Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions
Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anıl Ulaş Övençoğlu (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orna Guralnik Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Pablo Medina de los Santos Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Brault Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Gilles André Couvrette |
Starofearth (talk | contribs) |
||
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/Shalini Passi}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomas_Lamanauskas}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomas_Lamanauskas}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyro (singer)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyro (singer)}} |
Revision as of 04:02, 1 April 2023
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to People. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|People|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
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 no consensus . ✗plicit 11:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Shalini Passi (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)
Advertisement of her organization Mashindia. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Starofearth (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Delhi. Starofearth (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The sources seem to be good to pass, but I haven't done a thorough analysis. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an advertisement for MASH, her org. Nominator has been indeffed for covert advertising (regarding Ohmium), but that seems completely unrelated to this. SWinxy (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 10:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. There are enough sources in the article that appear to establish significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tomas Lamanauskas (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)
Not notable person. Re-created by a related party after the article was deleted via PROD. Renata•3 01:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- This person is the Deputy Secretary-General of one of the most important United Nations Specialized Agencies. Bquast (talk)
- Just to note that the previous Deputy Secretary-General was Malcolm Johnson (administrator), the is an article on his. As on the DSG before Houlin Zhao. Bquast (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- No tiene sentido, ¿el tipo es semidirector de una importante agencia de la ONU? 2800:D300:3800:3EDD:CC94:2E45:3E8A:7F04 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Vice secretário general" seria la traducción del título en español. Simaocampos (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Complementando: su página oficial en inglés - https://www.itu.int/en/osg/dsg/Pages/default.aspx y español, https://www.itu.int/es/osg/dsg/Pages/default.aspx
- Electo por la Asemblea Plenipotenciaria de la UIT enoctobre 2022, ref https://pp22.itu.int/en/elections/elections-results/ Simaocampos (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- The esteemed gentleman is the 2nd in command of a UN agency. To attest to its (and his) importance, see e.g. this article about his (then upcoming) election "The most important election nobody’s ever heard of. Vote to keep Aditisrinivasan (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Considering what other users have said before me, he seems to be sufficiently notable, and there are already articles about his predecessors Malcolm Johnson (administrator) and Houlin Zhao. So, I vote to keep.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Seeming notable and having sources that discuss him are two different things. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Under-secretary of the ITU might be notable, but there are no sources that discuss this individual. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- The ITU Deputy Secretary General is an ex-officio Under-Secretary General of the UN System Bquast (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is a source from the World Economic Forum that gives a profile as well as one by the OECD Bquast (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Doesn't seem like a notable - official? I also peeked at Johnson and Zhao, they are longer but also rather poorly referenced. They may require Articles for Deletion treatment also. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Zhao after Deputy Secretary General became Secretary General of ITU. I think that meet notability by most reasonable standards. Bquast (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Notability for Wikipedia is not established by claiming that certain title is "important" but by showing significant coverage in third-party sources. Please read WP:Notability. Renata•3 00:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Zhao after Deputy Secretary General became Secretary General of ITU. I think that meet notability by most reasonable standards. Bquast (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - It seems to me like there is more or less consensus about the notability of this person. I saw a some major third-party sources being cited. I added another one (full interview with the person that is the subject of this article) Geezerberkhout (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Specific citations in support of our arguments are needed, Geezerberkhout. And interviews have a hard time making it on their own. As to the consensus you are seeing, there isn't here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The plethora of sources is enough for the subject to merit inclusion. And there's extra coverage about the importance of specifically this individual's appointment at the ITU directorate. (See the Politico article, among others.) -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Don't Delete The argument that there were no sufficient sources, may have had some validity (as opposed to the argument of not being notable), but as of now I see references to full length articles on the subject of this article from Yale, WEF, OECD, Nokia, and a range of others, so there is no longer a dearth of notable sources (that are on the subject). Aditisrinivasan (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Spyro (singer) (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is still an up-and-coming artist who is new to the Nigerian music scene. A Google search of the subject doesn't show coverage independent of him. The article makes multiple references to his songs charing on Apple Music music chart. However, this chart is considered a WP:BADCHART. References 2, 4, and 10 are unreliable promotional references. References 1, 5, 7, 8, 9 are not independent of the subject. It is simply WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have a stand-alone article. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 01:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 01:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- The Subject is popular in Nigeria and currently has one of the most popular songs, the unreliable references can be changed and more reliable and independent sources added, the article needs to be improved not deleted Princeansa (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Princeansa: Spyro having a "popular" song doesn't mean that he automatically deserves to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. This "popular" song of his hasn't charted on any country's official music chart. He hasn't won or received a nomination for a major award in Nigeria or anywhere else in Africa. Just because he has a song with Tiwa Savage and Davido doesn't mean he automatically deserves a stand-alone article. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 18:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- If he has "Most Popular" song that means he is getting radio airplay and hence meets WP:MUSICBIO. One of his songs peaked at #2 in Nigeria according to this chart. Royal88888 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Royal88888: Where is the source that says he has the "most popular" song? This statement is completely subjective. The subject has only released six songs and none of them meet WP:NSONG. Simply having one song chart isn't enough, especially when there aren't sources independent of him. He has not been discussed in reliable sources and none of his songs have been crticitally reviewed. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 00:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes one charting song is enough per WP:MUSICBIO which says: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." This chart will show that his track peaked at #2 in Nigeria. I am sure there are other sources out there to verify this, if someone knows where to check. I simply have no knowledge of music or charts in Nigeria. There could be some sources in non-English sources. Royal88888 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- p.s. check this Article that confirms the #2 chart position in Nigeria and this article states that the track "has become the biggest song in the continent." Royal88888 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Turntable is a reliable chart; it is the only credible chart in Nigeria. I already acknowledged that only one of his songs charted; the only reason it charted is because of the Tiwa Savage feature. Outside of that one chart entry, the song itself isn't notable and doesn't meet WP:NSONG. None of the subject's songs have been discussed and the subject himself has not received significant coverage or coverage independent of him. The source did said that and also said it is a "global hit" and "the biggest song in the world with over 1 million videos on Tik Tok". Where is the evidence to support any of these statements? Ghana Web is not a credible source. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 01:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- p.s. check this Article that confirms the #2 chart position in Nigeria and this article states that the track "has become the biggest song in the continent." Royal88888 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes one charting song is enough per WP:MUSICBIO which says: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." This chart will show that his track peaked at #2 in Nigeria. I am sure there are other sources out there to verify this, if someone knows where to check. I simply have no knowledge of music or charts in Nigeria. There could be some sources in non-English sources. Royal88888 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Royal88888: Where is the source that says he has the "most popular" song? This statement is completely subjective. The subject has only released six songs and none of them meet WP:NSONG. Simply having one song chart isn't enough, especially when there aren't sources independent of him. He has not been discussed in reliable sources and none of his songs have been crticitally reviewed. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 00:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- If he has "Most Popular" song that means he is getting radio airplay and hence meets WP:MUSICBIO. One of his songs peaked at #2 in Nigeria according to this chart. Royal88888 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Princeansa: Spyro having a "popular" song doesn't mean that he automatically deserves to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. This "popular" song of his hasn't charted on any country's official music chart. He hasn't won or received a nomination for a major award in Nigeria or anywhere else in Africa. Just because he has a song with Tiwa Savage and Davido doesn't mean he automatically deserves a stand-alone article. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 18:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep , he meets WP:MUSICBIO, because One of his songs peaked at #2 in Nigeria according to this chart. He also has top trending song in Ghana and he also has upcoming tour in Europe, so he most likely will meet criterion #4 soon. Plus I found tons more coverage in Google news, so if you don't see them, I can show you. The 2 linked here are new articles that I added.Royal88888 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)- Keep, his song "who is your guy" top of charts in more than 10 countries it was No. 2 on apples music Nigeria and No. 1 on YouTube music chart you can find that here and he has a good coverage on google and has collaborations with Top artists like Davido, Tiwa savage and mayorkun, his previous single billing was also a very popular song that was topping harts you can check here for full stats Princeansa (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, his song "who is your guy" being the most searched song in Nigeria on Google for first quarter of 2023 according to premium times shows the artiste meets WP:MUSICBIO, he also has good coverage on secondary reliable sources Obulesuccess (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
::Keep, his song "who is your guy" was named as the most searched song in Nigeria on Google in the first quarter of 2023 you can find that here Princeansa (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC) striking multiple !votes from the same editor. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Articles about him finding God and the like, very much celebrity fluff. Non-notable musician with no charted singles. No reason to keep the article, we aren't here to promote artists. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, he has 2 charted singles and a currently charting remix with Tiwa savage, he is most likely to be nominated for a notable award later this year Nenub (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks in-depth coverage supporting that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Grand Duchy of Flandrensis. History is under the redirect should sources eventuate Star Mississippi 13:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Niels Vermeersch (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 is solely notable for creating a micronation, Grand Duchy of Flandrensis. I was going to just be bold and redirect, but I thought I'd give it a chance to go through AFD. I personally believe this article should just rediect to the micronation. Angryapathy (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, and Belgium. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep: Following the phenomenon of micronationalism since a few years, Niels Vermeersch is one of the few 21-century micronationalists mentioned in several independent sources, incl. academic publications. Mostly his influence on the development of environmental micronationalism and being invited to ChangeNow Paris (a non-micronational event) to speak about it and using the concept of micronationalism within a non-profit, made this figure notable enough. See also other articles on the Category Micronational leaders to compare content and sources Delle89 (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Delle89:, Can you share (or better yet add to the article) the sources you have found from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? // Timothy :: talk 00:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)- Sorry, but I don't really understand anything about "IS RS with SIGCOV"? Should I upload a copy of the sources somewhere? I still have digital copies from the newspapers and interviews from during my paper and also own the books. If you are more specific, I can certainly provide the necessary documentation . Thanks for your help! Delle89 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect Notability is largely WP:INHERITED from Grand Duchy of Flandrensis. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Somkhishvili Tamaz (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 deleted a version of this article at Tamaz Somkhishvili for basically being a laundry list of accusations with little proof, but this version has recently come into existance.
Problems... this person may be notable. But the article is a list of positions held and accusations of criminal activity with sources in a language I can't read. We need some eyes on this one to see if it is WP:BLP compliant, determine notability, and whether this page should exist at all. (So, yes, I'm choosing AFD as a venue, because I do believe this is a pretty negative BLP that can be deleted for that.) Courcelles (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Russia, and Ukraine. Courcelles (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I read in Uk/RU and understand the sources. Tamaz Somkhishvili is one of the richest persons in Georgia and famous in CIS region as a former Russian businessman who has held significant positions in major Russian companies such as Lukoil, Lukoil Markets, and Rosneftexport. But the main notability is connected to the current events - War of Russia with Ukraine, possible crime schemes conducted in Ukraine and alleged involvement in the Pandora Papers investigation. In addition to the aforementioned argument, the fact that Tamaz Somkhishvili's company which operates in Tbilisi, is involved in repairing Russian combat aircraft used against Ukraine further highlights the relevance and importance of this page. This information is highly notable and raises the page' notability as well. This demonstrates that the information about the person presented on this English Wikipedia page is not only verifiable and notable, but also has a solid foundation in journalistic investigations and reports, including one of the oldest and most independent ones --Dzerkalo Tyzhnia. --JeILoenita (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete As we can see, this article contains pure mistification, Tamaz Somkhishvili is not a Lukoil founder. Also, he was never it's CEO. One of the sources of this 'information' in wiki article directly desinforming readers, another does not contain this info. This shows very well that the sources used as reference for the article are either of poor quality or irrelevant. Information about the connection with Russian organized crime is completely irrelevant, it is not in the Russian press at all, while the Russian press constantly writes about criminal persons with whom Somkhishvilli is allegedly connected, for example, about Shakro-young. Also irrelevant is the statement of the author of the wiki article about some kind of criminal schemes in Ukraine. There were no criminal cases, but Somkhishvili has a number of won arbitration cases against the mayor's office of Kyiv. But this is a completely ordinary matter, the assertion that allegedly Somkhishvili is widely known in the CIS does not correspond to reality. The press writes almost nothing about him. Of the 20 sources cited in the article, 2 are Russian from 2004, where he is not the main character, 1 is a local Georgian source, the rest are Ukrainian. Wikipedia is not the place to post speculation about criminal activity that has not been proven in court, much less about people who are not public figures. Reposter of wiki-article, however writes about 'possible crime schemes' in this discussions, As I read sources, no one is about a proven crime, and all of them express the personal opinion of a journalist, constructed in such a way that the journalist cannot be accused of disseminating untrue facts Caramoble (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- This User Caramoble is a UPE account which main purpose is to service their master - Tamaz Somkhishvili. Admins, please don't take into acconut this vote. It's possible someone's sock. 2600:1700:5CE0:2DD0:ECEE:4C73:89C7:4BD9 (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Probably the article partially violates the WP:BLP, which is easy to fix. I do not think that there are reliable sources to confirm the value judgments "corrupt", "thief in law" or "criminal authority". However, the rest of the facts are well confirmed by reliable sources, primarily Ukrainian, where several high-profile corruption scandals were associated with his name, which were covered in great detail by reliable media and are presented in this article. --Yakudza (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep the person is notable for inclusion into wikipedia, as we find in reliable independent sources non-trivial in-deepth coverage of a person over an extended period. That shows that Tamaz is a notable person, especially businessman dealing with various topics related to Ukrainian cities, Russian invasion of Ukraine (proximity to Ministry of Defense of Russian and Wagner group is apparent if to read reliable sources). I doubt we can find many good sources from 1990s as such sources could be deleted or cleaned to leave the past unclear and gray. It is essential to consider independent Ukrainian media when evaluating his notability. By examining these sources, it becomes evident that Tamaz Somkhishvili is a highly notable figure, and his Wikipedia article should be kept accordingly. GeorgYio (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- The correctness of statementss of the commentators who advocate leaving the article can be indirectly verified by the following fact. Phrase In addition, Tamaz Somkhishvili was accused of organizing a similar scheme in Odesa. According to an investigation by Serhiy Ivanov and Censor.net, Somkhishvili and people close to Odesa Mayor Gennadiy Trukhanov withdrew the land belonging to the city's hippodrome from state ownership, and then sold the land for $11 million to local developer Adnan Kivan, who built a residential complex on the seized land. Somkhishvili was a direct beneficiary of the Vostok-XXI company through which the transaction was carried out. in wiki-article is backed by this source. Anyone can check the text of this article using google translate. You will see its headline Russian S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile complexes must be destroyed in positions, - ZSU, you can see it's text, which contains no references to Tamaz Somkhishvili and his business, after which you can understand how justified the statements about reliable sources in the article. I'm not sure, that some of them really checked this links. Also, as we can see, they insist on the wide popularity of the man who, according to this article, was the founder of russian oil megacorporation Lukoil. Meanwhile, a well-known generally accepted fact is that the founder of Lukoil was Vagit Alekperov and no mentions about Somkhishvili in both russian and english wikipedia articles. Caramoble (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- thank you for your cooperation. I found the sources and put them there. It was a mistake with sources and now it's fixed. JeILoenita (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is not about cooperation, but about the conscientiousness of commentators who called the sources cited in the article reliable, but did not read them themselves. They did not pay attention to the fact that the text of the wiki article contains a link to a completely foreign source.
