as everything in the article referenced and therefore verified! Likewise, Dan Gelber does appear in reviews in multiple sources. So far I did not see more than his contributions acknowledged there, so nothing beyond what we have here, which so far is still a stub, so I understand the concern about SIGCOV. On the other hand, not all the sourced information the authors of our article here collected is present at Paranoia, so this should be preserved in a merge rather than deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. In such a case it is somewhat unfortunate to link to one of two major contributions, but well... If anyone has can find more sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. Daranios (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to merge here. The reason for redirecting is because it has been confirmed by one verifiable source of creating a "video game" with colleagues. It's the best option to "just" redirect. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: I disagree. The first three sentences of the Dan Gelber (game designer)#Career section are referenced to a secondary source - I would say the secondary source for the topic of designing role-playing games - and they elucidate what the respective roles of Dan Gelber and the other designers were for the creation of Paranoia. That information is not yet present at the target, and fits there in either the Publication history or an Origins section. ("video game" is nowhere mentioned in the article, I assume you meant "role-playing game"?) Daranios (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: In case you are concerned that those sentences are verified by only one source (I am not quite sure what you meant there), this is also substantiated by Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we meant the same redirecting. No problem! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Paranoia (role-playing game): This is the best work he has done per article and in other to help backlog, WP:ATD be applicable and redirecting is the best option. Like the discussion above, I have proposed PRESERVE which can be said as merge "important ones"—probably the sourced parts or one listed above! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Place above as comment. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just need consensus to be reached on whether to merge or delete. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. It looks like much of the objection to the existence of the page has to do with its name. A better title can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrul Pitri Jusoh

Shahrul Pitri Jusoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. This article is about a triple murder rather than about the person who did them. Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How is a triple murderer not notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article isn't about him and doesn't have GNG sourcing or sourcing to be an article about him. And that is the main criteria for passage of an article on the person under either GNG or nBios. So by that process, and also by the fact that the article is about the event . Hence "Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article not being about him isn't a good reason to delete it. The killings are certainly notable. The article title is a different issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My nomination was addressing that.....(un)suitability as a news event article. My last post was instead addressing your post that it was indented under, it was not the rationale for the nomination as was implied in your subsequent post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the person is not notable but the event is, so I am inclining to Delete it and creating a new article on the incident. Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some more opinions, especially on the quality of sources which can determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It would be better information if there were details of of the murderer's background, as well as his motivation for the crimes. Nevertheless, he is a serial child killer. The article is worthy of keeping. — Maile (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: This should be a case of WP:BLP1E. Reliably cited with sources supporting WP:THREE, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:CRIMINAL, its still unclear determining having a standalone article. Maybe Rosguill' s making sense where we should have this draftified as the event and maybe applicable as a redirect either way. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP1E states that we shouldn't have an article about people only notable for one event. Did you mean something else? -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering, that should be WP:BIO1E. I'm having much consideration on this article as it's unclear whether to have an entry or not. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This crime, while gruesome and sensational, does not meet WP:CRIME: neither the perpetrator nor the victims were notable prior to the act, and there is not likely to be any historical significance to this act. (I.e. it is unlikely that news coverage will extend past the immediate event.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

People proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People&oldid=1220537094"