- Similarly, you can ask what considerations you yourself were guided by, including links to three texts of the same type, which are almost verbatim reprints of the same 'investigation' by blogger Sergei Ivanov from Facebook. You write in the text of the article itself In addition, Tamaz Somkhishvili was accused of organizing a similar scheme in Odesa. What are the signs that this is 'the same scheme', if even from the materials you cited it is clear that Somkhiashvili did not sue on his own initiative in Odessa and did not demand any compensation from the state?
- In the materials, Somkhishvili is persistently and unreasonably called a criminal authority, but even in their text it is clear that no criminal prosecutions have ever been undertaken against him, even in 2022-2023 in Ukraine. He won all civil proceedings with the administration of Kyiv, up to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
- What are the grounds for using Wikipedia as a platform for spreading falsehoods about "criminal schemes" if the Ukrainian state, throughout the entire chain of courts from top to bottom, admitted that Somkhiashvili was right in his claims? Caramoble (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- thank you for your cooperation. I found the sources and put them there. It was a mistake with sources and now it's fixed. JeILoenita (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The article rather should be updated to comply with WP:BLP. As for its value, for me, there is no doubt it is significant enough to be reflected on Wikipedia since both from the sources on the article and by googling it myself I could confirm this person is famous among Russian-speaking and post-Soviet countries audience. And I agree that it was widely covered by the media that he is hugely involved in the Russo-Ukrainian war by effectively assisting the Russian military in its war against Ukraine by maintaining its aircraft. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Even the sources cited in the article, citing Sergei Ivanov's dubious investigation, claim that Somkhiashvili allegedly has an indirect relationship with the repair of Russian aircraft through a chain of minority ownership in two Georgian companies, and not effectively assisting the Russian military in its war against Ukraine by maintaining its aircraft as you wrote. However, given that this information comes from the same person who unreasonably called Somkhishvili a crime boss, it should be taken critically and the facts checked. And they are checked directly in Wikipedia. Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, which Somkhishvili is credited with owning, is a state-owned company in Georgia. The text of Ivanov's article mixes two companies, the connection between which is not shown - the private TAM Management and the state-owned Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, to which the Ivanovs attribute a 20% stake in the Russian aviation concern Sukhoi. Even if this is true, then perhaps the accusations of helping Russia should be directed to the Georgian government, which owns this business, and not to a private individual. Thus, information about Somkhishvili's help to Russia comes from a dubious source, and should not be considered as serious confirmation of what - or facts suitable for publication in Wikipedia. Thus, we see that the "wide fame" you mentioned is achieved through an unproven accusation of minority ownership of a Georgian state-owned company, which, in turn, allegedly has a minority ownership of a Russian aircraft manufacturer. I doubt that these shaky grounds can prove anything in terms of the wide popularity of a private individual in Ukraine. Caramoble (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Peter Sesselmann (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:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as written. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 02:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Australia. 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 05:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete COI, promotional and not notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WomenArtistUpdates. I couldn't find any sources beyond regional newspapers Newcastle Herald, Maitland Mercury, Cessnock Advertiser etc. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sandstein 18:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- GAI (musician) (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)
Based on the lack of references and the bizarre content, I think this may be a hoax. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Upon further examination, this may just be an extremely bad translation of the zhwiki article. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I see lots of sources cited at zh:GAI and lots more at the Baidu Baike article. The article certainly needs some copyediting but I think there's clearly enough to meet GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I browsed through the sources at the China Wikipedia article (zh:GAI) and several appear to be social media junk but others appear to be robust entertainment news sites. I recommend finding someone who is familiar with both the language and the sources in order to find if they are reliable and significant. If so, then clean up this article dramatically. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment after taking another look, this definitely isn't a hoax in the sense of WP:HOAX. I'm not sure if his appearance on two Chinese reality TV programs as a musician meets WP:NACTOR or not. I have reduced the article in Special:Diff/1147461751. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think this article is very imperfect. The information and references are very lacking. Not enough to give a clear understanding of the term.Roci xu (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- CommentThis is an article that lacks reliable sources, the article is mostly from unreliable entertainment news and it should be removed. And I don't think it's appropriate to use a stage name as the title of a wiki entry.--Lqy328 (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think this article lacks too much personal information and work information of the singer. And the sentences in the existing introduction are not rigorous enough, which is very easy to cause misunderstanding. Modifications are suggested.Hhhh2 (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think this article is oversimplified and the references cited are untrustworthy. It needs to add a lot of valuable content and look for reliable sources of reference sources.Ddccxl (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Roci xu, Lqy328, Hhhh2, and Ddccxl: I agree that the article needs more information and more sources. Would you be interested in improving it? The issues you've mentioned don't justify deletion, because the topic is clearly notable, but it would be great if we can improve the article's quality. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Lots of comments (and thanks for your investigation) but we need more opinions of what to do with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)- Keep I can't find any sourcing, but if the Chinese language sources are on reliable websites as explained, I'd keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep but improve. I was one of the commenters above but we do indeed need some real votes. In my view, GAI appears to be a known media personality in China, and some editors have already removed social media junk from the article. We can keep it for now as a stub, but someone should recruit editors who know about Chinese media and can translate any reliable sources from the ZH Wikipedia article. Editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject China could be called upon to help. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Snowgoons. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient, however this is a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 14:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sicknature (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 seem to have notability outside of Snowgoons. No indication of passing WP:BAND, and not one source supports WP:GNG. Perhaps there are some Danish sources I haven't come across Mbdfar (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Denmark. 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 02:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The article was deleted before for a reason. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 13:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- What reason would that be? You need to provide a valid reason and not refer to something like that as a reason. Royal88888 (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep there is enough coverage and he meets WP:MUSICBIO. He is also part of producer group Snowgoons so check news coverage on that as well. Check 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.Royal88888 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Royal88888: there is absolutely not enough coverage. You just posted a bunch of junk links. One of them is about a bicycle - did you even read them? Snowgoons seem notable, Sicknature is not notable outside of the group. Sicknature does not qualify for their own article unless you can find WP:RS (check WP:RSP) that directly cover Sicknature themself in depth (independent of Snowgoons). Mbdfar (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry didn't mean to add that one and one was a duplicate...I have removed 3 and added 2 different ones.Royal88888 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Royal88888: there is absolutely not enough coverage. You just posted a bunch of junk links. One of them is about a bicycle - did you even read them? Snowgoons seem notable, Sicknature is not notable outside of the group. Sicknature does not qualify for their own article unless you can find WP:RS (check WP:RSP) that directly cover Sicknature themself in depth (independent of Snowgoons). Mbdfar (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Snowgoons, the only sourcing available on Sicknature specifically is clearly unreliable and as such he fails WP:GNG, but the group he is a part of seems notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Todd Hackwelder (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 notable coverage. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. PopoDameron talk 01:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Visual arts, and Taiwan. PopoDameron talk 01:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - from the 2009 write up in the Taipei Times -
A sampling of his prolific output, titled A Collection of Different Series, is currently on display at Wendel’s German Bakery and Bistro in Tienmu.
Falls short of WP:ARTIST --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC) - Delete fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 21:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aiona Santana (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)
Previously PRODded for unambiguous advertising/promotion. I think it's the same now. Article is full of PR pseudonews articles, passing mentions and content that does not amount anywhere near passing GNG. Bedivere (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Aiona participated in Miss Universe Canada 2019, with performances at subsequent galas. As for the musical field, she has been recognized twice by the Latin Awards Canada, the most relevant Latin music awards in this country. Aiona is currently one of the female performers representing Latin music in Canada.
- In the discussion of the article in Spanish, also proposed by the user Bedivere, her argument is that she doubts the relevance of Aiona Santana because the media only mention her (which is not entirely true), and that where they do interview her, they are irrelevant media. She (@Bedivere) suggests that I use the media that exist on Wikipedia as a reference, and that they also talk more about the artist.
- When arguing in these spaces, the article has a section next to it that contains books, news and other utilities that contribute to a better argument, therefore, I am sharing below what appears when searching for Aiona news, at least in more than five media from Canada, the United States, Venezuela, Colombia and Argentina.
- Aiona news in the "News" link of Wikipedia -> https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Aiona+Santana%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1
- I understand that Aiona is recognized in Canada, but there is no exclusive Wikipedia for this country, rather it is shared with the United States, England and other countries that use the English language, therefore, it seems coherent to me that this article is published where it belongs. Something similar happens to me when I write on the Spanish Wikipedia and the creators of Spain do not give much credit to what is relevant in Latin America, just because it is not well known in Spain.
- I am grateful, and I hope that we can achieve the best for this article. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Your penultimate paragraph is plain wrong Chucho. It does not matter where people are based or lived in, they should comply with the general notability guidelines. This person is not notable as a beauty pageant (she did not even get to the top 20 in Miss Universe Canada 2019, and that does not make her notable at all even if she were top 10); the Latin Awards Canada are of dubious notability and in fact the article reads like an advertisement; the remainder is your own opinion ("the most relevant..." etc.). Please provide proper sources to assess the otherwise lack of notability. You did point out a couple of sources in the Spanish Wikipedia but these were obvious public relations articles, obviously paid for, and were not even about the artist but the label. Bedivere (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - The coverage is more than enough to meet WP:GNG. KatoKungLee (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Fashion, Beauty pageants, Canada, and Venezuela. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm unsure how she passes GNG. Could you please elaborate? To me, sources are insufficient per the reasoning pointed out in my nomination. Bedivere (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - The article uses a lot of prose to glorify her career so far, but it is mostly a repeat of the autobiography at her own promotional sites and social media feeds. She is not notable for getting to the middle levels of some beauty pageants. For her music career it is too soon for a Wikipedia article because she has not graduated beyond self-upload streaming services. For those above who are supporting the article, note that this is an encyclopedia in which someone must qualify for inclusion, and that requires reliable media coverage from robust sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just as a follow up to my previous remarks, I'm copying my comments at the nomination for deletion of Farandula Records, also a dubiously relevant label whose article was created by Checho. Here go my words:
- The author of this article also seems to have a COI with the label, as they have also created the article for Aiona Santana (currently up for deletion) and also the Latin Music Awards (basically, IMO, a pay-to-win award ceremony which is also non-notable). The label has received coverage, but these articles mostly look like PR, paid-for articles. I'm beginning to think the author is being paid or strongly motivated to create these articles. Bedivere (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is a second account, RyanAfton, who has uploaded on Commons (see talk page) some of the images ChuchoVCJMuzik has used to illustrate these articles. Too much of a coincidence?
- Chucho has created articles about people of dubious notability, some of which have been already deleted. For example, Rafael McGuire was nominated for deletion (see here) and it was pointed out "Sources appear to be puff pieces/paid PR". Same applies here. Bedivere (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- A third user, Guairahumber, has uploaded some obviously PR photos of artists related to Paisclo Solutions Corp (whose deleted article was also created by Chucho). Guaira uploaded on 19 February File:B Martin 3.png, especially for an article created three days earlier by Chucho (B Martin, also of dubious notability). Perhaps this should be reported somewhere else, but I'm leaving it up here for now for commenters to analyze. --Bedivere (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are promos (usually about other subjects), mentions in listings, etc. BEFORE showed more promo and mentions, but nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 12:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Another non-notable singer attempting a Wikipedia "profile", through the help of a music producer (Jésus Villareal aka ChuchoVCJMuzik) who created and curated the text. All we have is an avalanche of Advertorials masquerading as sources. Is there a business plan afoot here? -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. While TimothyBlue cites a source, they do not explain how the subject is covered in this source in a way that would convey notability, and neither is that apparent from the article, as The Gnome points out. Sandstein 10:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sidda Reddy Ankireddypalli (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's no evidence of notability in these sources, which mention Sidda Reddy Ankireddypalli only in passing without any particular focus on him. The doctor doesnt satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources in the article are not enough for WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV . Fad Ariff (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep (barely) per
- [1],
- Vemula, R., & Hanu, G. (2019). History of neurosurgery at sri venkateswara institute of medical sciences, tirupati. Neurology India, 67(1), 207-217. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.253574 [2]
- Definitely more notable than most of the the athlete articles. // Timothy :: talk 04:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. We have a text about a neurosurgeon. I mean, that is the whole text. It veritably reads: This is a neurosurgeon. End of text. One cannot help but admire the chutzpah but one is also nonplussed. The sources confirm that he is a neurosurgeon who is active as a neurosurgeon. That is all. The case is blatantly not made that this is an individual who merits to have a Wikipedia article about him more than the millions of neurosurgeons around the world. It is not even funny. -The Gnome (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete . The argument that WP:NPROF Criteria 1 is met is not without merit but undermined by the points made further into the discussion that highlight that there are several virologists with the same name, so not all of those results are for this individual. These concerns were not addressed or rebutted by those arguing to keep the article, and consensus otherwise appears to be that none of the notability guidelines are (yet) met for this article's subject. Aoidh (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Jia Liu (academic) (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 doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Article subject's level of academic influence and awards do not match Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria either ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- keep looking at his GS profile it seems like he is highly active with 10k citations overall and 18 publications with 100+ citations. This is more than enough to pass WP:NPROF based on previous outcomes of deletion discussions. Also clearly his publications are in some of the highest profile journals, well cited by other academics and he has had an impact on the field. If we are following consistent criteria then this should be a keep. --hroest 15:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Hannes Röst I am not doubting you, but as a non subject expert here how do I parse his influence/contribution from other authors? In natural sciences, a larger list of co-authors is common practice. Is your argument that he satisfies point #1 of WP:NPROF? I explicitly came to oppose, because I didn't see these criteria being met, but the Google Scholar should help with finding sources that indicate his influence. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Shushugah: this is mainly in line with previous discussions on WP:NPROF and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators. But yes, determining "influence" is hard and it is hard even for academics themselves. Overall the consensus is that NPROF#1 can be measured by citations in the field as a measure of how much influence a person had on the field. Co-authorship can be tricky and there are cases of people who are on tons of papers as a middle author which would probably make them ineligible for NPROF#1 but this is not the case here. See also the explanation of NPROF#1: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." which is what I have argued here. --hroest 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Hannes Röst I am not doubting you, but as a non subject expert here how do I parse his influence/contribution from other authors? In natural sciences, a larger list of co-authors is common practice. Is your argument that he satisfies point #1 of WP:NPROF? I explicitly came to oppose, because I didn't see these criteria being met, but the Google Scholar should help with finding sources that indicate his influence. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as being cofounder of business praised on Forbes, and being on an MIT list. BhamBoi (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The citation record in the Google scholar profile is persuasive in convincing PROF-C1 is met, and this is further strengthened by the MIT Review listing of him as an innovator. --Mvqr (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is a tricky one because he probably will become notable by N:PROF fairly soon, but my opinion is he isn't there yet. He works in a highly cited field, so his publication list, while excellent, doesn't leap out as so outrageously good as to instantly assure notability, and a lot of his publications predate his professorship, meaning that it's unclear whether they add to his notability or that of his supervisor at the time. He is currently only an assistant professor, which doesn't meet NPROF, and has no other feature that meets it. Forbes lists are pretty unhelpful for this as everyone and his dog is on a Forbes under-something up-and-coming someoneorother list. I suspect it's WP:TOOSOON but almost certain he'll arrive. It seems a bit counter-productive to delete, but by current rules he really is a delete and it's not really fair on everyone else to allow one up-and-coming academic the advertisement of a Wikipedia article just because he's at Harvard and in the in-crowd with MIT, while denying it to someone at a lesser institution with lesser academic-social contacts. If we do keep this, we set a precedent of keeping academics who seem to be on the way up, before they've actually got there. Elemimele (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no rule to have assistant profs being always non-notable, there is just a consensus that they often are not because of their citation record. however, this is not the case here, he likely compares favorably to other tenured profs in his field. Also @Elemimele: can you point to a bias of someone being deemed non-notable because they are at a (as you called it) "lesser" institution? I could point you to various counter-examples where the institution did not factor in at all (it mostly doesnt here in these discussions). --hroest 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- (1) I don't think being an assistant prof makes him non-notable; it's just that it doesn't make him notable. (2) The nub of the matter is that his only real claim to notability is highly-cited literature. My statement is that much of his highly-cited literature predates his professorship (by age, some of it stems from his undergraduate years). It is possible that a lot of this was greatly influenced by his supervisors during the time he worked under them, and reflects their influence and notability, not his. In general, C1 claims for notability should be literature that is undoubtedly the brain-child of the article's subject. (3) I believe that he is quite likely a rising star. I shouldn't have mentioned institutions; that clouded the issue. But my point was that we should be cautious of allowing a premature article about someone who in my opinion is likely to go places, my opinion being based on the fact he's landed a position at Harvard and attracted attention from MIT. In effect, I was commenting on my own systematic bias towards respectable Western academia. But ultimately, this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn. It does no harm if we wait a year or two. I think currently he's strictly speaking a delete by the rules, but I won't lose any sleep over the article being kept, because in a year of two, he'll probably pass. Elemimele (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughtful points, I mostly agree with you on the subject matter and all your points but I come to a slightly different (subjective) conclusion as I tend to generally lean against deletion. --hroest 01:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- (1) I don't think being an assistant prof makes him non-notable; it's just that it doesn't make him notable. (2) The nub of the matter is that his only real claim to notability is highly-cited literature. My statement is that much of his highly-cited literature predates his professorship (by age, some of it stems from his undergraduate years). It is possible that a lot of this was greatly influenced by his supervisors during the time he worked under them, and reflects their influence and notability, not his. In general, C1 claims for notability should be literature that is undoubtedly the brain-child of the article's subject. (3) I believe that he is quite likely a rising star. I shouldn't have mentioned institutions; that clouded the issue. But my point was that we should be cautious of allowing a premature article about someone who in my opinion is likely to go places, my opinion being based on the fact he's landed a position at Harvard and attracted attention from MIT. In effect, I was commenting on my own systematic bias towards respectable Western academia. But ultimately, this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn. It does no harm if we wait a year or two. I think currently he's strictly speaking a delete by the rules, but I won't lose any sleep over the article being kept, because in a year of two, he'll probably pass. Elemimele (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no rule to have assistant profs being always non-notable, there is just a consensus that they often are not because of their citation record. however, this is not the case here, he likely compares favorably to other tenured profs in his field. Also @Elemimele: can you point to a bias of someone being deemed non-notable because they are at a (as you called it) "lesser" institution? I could point you to various counter-examples where the institution did not factor in at all (it mostly doesnt here in these discussions). --hroest 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for aformentioned reasons and because it doesn't seem like the deletion request was made in good faith. Thornfield Hall (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Thornfield Hall
- Comment. This guy's Scopus profile seems very impressive, but it also contains a ton of covid papers that don't appear in his Harvard publication list as well as papers published with numerous affiliations that are not listed here or on his linkedin (like, 28 anomalous affiliations, going back to 2008). Is there a virologist of the same name? JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think maybe there are three Jia Liu virologists? [3] is affiliated with the University of Arkansas, [4] is affiliated with Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and [5] is affiliated with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. They all appear unrelated to the subject here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Sandstein, is there a reason for this re-re-listing, rather than just closure of the discussion? SilverserenC 23:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The reason is that there is not yet clear consensus. Sandstein 08:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: The Forbes article only has a passing mention of the subject. It has no significant coverage of the subject itself. Furthermore, the Harvard sources are not independent of the subject. There are no useful sources listed except for the MIT Under 30 article. Multi7001 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:PROF, and WP:TOOSOON (soft delete). We have almost never kept an article for an assistant professor. Get back to me when he earns tenure. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- CU Note This article was created by a sock from a large UPE spam ring. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Midnight In Zoho for details. I was about to delete it per WP:G5, but will leave it since this discussion is already underway. Girth Summit (blether) 13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete UPE rings deserve no quarter. Academic notability standards are not yet met, and the available sources fail to be sufficiently independent and detailed to argue for notability by any other means. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus here is to Keep this article but that it needs some serious improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Gayle Anderson (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. One of the two references is connected to the subject, another is a trivia source. Career section is also under-referenced and thus does not comply with WP:BLP. A09 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. A09 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The whole article is supported with two sources only which, I agree, would be scarce even for a general article but the requirements for WP:BLP are even stricter and prescribe sufficient media coverage and secondary sources to prove their notability.--Rodgers V (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: @Rodgers V: What do you think about #1 of WP:ANYBIO as subject got 3 Emmys. A09 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note for researchers, especially on the Miami side: she was known as Gail, not Gayle, in Miami. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, barely, but the unsourced material needs to be removed. I think the content here Gayle Anderson#Awards and recognition passes the line. // Timothy :: talk 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)- Keep, but recommending that editors consider a WP:TNT. I personally think the article has potential given the awards nomination. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep only because she has won Emmys, but the article is in dire need of work. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per editors above and per WP:ANYBIO with her Emmy awards. Shout out to Timothy for TNTing the unreferenced material here. Nomader (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments; a simple search on the Emmys website confirms her award (e.g. here).
- Straughn (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Typical Gamer (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, sourcing insufficient to demonstrate notability. The idea that playing Fortnite and Grand Theft Auto V may make you notable is a charming conceit, but it's not backed by WP:SIGCOV in RSes. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Canada. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete It does have a piece of SIGCOV in Polygon, but I couldn't really find anything else of note. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete non notable, only hits on .ca websites are Alexa Answers, then pintrest and other non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: In addition to Zxcvbnm's source above, I found a NYT article that features him enough to consider it significant coverage as well. ([6]). Between the Polygon article above, this NYT article, and a scattering of small amounts of coverage in Dot Esports (a reliable source per WP:VG/RS) with an example here [7]), I'd say he passes WP:THREE to meet GNG, but barely. Nomader (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Zxcvbnm. There is some coverage, but it doesn't hit the threshold of WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I added sources Nomader gave. Hurricane BP Member (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough reliable sources to prove notability. Promotional in tone and contains mainly primary sources, blogs or news releases. and the Verge source makes no mention of the subject at all. (The article is also terribly written.) sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - simply not finding enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 18:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Still fails notability. GlatorNator (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Tensou Sentai Goseiger as an WP:ATD Salvio giuliano 08:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Rika Sato (actress) (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 the article is not notable and a WP:Before shows nothing meaningful. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Japan. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. A Google search turned up a couple of mentions of the subject along with other voice actresses. No notability has been shown using reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - If you check out the Japanese version of her page - https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%95%E3%81%A8%E3%81%86%E9%87%8C%E9%A6%99, she's notable as she has done tv shows, photo books, music, movies and so forth. And in general, any article that has 4 other pages in other languages should strongly hint towards notability. I don't know if I'm up for basically re-writing the article right now though.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. If you check the link above to ja.wp, it shows no references and is substituting their oown opinion for notability criteria using WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST arguments and the nonsense other Wikipedia language claim ("...any article that has 4 other pages in other languages..."). IS RS with SIGCOV alone show notability: Wikipedia in any language is not a reliable source for content or notability; if IS RS with SIGCOV sources are found inother Wikipedias they can be obviously used, but the articles themselves are in no way an indication of notability. The above fails to mention there are no sources and moves on to mistake popularity or notarity for notability ("she's notable as she has done tv shows, photo books, music, movies and so forth"). Popularity does not equal notability per WP:BIO.
- An actual BEFORE in en and ja showed only promo material, database style listings, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:RS). // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tensou Sentai Goseiger, just like Ryoji Morimoto was merged with Kamen Rider Blade, due to the shows being the only things they are known for. That or Delete it altogether. Hansen SebastianTalk 17:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG as the subject lacks notability and coverage from reliable sources, as other editors have already mentioned above. CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Bronski Beat. ✗plicit 14:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- John Foster (British singer) (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 brief stint as singer of Bronski Beat in the mid-'80s following the departure of Jimmy Somerville is the claim for notability made here. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage is incidental, passing mentions (mostly just namechecks) in larger pieces about the history of the band or other band members' obituaries. Other than these, Discogs and Bandcamp are not RSes. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 10:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Bronski Beat. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Skynxnex (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Bronski Beat. If not notable on his own, this should be restored to the redirect it was before expansion. = paul2520 💬 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The discussion fell along two main lines: one group felt that there was insufficient depth of coverage to support the BLP, the other noted the subject was name-checked in several reliable sources as an important political operative, and was notable. I don't see that either group was able to push through to gain consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Reuben Solomon (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 doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Passing mentions are not enough for WP:NBIO. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Reuben Solomon meets the notability guidelines for a BLP article, as he has been featured substantially in multiple articles from leading and reputable UK news sources. These articles provide significant coverage of Solomon, discussing his key roles and contributions in shaping digital strategies for influential political campaigns, and demonstrating his notability as an individual in the field of political communication. The available sources are reliable and independent, further supporting the stand-alone article on Reuben Solomon that adheres to notability standards. Typically, read the article entitled "Liz Truss v Rishi Sunak: Who's winning the social media war?", BBC, 23 July 2022, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62238068. This reputable BBC article delves into the distinct differences between Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak’s digital campaigns in their bid for Prime Minister. Reuben Solomon, who “runs Truss’ social team”, is focused on as leading and shaping her digital strategy as the article contrasts both digital campaigns, emphasizing the significance of digital media communication in modern political races. BLP certainly meets WP:NBIO.Didgeridoo2022 (talk 12:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, United Kingdom, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- keep/comment Well, I think all sources discusses the subject in enough depth accord with WP:BIO etc. For example, The Telegraph article examines key members of Liz Truss’s team, with a particular focus on Reuben Solomon. Similarly, before becoming a Special Adviser, he was covered by The Guardian, which exposed him as the person behind influential political advertising campaigns. This significant coverage generated a lot of interest on social media. And, The Byline Times article also covers him. Actually, I believe that in the UK he is notable due to the recent political events and involvement of social media in campaigns. B&W penguin (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources' publications are generally reliable, however the mentions seem pretty slim and in-passing on my reading. I can't access The Telegraph article B&W Penguin refers to, but other Telegraph articles I can access barely mention him. The other sources on the page similarly briefly mention him at best. Similarly, The Guardian article refers to Solomon as one of the "individual[s] with the ability to place adverts" on a Facebook page, who "worked for Crosby", "is also connected to a page called We are the 52%" and is "listed as an administrator on at least a dozen other pro-Brexit pages". I don't see how this meets WP:ANYBIO? The BBC article Digeridoo refers to mentions Solomon once: "Liz Truss's social team, run by Reuben Solomon, former head of digital at the Conservative Party, and a protege of Boris Johnson's favourite election strategist Sir Lynton Crosby, have played it safer so far.". Again, I can't see this passing mention meeting WP:ANYBIO? I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- He's a webmaster for a political party, that's basically what a social media strategist is these days. He's in the PR department and runs things, which isn't otherwise notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete He gets brief mentions in sources, but nothing in total to push him to WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Expanding on what I wrote earlier and for those who cannot access The Telegraph, here is a synopsis:
How Liz Truss snapped up the finest minds in wonkland to run her bid for No 10. The Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/27/how-liz-truss-plundered-best-westminster-wonkland-take-rishi/ 27 July 2022 The Telegraph article examines key members of Liz Truss’s team, with a particular focus on Reuben Solomon, who occupies “one of the most critical roles” as the head of digital. This article prominently features a photo of Reuben Solomon. Controversial articles about digital campaigns. Facebook Brexit ads secretly run by staff of Lynton Crosby firm. The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/03/grassroots-facebook-brexit-ads-secretly-run-by-staff-of-lynton-crosby-firm Wed 3 Apr 2019 The Guardian’s article highlights Reuben Solomon as a central figure in discreetly orchestrating “hugely influential” pro-Brexit Facebook advertising campaigns. It discloses Solomon’s significant role in managing influential groups that together spent up to £1 million on targeted advertising. This article garnered substantial attention on social media in 2019 and has been cited by The Guardian on multiple times, including here and as recently as last year. Content Creating Over Policy Making: The Next Instagram Prime Minister. Byline Times - https://bylinetimes.com/2022/07/28/content-creating-over-policy-making-the-next-instagram-prime-minister/ 28 July 2022 The Byline Times article emphasizes the growing importance of branding and social media presence over policy in the leadership race, underscoring Reuben Solomon’s crucial role in Truss’s campaign, managing her social media strategy. As both candidates focus on their online presence and catchy slogans, the article implies that they might prioritize content creation over policy making. So we have more than just “passing mentions” and therefore the article does meet WP:BIO. This also refutes that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON which states “If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered.”Didgeridoo2022 talk 01:06, 4 Apr 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Didgeridoo2022. I don't think that those articles cover Mr Soloman in sufficient depth to meet WP:NBIO. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)- Keep. I'm in general agreement with what B&W Penguin says above and most of what Didgeridoo2022 says. The media mentions about Solomon do mean he is notable enough to justify WP:BIO in my opinion, however, I do think at times the article erred away from neutrality in it's tone with reference to some of the points such as Solomon's nickname of 'Social Media Wizard'. I have trimmed the article myself to address this and believe it now reads much more as a neutral article. As said previously, my opinion is that the article is justified due to Solomon's various roles with the UK government and his mentions in the media. Nmill8093 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article is well-sourced and meets WP:NBIO. In addition to the previously mentioned sources, Reuben Solomon has been featured in multiple other respected publications. Before Liz Truss became Prime Minister, The Times, a respected national newspaper in Britain, highlighted Reuben Solomon in the article “Liz Truss’s blueprint for her first month as prime minister.” (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-trusss-blueprint-for-her-first-month-as-prime-minister-hlggwh27x). Under the heading “Appointing the big beasts” the article identifies him as Truss’s ‘social media wizard’ at the Foreign Office “credited with keeping her profile as slick as her competitor’s, is in line to become the head of digital.” Then when she did become Prime Minister, Politico (a leading political news outlet) published an article titled “How Liz Truss did it,” (https://www.politico.eu/article/how-liz-truss-did-it/) which highlighted him as a key adviser assembled on her campaign team throughout the summer. Two articles in PR Week, (a leading publication in the PR industry) also covered him in the context of Truss’s senior team. In the article, the director of WPI (a political strategy firm) stated that “Her Downing Street team will undoubtedly include a top-class digital operator, likely Reuben Solomon, who will ensure she continues to communicate directly with the electorate” (https://www.prweek.com/article/1798063/liz-truss-plan-no-10-comms) while another article described Solomon's role as the person “in charge” of managing the Prime Minister's social media presence. (https://www.prweek.com/article/1798129/team-truss-taking-shape-raft-comms-hires). In a separate search, I found additional coverage of Reuben Solomon: “Spads, super-strategists and secret weapons — meet the real stars behind the Tory leadership campaigns.” from The Evening Standard, a widely read, London-based newspaper. This article provides an in-depth look at the key players involved in the Conservative Party leadership campaigns. It highlights the various experts, advisers, and strategists who have played a crucial role in shaping the campaigns and includes Solomon under the sub-heading “The Instagram experts”, highlighting him as the former CCHQ head of digital, and considered to be the man behind her social media successes. (https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/conservative-leadership-race-campaign-teams-social-media-comms-special-advisors-lizz-truss-rishi-sunak-b1013495.html). By the way, MrsSnoozyTurtle, his surname is Solomon, not Soloman.Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)- Delete he's gotten his name in media enough times, but there is hardly anything about him as a person. Talking to media and being the subject of a media piece are two different things. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. To reiterate, Reuben Solomon has been featured in multiple major and respected publications such as The BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Evening Standard, Politico and PR Week, which highlight his significant, widely recognized and occasionally controversial contributions to the political and digital spheres in the United Kingdom.
The coverage in these reputable sources aligns completely with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies, specifically WP:NBIO, which requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Given the numerous reliable and independent sources acknowledging his prominence in political advisory and digital media strategy, Reuben Solomon clearly meets the criteria for a standalone Wikipedia article, and as such, the article should be retained.Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment I think everyone agrees that he is mentioned and is in Media. Obviously, if someone is notable is in media and especially all reliable sources. This is in the UK only therefore it's like this because in UK politics he is notable.B&W penguin (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The detractors’ reasons for deletion seem to have become more irrelevant with each passing comment. Is there perhaps just a little hint of something else in their intent?ZogNitKeynmol (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)- Comment Featured in the publications doesn't equal notability. He's always mentioned in connection with some government thing/talking point, there is very little about him as a person, or that discusses him at length. He's a civil servant that is good at PR work. Not terribly notable outside of that context. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I'm with User:Oaktree b on this - the fellow is (was?) in a non-elected position in the UK government, so his name appears from time to time in the newspaper. None of the articles are about him, one may hint at him but doesn't even name him, and the remainder are mentions in articles about someone or something else. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment . This has gone on long enough. One could even question the motives of the original AfD. There are so many articles on Wikipedia similar to this one that don't get the same attention. Why was this one singled out? There are many references in this discussion that repudiate the latest contribution. Using words like "the fellow is (was?)" , "name appears from time to time", "None of the articles are about him, one may hint at him", "the remainder are mentions in articles about someone or something else" are just not true! There's a saying in Yiddish: "Mentsh vas hat nisht lib yidn zenen vi termitn - zey lebn ineveynik aun itst aun dan kumen aoys fun di holts"ZogNitKeynmol (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hello ZogNitKeynmol, which independent sources do you believe provide the in-depth coverage needed to prove notability? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- "There are so many articles on Wikipedia similar to this one that don't get the same attention." See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Take your pick: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62238068; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/27/how-liz-truss-plundered-best-westminster-wonkland-take-rishi/; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/03/grassroots-facebook-brexit-ads-secretly-run-by-staff-of-lynton-crosby-firm; https://bylinetimes.com/2022/07/28/content-creating-over-policy-making-the-next-instagram-prime-minister/; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-trusss-blueprint-for-her-first-month-as-prime-minister-hlggwh27x; (https://www.politico.eu/article/how-liz-truss-did-it/; https://www.prweek.com/article/1798063/liz-truss-plan-no-10-comms; https://www.prweek.com/article/1798129/team-truss-taking-shape-raft-comms-hires; (https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/conservative-leadership-race-campaign-teams-social-media-comms-special-advisors-lizz-truss-rishi-sunak-b1013495.html ZogNitKeynmol (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Surveyor General of Western Australia. Complex/Rational 14:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Henry James Houghton (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)
Contested prod. Zero in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources. Current sourcing is only a government publication and a database. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 08:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Surveyor General of Western Australia as ATD for the time being. We have articles on other holders of this post so it is possible that this article could be restored and expanded in the future. Mccapra (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Geography, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This article lacks significant sources needed to establish notability. Several of the other articles on holders of this post were also just recently created by the same person, and these similarly lack GNG-compliant sourcing, so their existence is no basis for maintaining this one. John Sherlock Brooking is sourced to some unreliable/non-substantive genealogy pages and a facebook page. John Percy Camm and others are similar. I would ask the creator to become more familiar with sourcing to reliable and significant coverage before creating any more articles. Reywas92Talk 17:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect per Mccapra. Deus et lex (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Surveyor General of Western Australia: Article simply fails WP:GNG ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 04:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Comments are equally divided by Keep and Delete, but the Delete side has made the very good point that there is little evidence that this is not simply a new story (NOTNEWS/ONEEVENT). (Comment aside from closing remarks) I am not from the USA, but based on this article I could probably write an article about pretty much every murder in my home country. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Death of Lubunga Lumenge (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)
Tragic, but no more notable than any of the thousands of gun deaths reported on every year. Nswix (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tennessee. Nswix (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a well sourced article about an event with WP:SIGCOV. The WP:RECENT guideline is simply a reminder to give equal weight to recently occuring events, not a prohibition on covering them, provided they meet notability guidelines, which this article appears to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patr2016 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's WP:REFBOMB'd. They found every single local and Christian article mentioning this and just added them all. Nswix (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Events. Skynxnex (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. There does not seem any valid reason to delete this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see any reason to delete this, and other users have mentioned its significance, and I have copy edited it so it has good grammar and spelling. Although I did feel it was WP:REFBOMBd, the amount of references seemed way too much for me.Vamsi20 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS/ROUTINE. A man who worked as a pastor was murdered in a major American city, and this was reported on by local media and various Christian-oriented outlets of dubious churnalistic unoriginal quality. All we know is who he was and where his body was found. Is this really worthy of an encyclopedia article? Is there any lasting significance to this killing? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A regrettable event. WP:ONEEVENT, NOTNEWS and refbombed with involved local/special interest media and generally spotty sources as noted above by others. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hannah Handeland (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)
Football player on an amateur third tier. No significant sources in the article, only primary and databases, and what sources exist about such a low tier is not significant coverage anyway. To clarify, it's as significant as coverage about the next-door high school track meet. Geschichte (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Football, and Norway. SanemAyhan07 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, does not have SIGCOV. --Mvqr (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - This Aftenposten article appears to potentially be in-depth coverage (some elements of an interview, but it has a byline and what looks like independent coverage), but it's paywalled. Does anyone with access have the ability to paste some of the contents here so we can evaluate it? Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It is pretty clear, as pointed out by a couple of commenters that weren't socks, that advertorial content cannot be used as a method of passing GNG. Note: I closed this a day early, because the relist note had been deleted accidentally (see history). However, it has been open for 13 days, and the result isn't going to change. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Bhaskar Sharma (Physician) (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)
Contested draftification. Zero in-depth coverage about this individual so doesn't meet WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of 36 and no qualifying positions, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 09:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as a definite NPROF fail. The sources that come up in a search are all low-grade promotional nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. SanemAyhan07 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly lacks notability, article is poorly written only mentioning their occupation and nothing about their life, etc. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Dear @Onel5969
- Thank you for reviewing my article and providing your feedback. I understand your concerns about the notability of the individual I wrote about. However, I would like to contest the draftification of the article on the following grounds:
- Unique contributions: While there may not be in-depth coverage of the individual, they have made unique and significant contributions in their field. For example, Recently Dr Bhaskar Sharma Appointed All India Secretary Medical Wing Of People's Forum Of India and also Dr. Bhaskar Sharma conferred with Medal of Excellence Award 2022 by the International Police Forum. These contributions demonstrate the individual's importance and should be taken into consideration.
- Citation count: While the individual may not have any qualifying positions, the high citation count of 18 demonstrates the interest and impact of their work. This is particularly significant given the limited coverage of the individual in the media. The citations provide evidence of the individual's notability and should be taken into account.
- Potential for expansion: The article was short, but there is potential for it to be expanded with additional information and sources. And now it is improved as per wiki norms so with these additions, the article would provide a valuable resource for readers.
I respectfully request that the article be reconsidered for inclusion on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. Rx (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Passes WP:GNG. He has been subject of multiple news articles which were published in different date, months and year. Like two times in Dainik Bhaskar[1][2] and one time in ABP News.[3]
There is significant coverage about him in many reliable sources like in Mid-Day,[4] ANI News[5] and in ThePrint.[6] He was also felicitated by Donald Trump, President of United States.[7]𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "इटवा में मनाया गया विश्व होम्योपैथी दिवस: याद किए गए होम्योपैथी के आविष्कारक डॉक्टर हैनीमैन, डॉ. भास्कर शर्मा बोले- महिलाओं, बुजुर्गों और बच्चों के लिए होम्योपैथी रामबाण". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). 2022-04-10. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- ^ "सिद्धार्थनगर के वरिष्ठ होम्योपैथिक चिकित्सक को मिली उपलब्धि: डाॅ. भास्कर शर्मा बने कुटाई मूलवर्मन किंगडम के एंबेसडर". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). 2022-12-08. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- ^ Focus, ABP Live (2023-02-25). "Dr Bhaskar Sharma Appointed All India Secretary Medical Wing Of People's Forum Of India". english. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- ^ "Meet world-renowned homeopathic physician of India: Dr. Bhasker Sharma". Mid-day. 2022-06-23. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- ^ "Dr. Bhasker Sharma, a Stalwart Homeopathy Physician of India". ANI News. 2021-01-12. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- ^ "WAC People Council awards Uttar Pradesh's renowned homeopathic doctor with International Prestigious Award 2021". ThePrint. 2021-09-25. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- ^ "Donald Trump felicitates Indian homoeopathic doctor". mint. 2020-12-22. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- Delete None of the sources listed above is independent or secondary, they are all "brand posts" or similar, or press releases. --bonadea contributions talk 15:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Passes WP:GNG As He has His Verified Google Scholar[1] And Recently He Has Selected By Indian Goverment For Award Which is a significant Coverage + He Has A Lot Of News Coverage + His Jouranls And Researches As A reliable Resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Puneet Superstar (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment - Hi, @LordVoldemort728: Public relations firms were hired to write the news stories referenced, please check (PR). Visit any of these articles, and you'll see that they all contain backlinks to Bhaskar Sharma's website and are obviously written as brand postings. Nothing but good things about him are said in every article. Brand post tags are present in every article. Due to the fact that ANI is a PR company, it contributes content to all other news websites. 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- What are your comments about he was felicitated by Donald Trump, President of United States? 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 13:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. There is nothing here that is even a claim of notability. The awards he claims to have won are nonsense. They are not some high honour or distinction in the gift of the US President. They are national programmes like the Duke of Edinburgh Awards in the UK (“awarded by the Queen’s consort” (gasp!)) so they are no more notable than winning a spelling bee or a being in the top 1000 winners of egg and spoon races. In addition I don’t even believe the subject won the claimed Youth Fitness Award as he is also the author of “200 books” and thus clearly not a school student, which he would need to be to qualify for it. This kind of bio that you usually get invited to spend $500 on to have inserted into an “exclusive” “Global Platinum Practitioners Directory”, and it’s certainly not the kind of thing that belongs in Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete On top of the failure to meet any relevant notability standard, the claims of treating illnesses with homeopathy don't belong anywhere near an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Fraudulent article (homeopaths are not physicians) consisting entirely of PROMO for a non-notable quack. I anticipate this needing to be salted given the disruption. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Actually this definitely should be salted, it's been deleted at least three times and has a draft. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging @Liz, @Fastily, @Seraphimblade as deleting admins. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Concur with speedying up the deletion process and with salting. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I had thought that the editor who created the page would have responded to this article for deletion discussion by adding proof of notability. But it hasn't happened. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Quackpedia. EEng 04:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Bhasker Sharma". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-04-05.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Abdul Raziq Kakar (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)
Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Pretty promotional article, so much so that I might suspect some UPE/COI. Onel5969 TT me 09:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete this is built on passing mentions and quotes from the subject. He clearly enjoys some renown as the initiator of World Donkey Day but I don’t think enough here for an NPROF pass. Mccapra (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Judging by Google Scholar results he seems to have more renown for his work with camels than with donkeys, but it still doesn't look like enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. SanemAyhan07 (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: per WP:NACADEMIC, resume like article, ref doesn't establish notability, brief mentions have no WP:SIGCOV. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no notability established. Jeppiz (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Roger Kirk (presenter) (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)
Biographical article about a radio presenter. Previously nominated (by me) and closed as no consensus. I am bringing this back to AfD some months later as I still believe that even with the links added during the previous discussion, there is no assertion of notability under WP:GNG here and much of the content appears to be WP:OR.
As part of WP:BEFORE I have performed a source analysis on all the sources in this article, including those added during the previous AfD discussion:
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?filt=bbc_radio_one&q=Roger+Kirk#top | Published by the subject's employer at the time, the BBC | BBC Genome is generally considered reliable for BBC schedule information | Database entry | ✘ No |
https://web.archive.org/web/20080608013623/http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/Roger_Kirk | Does not appear to have been written by the subject | This is a wiki, ie. WP:UGC | Page is specifically about the subject | ✘ No |
https://www.mixcloud.com/radionut2013/roger-kirk-opens-classicgold/ | Dead link, 404 | Anyone can upload to MixCloud, ie. WP:UGC | Dead link | ✘ No |
https://www.mixcloud.com/JONOAUDIO/17-july-1990-lauch-of-magic-828/ | Audio recording of the subject presenting a radio show, no critical commentary or analysis given | Anyone can upload to MixCloud, ie. WP:UGC | Page is specifically about the subject | ✘ No |
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=5896281 | Dead link | Forum thread, WP:UGC | Dead link | ✘ 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}}. |
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Source review table shows this isn't a notable radio person. I don't find anything beyond proof they exist. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I've also done a search in the archives of Broadcast (magazine) for mentions of this individual. He is mentioned, but only in passing in the context of various stations:
- Broadcast, 8 September 1975, article about Pennine Radio's launch: "...and former Capital engineer Roger Kirk on in the afternoons."
- Broadcast, 14 February 1977, article about changes to Pennine Radio's schedule: "...and extending the pop music shows of Roger Kirk and Julius K Scragg from three to four hours each."
- Broadcast, 1 June 1990, general article about Trans World Communications splitting its FM and AM stations: "Aire [...] Roger Kirk has joined from neighbouring Classic Gold to present the morning breakfast show."
I don't think any of these constitute significant coverage, they are all just passing mentions in the context of wider articles about changes to radio stations, but wanted to make sure the research was complete before nominating. Flip Format (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Whilst I accept that this isn't the best article, it does contain independent references and whilst some may be passing mentions, these sources are perfectly valid and they should be added to the article.Rillington (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Where is your Wikipedia policy-based argument, Rillington? This is just WP:ILIKEIT. Flip Format (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: The article contains independent references and your own research found three additional independent references and it would be beneficial if you were to add those to the article. Rillington (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The source assessment table above shows my own assessment of the sources already in the article. One is a basic piece of schedule information showing that Kirk existed; two are links to Mixcloud (one is dead); one is a link to an archived off-site wiki and is WP:UGC and one is a dead link to a forum (also WP:UGC). Feel free to do your own analysis of these sources, but I doubt you will find any different.
- The Broadcast mentions are just that - passing mentions of the subject in the context of articles about radio stations, mentioning that he's moved from this to that program. There are no other mentions of Kirk beyond the three above, and no articles about Kirk. How does Kirk meet WP:GNG in your view? Flip Format (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think it comes down to this. You have decided to engage in a mass article cull, and now you are going after articles for a second time, as is the case here. I think this is wrong and frankly unhelpful and I feel justified to respectfully and politely call you out on this. Maybe you could explain why you have chosen not to take the constructive approach of improving these articles rather than spending significant amounts of time trying to get them deleted. You clearly care about the articles on Wikipedia so why not be constructive rather than destructive? This may sound harsh but this is how I feel.
- Regarding this article and the three references you have found, so what if they are passing mentions? Broadcast magazine is a trusted source so rather than doubling down on your desire to get this article deleted, why not add the references to the article as doing so would improve the article. Rillington (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is not relevant to this AfD and appears to be a personal comment about me as a user. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page - this space is for the AfD discussion on Roger Kirk (presenter). Flip Format (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- The second part of my comment is very relevant to the discussion and the reason I posted the first part here was because you are making a second attempt to get this article deleted. However, you are right that the overall theme of that comment might be better on your talkpage because I do have an issue with people who want to see lots of articles deleted and I feel that I am within my rights to politely challenge this.Rillington (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is not relevant to this AfD and appears to be a personal comment about me as a user. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page - this space is for the AfD discussion on Roger Kirk (presenter). Flip Format (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding this article and the three references you have found, so what if they are passing mentions? Broadcast magazine is a trusted source so rather than doubling down on your desire to get this article deleted, why not add the references to the article as doing so would improve the article. Rillington (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom's analysis. SBKSPP (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Not the most thorough article, however there are enough independent sources to justify it remaining on Wikipedia, even if it's a stub. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per analysis presented above and a lack of coverage out there in the big bad world. We simply aren't getting beyond WP:GNG here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I checked Keith Skues' Pop Went The Pirates 2nd ed. - the only mention of him there is his name in the list of RNLI DJs. Adam Sampson (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lawrence Baca (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 clearly fails WP:GNG, sourcing in article inadequate, WP:BEFORE shows nothing out there. Sent to draft and returned to mainspace, the only loss to Wikipedia in this deletion is saying goodbye to the timeless prose, "Lawrence Baca would get his first camera after he graduated from Harvard and would use that camera to take photos of landscapes all across the United States. One of the pictures he took were in the State of Utah, sites that had huge red figures or sites that had many holes." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: It sounds like this person could be notable if we dig around and find some sources. Also lets try to be mindful that this article was written as part of the Student Program and give this fella some grace. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 09:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Went though and added much better sources, the subject of the article is one of the first Native American civil rights lawyers and appears to be notable. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 10:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: based on new sources I would say it is notable.Pershkoviski (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep seems to meet WP:GNG (with credit to Dr vulpes). -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY and my own standards for notable lawyers. Specifically, "trying a notable case ... [and] being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law." Bearian (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus . After two relists there still does not appear to be a consensus on whether to keep or redirect the article. Aoidh (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Brian Liu (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)
Moved to draft, pushed back into mainspace, redirect reverted, notability tags removed. A page patroller's dream, really. Subject is not notable, does not pass WP:GNG, does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, either in the article or upon search. Wikipedia is not Crunchbase. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Law, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, seems like there's enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The guy's also a co-founder of LegalZoom, so it seems like he passes WP:GNG. Correct me if I'm wrong. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 07:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to LegalZoom, the coverage appears to focus more on the company than Liu himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, He meets WP:BASIC which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Please note that he has a lot of coverage. I have also found some new coverage in law360.com and law.com, both behind paywall but you can still read with the free trial. Royal88888 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to LegalZoom as it's borderline WP:BIO1E. None of his other ventures even have articles, and sourcing is routine press coverage. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Beemer69 Actually you are wrong about that. All his ventures have at least 1 or 2 citations. The Overture one did not have these law360.com and law.com which I stated above, but I just have added them. Both are behind paywall but you can still read with the free trial.Royal88888 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- KEEP - He has coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and not primary.Pershkoviski (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Legal Zoom, he's mostly known for that and doesn't seem to have met GNG as a law person alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Oaktree bSee my comment below to @SWinxy Royal88888 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
RedirectWeak redirect to LegalZoom. His other ventures cited in the article are not about him per se (and a good amount of those refs are not good sources). A good amount already is or can be on the LegalZoom article. SWinxy (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)- @SWinxy per WP:BASIC when full articles are not about him, multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Plus several sources are not about LegalZoom and are about his other ventures. I would have agreed with you if he was only "known for one thing," but he has also launched multiple other companies and there are independent sources about them, such as law360 and law.com. Royal88888 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I mean I guess they can be combined. I'll change to a weak redirect. SWinxy (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- @SWinxy per WP:BASIC when full articles are not about him, multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Plus several sources are not about LegalZoom and are about his other ventures. I would have agreed with you if he was only "known for one thing," but he has also launched multiple other companies and there are independent sources about them, such as law360 and law.com. Royal88888 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I've heard of him, and he appears to be borderline notable, but the evidence of notability is slim. I could go with either keep, merge, or redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The headcount was 7–4 in favour of keeping and with the debate largely consisting of assertions for and against coverage being routine, there isn't anything else to go on. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Jeremy Dewitte (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 is one of those "point-and-laugh" small-time criminal articles that represent the very worst of what's possible on Wikipedia, serving only to attract BLP violations while presenting no encyclopedic benefit. On some occasions, we are forced to maintain such articles because they pass GNG, but that is not the case here. All of the coverage is routine local news articles, each consisting of "Man gets arrested/convicted" and then a summary of past routine coverage, with the sole exception of [8], which is mostly an interview and not stated in the source's own voice.
Every city in America has a number of career criminals who gain some modicum of local interest such that they're written up whenever they're arrested. This is particularly true in Florida where, famously, the media are notified of all arrests upon booking. That kind of routine local coverage is not what "significant coverage" refers to; it's the very reason we put "significant" there. An encyclopedia has better things to do than regurgitate tabloids and crime blotters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Florida. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I initially agreed with your assessment when I looked at this months ago, but there is more than local coverage. In addition to what you mentioned above, there is national coverage. Not to mention he was featured on Dr. Phil.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep (as article creator) I don't understand/agree with the "point and laugh" comment. He's a registered sex offender, who has made English and Spanish language news many times, over many years. I think this provides encyclopaedic value, based on the hundreds of visitors who read the page daily. I think he passes WP:GNG. Obviously he's not likeable, but I think he is notable. I don't think any policies or guidelines, including WP:GNG discount local coverage, so I don't understand that part of the rationale either. I also note the national coverage above. A lot of the currently cited coverage is from WFTV which is media establishment with a 65 year history, I am not very familiar with it, but my assessment was that it was a reliable source. I urge people to search for him before !voting, because from my perspective, he seems not just notable, but very notable. CT55555(talk) 06:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- The issue with local coverage isn't that it's local; it's that it often tends to very routine stories that don't really indicate the significance of the topic at hand. For instance, any school superintendent will receive a considerable amount of local news coverage, but they usually won't be notable, because that coverage will all be routine, without any in-depth discussion of the superintendent themself. Is there in-depth discussion of Dewitte? Are there sources that say more than "Local man arrested again"? Even the two national sources (both from marginally reliable sources for BLPs, for what it's worth) don't say much more than that. What matters is depth, not volume. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- The most recent news on him is this. It's 628 words, all about him. That seems like significant coverage to me. Just to give one example. CT55555(talk) 06:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with User:CT55555 this is WP:GNG. Barely, but the repeat offences have garnered national coverage, and he's been on national media. I added a Daily Beast article to the page to bolster this. This is no superintendent getting periodic press mentions - he's notable for his repeated crimes and has gotten substantive coverage.Oblivy (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- The issue with local coverage isn't that it's local; it's that it often tends to very routine stories that don't really indicate the significance of the topic at hand. For instance, any school superintendent will receive a considerable amount of local news coverage, but they usually won't be notable, because that coverage will all be routine, without any in-depth discussion of the superintendent themself. Is there in-depth discussion of Dewitte? Are there sources that say more than "Local man arrested again"? Even the two national sources (both from marginally reliable sources for BLPs, for what it's worth) don't say much more than that. What matters is depth, not volume. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Its states on the article "Posted by Osceola County Sheriff's Office". It is an affiliate news and is not indepedent coverage. It is generic and base. scope_creepTalk 06:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think you are misreading this - there is an embedded video and picture which were posted by the Sheriff's office. The article has a byline, "Matt Young" whose name appears on other articles on the site. Oblivy (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Its states on the article "Posted by Osceola County Sheriff's Office". It is an affiliate news and is not indepedent coverage. It is generic and base. scope_creepTalk 06:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV - while there is national coverage, it's not significant. UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is defined as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" - Can you tell me how the Fox News article or being the main focus of a nationally broadcast talk show would not be considered "significant" under that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not UtherSRG, but: Dr. Phil is not a reliable source (very very far from it), so it doesn't matter whether that coverage is significant. The Fox piece is routine coverage of an arrest. There's not nearly enough there to build a proper biography out of. When you write a BLP based only on arrest/conviction reports, you get something that is not fair under either WP:N nor WP:BLP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is defined as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" - Can you tell me how the Fox News article or being the main focus of a nationally broadcast talk show would not be considered "significant" under that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Jeremy Dewitte is one of the worlds most famous police impersonators. Simple google search yields thousands of Dewitte focused webpages worldwide. He's been featured on multiple national programs including Fox, Dr. Phil, A&E Court Cam. There is a Facebook Group named "JEREMY DEWITTE / METRO STATE FAN CLUB" with 5,000 members and daily in-depth discussion. The story of Jeremy Dewitte is not a simple here today gone tomorrow character. While I can see how this may seem insignificant or local, it is my opinion that there is informational value to keeping with a significant international audience. 70.94.118.14 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- None of those are reliable sources. There are YouTubers and other influencers with followings in the tens of millions whom we've ruled non-notable. All you're demonstrating is that the article is, as I said, of the "point-and-laugh" variety. We are here to document encyclopedically relevant information, not herd lolcows. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Editor is a WP:SPA who has made few other edits to Wikipedia.
- Delete Effectively a routine police report rebadged and represented as supposedely a significant and notable individual when there is not a single thing on the article that makes him notable. Registered sex offenders are 10 a penny and its not the job of WP to hold public notice on these folk. Generic and useless. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 06:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)- Keep - While the article definitely needs rewriting, a simple Google search found enough notable independent coverage regarding him on a national, state, and regional scale. NAADAAN (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete on looking at the news for this person, I was surprised to see a little Wikipedia box in the google results. further surprise and dismay to see an actual article for a trivial and non-notable individual. This is a minor internet viral sensation with a smattering of coverage in local news, social media, and some news-of-the-weird coverage in real media. this qualifies IMO as a [WP:BIO1E]], a person only known for one thing, i.e. impersonating law enforcement. ValarianB (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- One event does not mean one theme of events. He has done it many times over many years, so many events, surely? CT55555(talk) 16:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- no, we don't tally up each criminal act, the man has "gone viral" for his overall string of impersonations. that is singular in terms of notability, otherwise we'd have every two-bit Instagram influencer here with an article. ValarianB (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am tallying up the events that made the news to a total of more than one. If a "two-bit Instagram influencer" made local and national news various times, for various acts, on various years, I would probably also argue that they are notable for more than one event. If someone says "one event" it is logical that I will tally up the acts, or events.
- Or let me put it a different way: when the did "one event" happen? Which year? CT55555(talk) 17:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not every two-bit Instagram influencer gets featured on a national talk show or in national press based on their continuous conduct. I understand the sentiment that this guy shouldn't be notable for being a low-level criminal. However, it is his repeated conduct over the decades as a reason why the media found him worthy of notice, hence notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- no, we don't tally up each criminal act, the man has "gone viral" for his overall string of impersonations. that is singular in terms of notability, otherwise we'd have every two-bit Instagram influencer here with an article. ValarianB (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete on looking at the news for this person, I was surprised to see a little Wikipedia box in the google results. further surprise and dismay to see an actual article for a trivial and non-notable individual. This is a minor internet viral sensation with a smattering of coverage in local news, social media, and some news-of-the-weird coverage in real media. this qualifies IMO as a [WP:BIO1E]], a person only known for one thing, i.e. impersonating law enforcement. ValarianB (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per sources above. Meets GNG and BIO, IS RS with SIGCOV addresses the subject directly and indepth and the coverage is LASTING and far from ROUTINE. // Timothy :: talk 10:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm glad to find that I am finally in the majority here, which has not always been the consensus. I see nothing wrong with naming, blaming, and shaming notable living persons . Bearian (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus . 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Frank Trojahn (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 is currently resume-like, and there does not appear to be significant coverage or enough sources to meet notability guidelines. Uffda608 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. He appears to have been chief of the Danish naval staff. Clearly there are sufficient sources available to cover the head of a European country's navy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep As the head of the Danish navy he seems sufficiently noteworthy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd imagine there must be some coverage of him in e.g. newspapers, but I'm having a hard time finding any. Necrothesp and Hawkeye7, any luck finding RS? -Ljleppan (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- To expand a bit, all I'm finding is short quotes like this, which don't really contribute to notability. And given that WP:NSOLDIER is not a thing, we really need the SIGCOV. Also noting that if SIGCOV can be identified for notability, this still looks like it's in need of a near-complete rewrite. Ljleppan (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's... not a strong showing, I have to be honest.
- is a speech by him
- doesn't really say anything about him
- is a very passing, reducing to "so-and-so visited so-and-so"
- has pretty much zero content
- "Rear Adm. Frank Trojahn, an attaché from Denmark, examines the cockpit of a UH-60" is pretty far from SIGCOV
- The only thing I can get to show on this page is "Fulde navn: kontreadmiral Frank Trojahn"
- Just an image caption, so-and-so visited so-and-so
- 64 words, including the heading. It's all good info, but incredibly far from SIGCOV
- "so-and-so took part in event X", by the event organizer
- If this is the best there is, I'm worried we're pretty far in the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES territory. Ljleppan (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's... not a strong showing, I have to be honest.
- [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- To expand a bit, all I'm finding is short quotes like this, which don't really contribute to notability. And given that WP:NSOLDIER is not a thing, we really need the SIGCOV. Also noting that if SIGCOV can be identified for notability, this still looks like it's in need of a near-complete rewrite. Ljleppan (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I found a biography here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can discern, HOD is, effectively, the Officers' Union of Denmark with the subject being, presumably, a member. Seems a bit borderline w/r/t independence. Ljleppan (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I found a biography here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete sources provided do not amount to SIGCOV satisfying WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments above, unless better sources are identified. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- To expand on my logic a bit since this seems to keep going: The subject is not covered by any of the WP:NBIO's "Additional Criteria", meaning the article is governed solely by WP:NBASIC, which is equivalent to WP:GNG. There is no inherent notability for military positions (see e.g. the explicit deprecation of WP:NSOLDIER). The sources identified so-far (as analyzed above) are all minimal, and I don't see them contributing at all towards the GNG. The only potential exception is the HOD (Officers' Union of Denmark) biography, but I would not consider that independent (given that the subject is most likely a member, contrast to e.g. citing a police union biography of a chief-of-police). And even if it was independent, more than one good source is needed. Ljleppan (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG as the relevant policy. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:GNG is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria. Since they don’t, however, the strongest case to made here is the one for deletion. Finally, my own research into the subject doesn’t find any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG as the relevant policy. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)- What is wrong with this], which contains a full biography? Why doesn't it count as SIGCOV? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the lengthy biography uncovered by Hawkeye. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- You don't consider the source (an officers' union) non-independent? Ljleppan (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep if we can’t retain a bio of the head of Denmark’s navy we might as well pack up. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hear! Hear! The ridiculous nominations (knowing the dogma of everything and the value of nothing) keep on coming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: There is a lack of reliable sources that detail the subject's background or history. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability is also not inherited. Any efforts to retain this article without additional reliable sources would be only a subjective choice. Multi7001 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ben Muller (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 GNG and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 04:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Even less notable than Piet van der Merwe! Athel cb (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Athel cb - There's no need to say something like that.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG. ABHammad (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Piet Van der Merwe (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 GNG and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 04:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete He built a dam and had a child that rode horses, is his claim for notability? Not even close to GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- My grandchildren, one of them not two yet, also ride horses. Does that make me notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. He didn't even build a dam, he just played "a big part in the building" of a dam. No notability at all. Athel cb (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. While multiple editors felt NOTINHERITED applied, consensus was reached that this article meets the GNG. If desired, merge/redirect discussions may continue at the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ted Jorgensen (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)
Draft that avoided the AFC Review process. Topic is NN via WP:1E and WP:INHERIT. UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Illinois, and New Mexico. UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I have auto patrol rights. To frame this as "avoiding" AFC seems to suggest a misunderstanding of process. CT55555(talk) 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep (as article creator) the suggestion that is is notable for one event is easily disproven, he is clearly notable for multiple events, that fall neatly into two groups of events. The first one is his circus work in the 1960s which was making news for three years. The second is his family connections, which Brad Stone (journalist) wrote about (significant coverage) for his book The Everything Store. That created notability in 2012 when Stone identified him and made news in 2013 and 2014, and as recently as 2021. WP:NOT1E explains clearly how 1E does not apply here, but the main thing is that he made news over various years, for more than one event. Even by 1963, he was noted in news for three (similar, but distinct) events. The one event thing would require him to be a low profile individual. People doing news interviews on national channels are not low profile. See WP:LOWKEY.
- The link to WP:NOTINHERITED is interesting, because it's part of an essay called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It's OK to cite essays here (I did already) but it's only relevant to cite if I someone claimed his notability was inherited. I quote
Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject.
. That is not the case here, nobody made such a claim, he meets WP:GNG which is the real measure of notability. He does so due to the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:
- Three news items 1961 to 1963.
- 2013 news: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/10/10/bezos-amazon-biological-father/2959633/
- Significant coverage in the book The Everything Store
- 2018 news: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-amazon-bezos-dad-chicago-inc-20180220-story.html
- 2014 news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP80jo1_UgU&ab_channel=InsideEdition (note based on an interview, note date of 2019 when it went online, but was broadcast 2014) CT55555(talk) 16:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:INHERIT and the negative side of WP:LOWKEY. Any argument that he did not inherit his notability is unconvincing, because why would anyone talk about him otherwise? His own life is overwhelmingly average and non-notable despite being in a book about his famous relative. The article tries to spruce things up with tidbits like his award from a local hobby club and a broken jaw in 1972, and those easily fail the "significant" language at WP:SIGCOV despite appearing in newspapers. I also have a local club award and a broken bone in my past but neither is newsworthy or encyclopedic. An article about a regular guy's regular life adds no value to Wikipedia, and it violates policy too. The previous redirect of his name to the Jeff Bezos article could be restored as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Everything Store. While I have no issue with CT55555's creation of this article or any others without going through AfC, I don't think Jorgensen is independently notable Star Mississippi 16:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Why that destination? Before moving the draft, the location was occupied with a redirect to Jeff Bezos. Would that suffice? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- That would be fine too. To me it seemed more natural since their connection was identified in tandem with the book's research, and per CT's note above that he's covered therein, but I don't feel strongly. Star Mississippi 16:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Why that destination? Before moving the draft, the location was occupied with a redirect to Jeff Bezos. Would that suffice? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm leaning keep. I don't think the information here works well shoe-horned into either the Jeff Bezos article, or the book (he's not really the subject of either), and yet he seems to me to be the sort of person that a random member of the public might well be interested in, especially given his connection with Bezos. No, notability is not inherited. But if other sources write about someone's connection because they find it interesting (e.g. that Jeff Bezos' father was a unicyclist) then it becomes notable in our terms because of the sourcing (basically, good sources trump almost everything else here). No, just at the human level of thinking what our readers want, I think they'd want this article, and since it's backed up by references, I think it's okay to keep. Elemimele (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 23:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep due to WP:GNG. WP:INHERIT has nothing to do with article content, it is not a valid rationale on its own. Read the essay it says "This section is not a content guideline or policy." INHERIT is "an argument to avoid during deletion discussions" ie. "Keep because he is the father of Jeff Bezos", would be INHERIT argument to avoid. Nobody is making that argument. Sources and content are not regulated by inheritance, if so please show me where. -- GreenC 02:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Scroll down the WP:INHERIT essay some more and you will see "notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent". Therefore it can be argued here that Mr. Jorgensen is non-notable because any media interest in his story is inherited from his famous relative. An essay can be cited in a discussion like this when it is a part of a larger reasoning process, or else the essay wouldn't be here in the first place. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's true that notability is not inherently inherited, that's why the essay exists, one can't simply say "Keep because father of a famous son", we should avoid that argument. However the essay does not say to avoid sources ie. core policies such as RS and V. If a source considers someone notable for coverage, that is what notability is. The essay says "Notability requires verifiable evidence". We got that. -- GreenC 14:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @GreenC is exactly correct. Nobody made the argument that he is inherently notable, instead the his notability stems from WP:GNG pass. As per the essay anyway:
Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG.
CT55555(talk) 15:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @GreenC is exactly correct. Nobody made the argument that he is inherently notable, instead the his notability stems from WP:GNG pass. As per the essay anyway:
- That's true that notability is not inherently inherited, that's why the essay exists, one can't simply say "Keep because father of a famous son", we should avoid that argument. However the essay does not say to avoid sources ie. core policies such as RS and V. If a source considers someone notable for coverage, that is what notability is. The essay says "Notability requires verifiable evidence". We got that. -- GreenC 14:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Scroll down the WP:INHERIT essay some more and you will see "notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent". Therefore it can be argued here that Mr. Jorgensen is non-notable because any media interest in his story is inherited from his famous relative. An essay can be cited in a discussion like this when it is a part of a larger reasoning process, or else the essay wouldn't be here in the first place. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the WP:SIGCOV. The nominator has used an essay as a rationale for deletion. Notability is established by policies and guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to either Jeff Bezos#Early life or The Everything Store. Being a circus performer does not automatically confer notability (unless you're a big star, and that doesn't appear to be the case here), and his relationship to Bezos falls under INHERIT. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've added a bit from this article to Bezos's. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to pass GNG, and the AfC is invalid rationale for deletion. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect Aside from events related to Jeff Bezos, the topic doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone claimed it meets WP:ANYBIO. I do assert that it meets WP:GNG. CT55555(talk) 01:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep If I understand the problem here correctly, the question is if we would keep the article even if he was not the father of Jeff Bezos. In my opinion, the answer is yes. According to the article, Ted Jorgensen was the president of the first club in the world which offered unicycle hockey as a new sport. I think that's notable. RolfSander (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:INHERITORG, being president of a (marginally) notable unicycle hockey club would not give Jorgensen notability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Notability is being claimed on two fronts here:
- Unicylcing - Sources about Jorgensen's "unicycling career" are from the same small local newspaper from the early 60s, are ~3 paragraphs long, focus on the club (not Jorgensen), and only mention Jorgensen as one name in a list or in passing. A few other bits of information (like unsuccessfully auditioning for a TV show) come from books about Bezos which I will go into next. This does not pass GNG as we would not have articles about any of the other club members named in these sources solely on the strength of these small newspaper clippings. Information like the club being the "world's first unicycle hockey club" comes from a source that doesn't even mention Jorgensen.
- Bezos' dad - Sources solely focussing on Bezos or Jorgensen's relationship to Bezos is an example of WP:BIO1E and does not demonstrate general notability. If we set our notability requirements to value these kind of sources, the parents of any notable person that has had a book-length biography written about them would meet GNG.
- Both of these together do not equal much that cannot be summarised in a sentence or two in Jeff Bezos. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm just giving some clarity for those who are claiming SIGCOV based on the unicycling coverage. Here are the sources used and the only sentences in which they mention Jorgensen (emphasis mine of course):
- https://thehockeynews.com/news/the-weird-wild-and-wacky-world-of-unicycle-hockey - does not mention Jorgensen at all.
- Albuquerque Tribune, March 26, 1959 Page 41 -
Perry Pinkerton is president, Ted Jorgensen vice president, Margaret Bradley secretary, and Jimmy Cellic treasurer.
- Albuquerque Tribune. 25 March 1961. p. 8 -
Awards will be presented to Rachel Westerman, most creative entry; Tony Stanphill, anniversary race winner; Ted Jorgensen, most versatile rider.
- Albuquerque Tribune. 27 March 1962. p. 20 -
Ted Jorgensen will be elected as president; Terry Bradley as vice president; Margaret Bradley as secretary, and Perry Pinkerton as treasurer.
- Albuquerque Tribune. 15 February 1963 -
Team members include Terry Williams, Rachel Westerman, Linda Robey, Tommy Ratcliff, Susan Bradley, Perry Pinkerton, Margaret Bradley and Ted Jorgensen.
- Are we seriously going to treat that this as SIGCOV? Is this really encyclopedic information? If so, surely we should have articles for Margaret Bradley (unicyclist) and Perry Pinkerton. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm just giving some clarity for those who are claiming SIGCOV based on the unicycling coverage. Here are the sources used and the only sentences in which they mention Jorgensen (emphasis mine of course):
Comment: There are strong policy based arguments for keeping the article, and there are also strong policy based arguments for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing, the delete and keep arguments have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)- Keep. Appears to be notable with sigcov in several different places over the period of several years. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. None of the sources show IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. NOTINHERITED. // Timothy :: talk 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not even the numerous pages discussing him in The Everything Store? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- That all seems directly connected to Bezos, the relatives of notable people have to have independent notability. I could see a short mention in Bezos article, but I don't see sources for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- You are writing as if there is some guideline that demands people have notability unaffiliated with famous relatives. The only "independence" required is in the normal sense = not from sources they are involved in. WP:NOTINHERITED is just an essay with a list of arguments to avoid at AFD, ironically. And even WP:NOTINHERITED opines that people
can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG.
CT55555(talk) 21:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- You are writing as if there is some guideline that demands people have notability unaffiliated with famous relatives. The only "independence" required is in the normal sense = not from sources they are involved in. WP:NOTINHERITED is just an essay with a list of arguments to avoid at AFD, ironically. And even WP:NOTINHERITED opines that people
- That all seems directly connected to Bezos, the relatives of notable people have to have independent notability. I could see a short mention in Bezos article, but I don't see sources for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not even the numerous pages discussing him in The Everything Store? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Has WP:SIGCOV and is notable for more than one thing.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep- Many good articles have been deleted because of bias judgements. With source above, it qualify WP:GNG that should be the center focus not unrealistic comments.Robin499 (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: (1) as per convincing argument by Elemimele, and (2) sufficient sources to build an article, pass WP:GNG and thus meeting WP:INHERIT Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. ResonantDistortion 16:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cutting through the noise, this is a BLP1E and its existence is not justified by policy. Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- David Hu (IIG) (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)
Absent the coverage on his crime, there is no in-depth coverage about this person. Case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 12:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: sources are enough for GNG. Wei Yuqi (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, has Bloomberg and Washington Post as sources so there's GNG. Martin Augustyn Zhou (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - sources meet WP:GNG. BLP1E requires subject to have small role in event, but that is not the case here (see WP:NOTBLP1E).Shubham BaGi (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some input from some uninvovled editors, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Totally agree with Onel5969 TT me--Bexaendos (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: what onel5969 wrote is not true. There is significant coverage from [18], [19], [20] on David Hu's work as CIO before 2022 when he was sentenced. Coverage meets WP:GNG. Kwwis (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Those links are all about his scam - it's even obvious from the URLs alone. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- If you read closely, the sources [21], [22], [23] give in-depth coverage of Hu's role at IIG, how he provided loans for Central and South American SMEs, using fish and food as collateral. It discusses how Hu advised a Venezuela fund and how Hu made money from a management fee. This is coverage of his work outside the crime. Kwwis (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Those links are all about his scam - it's even obvious from the URLs alone. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: Completely agree with what others have said above. Also, this was not a single event. Article is backed by reliable sources, meriting WP:GNG and describes David Hu's decade of work experience outside of his prison sentence. Moreover, according to WP:NOTBLP1E, WP:BIO1E, the criteria is that the individual's role in the event is not substantial or well-documented. However, this is the complete opposite here, where David Hu's role in the Ponzi scheme is substantial and backed by reliable sources as mentioned above. Zipperlock (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep According to policy WP:RSP, Washington Post and Bloomberg are reliable sources. Moreover, article cites the US Department of Justice. --Caishikou (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please, hint: there are no grounds for a speedy keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Onel is right on the money here, all coverage is in relation to this one event, and the presence of background information in that coverage doesn't change that. WP:BLP1E doesn't require that somebody have done literally nothing beyond the one event to be non-notable. What it does require is for the subject to have received no coverage beyond that one event. Seeing as how by at least one voters' own admission that background can only be found if you "read carefully" in coverage relating to the Ponzi scheme, that additional coverage isn't there. -fuzzy510 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- But that misses the point that David Hu played a large role in the event, so by WP:NOTBLP1E the article should be kept. Zipperlock (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to IIG Capital - BLP1E applies here. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep because yes, BLP1E does indeed apply: BLP1E states that we offer subjects the courtesy of not writing articles about them if they are only known for that event, if they wouldn't otherwise be known, and if the event was minor, their role was minor, or the event was poorly documented. In this case, the event was reasonably substantial, and his role was major, so by BLP1E, the article should be kept. If we delete because people are known for one negative event only, we wouldn't have an article on Elizabeth Holmes either. Elemimele (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Agree with Elemimele and others. First WP:NOTBLP1E requires the subject's role to be minor, but here David Hu played a significant role in the event. Second, article sources satisfy WP:GNG. Third, Bloomberg, Washington Post are WP:RSP, and article further cites US government DOJ and SEC. Gan Zuolin (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:NOTBLP1E is an essay. WP:BLP1E only says that if those 3 conditions are not met, "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". It does NOT say that if all 3 ARE met than the person is notable. And regardless, all 3 conditions are met. 1. Absent the event, no significant coverage of the person is available; 2. The scarcity of non-event coverage shows that the person was low-profile; and 3. the event was not significant.Onel5969 TT me 09:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- The third condition says "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" but here the individual's role is substantial and well documented by reliable sources, so the third condition fails. Thus, by WP:BLP1E the article should be kept. Gan Zuolin (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Arabs in Belgium (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 is based on a problematic issue. It claims that "Arab Belgians ... are Belgians whose ancestry traces back to the Arab World". This is false, as many people who come from the Arab World do not identify as Arabs. 20% of the Libyan population and 30% of the Moroccan population are Berbers, for example. This article includes Lubna Azabal, whose ancestry is Berber, and the vast majority of examples provide no sources to say that these people (all BLPs) are "Arabs". Moroccans in Belgium is more precise and already exists, and this article duplicates most of it. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, and Belgium. Qwv (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete energetically. Per nom.—Alalch E. 19:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete quickly. Per nom. // Timothy :: talk 19:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: I have removed anything that has nothing to do with the Arabs and clarified some things. You should take a look at this too Berbers in Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: It is possible to keep the text, but you have to remove almost everything, only the first and third paragraph would remain. The text has another problem: it mentions mosques, but Islam is not synonymous with Arab, and there may even be people whose ancestry is completely Belgian and have converted to Islam. Jvbignacio9 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: since this has such a strong connection to BLPs strong consideration should be paid to whether this inclusion category is well defined enough per WP:PRECISE and nom arguements to have an article. Is its content or history in the article that is worth keeping if it was renamed and/or the inclusion criteria/lead changed to reflect a more WP:PRECISE criteria (if so exactly what is that content worth saving)? Again the strong connection to BLPs should be a main factor in considering all this; the number of BLPs that have been removed from the article and the nom show (as well as the recent ANI [24] related to all this) the article has a nebulous and unclear criteria. // Timothy :: talk 02:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as the population figures include non-Arabs, the content about the Arab European League is covered by Arab European League and the information about mosques at Islam in Belgium#Religious infrastructure and Great Mosque of Brussels, and removing that would leave nothing apart from a contentious BLP list. If anyone finds good sources on Arabs in Belgium as a topic, I'm open to changing my mind. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and others above, and possibly merge somewhere if the text needs to be preserved. CycloneYoris talk! 08:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - as per the nom's concerns.Onel5969 TT me 20:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was 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. Salvio giuliano 19:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Brian Bonar (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 BLP of a business executive is poorly sourced. Does not meet WP:GNG. Thesixserra (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Thesixserra (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Willem Ouweneel (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 doesn't seem to be WP:BASIC notability. The cited sources are interviews with the subject, quotes from his publications, and an opinion piece critcizing him. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and Netherlands. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 04:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:GNG, Not a notable person. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The degree of coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIAL, falling short of satisfying WP:GNG requirements. While there is some coverage of the subject, it does not amount to WP:SIGCOV and is WP:ROUTINE in nature. Overall, these point to a lack of subject WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Keeping the article would be justified if the subject had independent WP:SIGCOV (i.e. above and beyond WP:TRIVIAL) thus meeting WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG standards. However, the nature of existing coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE in nature, failing WP:SIGCOV standards that would be necessary to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Reliable source coverage would need to amount to WP:SIGCOV in order to establish subject notability, and at this point I see no evidence of that. The only sources I found amounted to WP:TRIVIAL and WP:ROUTINE. Since the coverage is only routine and trivial, the significant coverage threshold needed to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY standards is not met. Keeping the article would require meeting WP:GNG requirements in the form of WP:SIGCOV, which is simply not the case here. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Mansoor Ahsan (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)
Contested drafitification. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, Engineering, Oklahoma, and Texas. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 16:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Most of the sourcing is about projects his firm is involved in (many of which do not even name him) or otherwise trivial, namedrops, etc. This is less a biography and more of a PR-style resume. There is no substantive information upon which to build a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 22:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom fails WP:GNG.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hein Zeyar Lin (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 footy player. Sources cited don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better. Previously draftified (more than once) but the creator insists on publishing this, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and time to consider an article creation block given their unfamiliarity with notability standards.
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. International players tend to get more coverage, but I can't see any. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the online coverage is routine/trivial. Jogurney (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The degree of online coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIAL, falling short of satisfying WP:GNG requirements. While there is some coverage of the subject, it does not amount to WP:SIGCOV and is WP:ROUTINE in nature. Overall, these point to a lack of subject WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Keeping the article would be justified if the subject had independent WP:SIGCOV (i.e. above and beyond WP:TRIVIAL) thus meeting WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG standards. However, the nature of existing coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE in nature, failing WP:SIGCOV standards that would be necessary to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Reliable source coverage would need to amount to WP:SIGCOV in order to establish subject notability, and at this point I see no evidence of that. The only sources I found amounted to WP:TRIVIAL and WP:ROUTINE. Since the coverage is only routine and trivial, the significant coverage threshold needed to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY standards is not met. Keeping the article would require meeting WP:GNG requirements in the form of WP:SIGCOV, which is simply not the case here. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aliando Syarief (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:SIGCOV and WP:N. Only one reference in a non-English article about another celebrity. Has been tagged for lack of references for a BLP since 2015. Davidelit (Talk) 14:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep has won numerous SCTV awards per the chart; the awards look notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:ANYBIO, Awards section referenced now but still needs to update. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep based on the awards and meeting WP:ANYBIO.Pershkoviski (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Ultimately, the sourcing does satisfy WP:NOTABILITY requirements. If it wasn’t for this, I would say delete. However, the subject has demonstrable notability as demonstrated by WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS. What this ultimately comes down to is whether or not the subject is notable, such that if the subject isn’t notable then the article should be deleted, whereas if the subject is notable then the article should be kept. What I see in the article and looking into the background on my own, is that the subject is indeed notable. The most important question to answer is whether or not the sources establish notability. There is a clear case to be made that the sources do establish notability. As such, the appropriate outcome is to keep the article. WP:ANYBIO is also met. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep . Salvio giuliano 10:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Matiur Rahman (army officer) (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)
BIO1E per article. No objection to a redirect to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman#Executed officers. Most of the article is about the event, and the event article covers it well. I don't see any sourced info worth a merge, but if someone sees material, I don't object to it (text added 01:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)). A best this is a completely unneed CFORK. // Timothy :: talk 00:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Military, and Bangladesh. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Keep- He was one of the main assassins in the Assassination of Ziaur Rahman#Executed officers. He shot and killed the President of Bangladesh, so his role is significant per WP:BIO1E but sourcing leaves much to be desired. I would also be okay with a Merge.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see anything, but no objection to merging sourced content if someone wishes to. All I ask is that the merged material improve the target, not just be dropped in. // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)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! 07:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment- Please take a look at the sources before closing.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman per WP:ONEEVENT. I've also nominated Shah Mohammad Fazle Hossain, another assassin, for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: no objection to a Redirect to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman. // Timothy :: talk 12:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Matiur Rahman is notable only for assassinating President Ziaur Rahman, but WP:ONEEVENT doesn't say we shouldn't have a stand alone article about someone notable for only one event, it says we should consider how significant the event was, and how substantial their role in it was. The assassination was a highly significant event within the history of Bangladesh. The evidence that Matiur Rahman's role in it was substantial is shown by reliable sources, which say things like: "Lt.Col. Matiur Rahman and Lt.Col. Mahboob - the two officers who played a vital role in the operation at the Circuit House where Zia was killed", "Lt Col Motiur Rahman ... one of the main actors on the anti-Zia team", "Col. Matiur Rahman and Lt. Col. Mahbub, who were allegedly among the coup leaders".
- Not only is he one of only 2-3 of the dozen or more conspirators that historical scholarship bothers to highlight by name, those sources go into a bit of detail about his background, motivation, and actions in planning the event. His biography is understandably truncated, since he was in turn killed three days after the assassination, but it is not a permastub, pseudo-biography, or a mere rehash of Assassination of Ziaur Rahman. Indeed, it is much better sourced and written than that article, and should not simply be redirected away. I've added to his biography's talk page several reliable sources (particularly the book by Moudud Ahmed) that could be used to improve the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. It is interesting that WP:BLP1E gives three criteria, all must be met, and the third one is about someone's role in an event, and the specific example given is an assassination!
John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
. So if one of the three criteria are not met, then BLP1E guides us to keep. CT55555(talk) 01:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Lee (Oregon missionary) (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 was created in 2020 and only has a handful of edits, with the last being in 2021. The subject doesn't seem to warrant their own page after a Google search and the article only contains a single paragraph with no references. -- Zoo (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Oregon. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: The article lacks the inline citations it should have, but a brief examination of the sources provided in the bibliography demonstrates significant coverage in two reliable sources. Methodist missionaries were intimately involved in the early settlement of the Oregon Territory (well, the non-Native American settlement) and I can confidently say that we could find even more on Daniel Lee (and Jason Lee) in the Oregon Historical Quarterly and related resources. That said, since the article at present lacks inline citations and the sources are somewhat dated, I'm going with "weak keep". ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as per the significant coverage in the two reliable sources in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject qualifies under WP:GNG as notable, via WP:SIGCOV in secondary independent WP:RS. WP:NOTABILITY and GNG are also satisfied in the form of significant coverage demonstrating WP:IMPACT under the relevant guidelines. Since the SIGCOV threshold is met, there can’t be any claim that coverage is WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL, since it is by definition significant and implies WP:IMPACT sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG policy for inclusion. The available sources demonstrate the subject’s notability, effectively removing the WP:NOTABILITY premise as a valid basis for deletion. Deletion could be considered if the subject didn’t meet WP:GNG, WP:RS WP:SIGCOV, or was limited to WP:TRIVIAL/WP:ROUTINE coverage weakening the claim to notability. However, since these conditions are met, the appropriate conclusion is that the subject is notable and indeed warrants a stand alone article under WP:GNG notability guidelines. The case for keeping is significantly strengthened by the fact that the subject meets GNG via significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, thus establishing a claim to notability enhanced by WP:IMPACT. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was 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 03:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Seyyed Mohammad Reza Saeedi (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 general notability. Cleric that has done nothing except being a cleric (which does not automatically make the subject notable). JoseJan89 (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, and has zero notability apart from being a cleric. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete since clerics are not inherently notable, and that is all he seems to have going for himself here. WP:GNG does not seem to be met in this article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Khalil Ziade (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 to WP:GNG and WP:BIO clearly. Source #1 and #3 not working. Source #2 his website conflict of interests. Sources from #4 to #12 are unreliable and looks like paid sources. Page creator appears to have a conflict of interest with the article. فيصل (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Lebanon. فيصل (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Source #1 and #3 not working, but have archive links in the citations so we can still check them. I found an English-language source by clicking on the Google News link above: an American magazine called Nevada Business published an article called Family Owned Businesses 2018 on 1 March 2018. It has a paragraph on Growth Holdings (along with paragraphs on other similar size businesses such as a piercing salon, and a restaurant and bar). The magazine article seems to suggest that his brother Philippe is more likely to be notable than Khalil.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete fails GNG and I could not find any notable sources. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Minh Thai (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:ANYBIO. References, where not primary, are just passing mentions or describing primarily the 1982 World Rubik's Cube Championship. (If deemed necessary, some content can probably be incorporated there.) Web search does not help here either, and apart from the described kinds of sources returns irrelevant results, such as this Britannica biography on a revolutionary. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, and Vietnam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, Gnewspapers has several mentions of him. Most are an AP article from 1982 [25], this in French [26] from Canada. This from a magazine [27]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just noting that the third one is essentially a passing mention and not really significant coverage. (It is also already referenced in the article.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- fyi, that French one from Canada is the same AP story. So that's only one source. -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, Gnewspapers has several mentions of him. Most are an AP article from 1982 [25], this in French [26] from Canada. This from a magazine [27]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, per above // Timothy :: talk 00:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Oaktree b's additional sources make this (barely) notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Jessica Shortall (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 notability requirements under WP:NBASIC as none of the sources have significant coverage of the individual and a Google search did not yield any other sources to satisfy the reqs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Women. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG and BIO. Sources are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.
- Source eval table:
Comments Reference Primary, by author 1. Shortall, Jessica (2015-09-08). Work. Pump. Repeat.: The New Mom's Survival Guide to Breastfeeding and Going Back to Work. Harry N. Abrams. ISBN 978-1419718700. Primary, by author 2. ^ Shortall, Jessica (3 March 2016). "Life in the Only Industrialized Country Without Paid Maternity Leave". The Atlantic. Retrieved 6 September 2016. This ref comes the closest, but it is still promoish not SIGCOV 3. ^ Schiff, Steve (28 December 2015). "10 TED Talks That Will Help You Be a Better Parent". Time.com. Time, Inc. Retrieved 6 September 2016. Promo, not IS 4. ^ "TED: Ideas Worth Spreading". December 2015. Retrieved 6 September 2016. Mention, not SIGCOV, promoish 5. ^ "The Skoll Scholarship". Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. Retrieved 6 September 2016. Mention, not SIGCOV 6. ^ Lopez, Ashley. "Texas Business Community Raises Voice in Debates Over Anti-LGBT Legislation". Retrieved 2016-09-07.
- Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth are added to the article. // Timothy :: talk 00:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete' Reads like somebody doing their job. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 21:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 21:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fadi Nahas (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 businessman, fails to meet WP:NBASIC, no in-depth presence in independent reliable sources, all are unreliable and non-independent, irrelevant and 404 error sources, few brief mention in reliable source due to honorary council general. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Lebanon. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Member of 10 boards all with links for verification and has 5 awards also each documented. 20 references for the article among them economist.com , consulate-info.com, lorientlejour.com, lecommercedulevant.com, washingtonlife.com. This person also ran for parliement in 2022 in Lebanon. Inkinmotion (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete Lacks notability, awards are not significant as per WP:ANYBIO, Cited economist pages only provide passing reference to him so fails WP:BASIC which requires "significant coverage in multiple published sources"MetricMaster (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 08:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP and WP:POLOUTCOMES. I don't see how he's done anything notable. I don't see any notable awards. Political candidates are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sam and Nia (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 nominated this same article for deletion in 2018, and while it ended with "Keep", the votes then were not convincing and the article has not improved at all since that time. Doing a cursory review of the sources currently in the article, a lot of them are YouTube videos posted by the subject themselves which on their own are not reliable. Many of the other articles are about the cheating scandal with the husband or the miscarriage and subsequent birth announcement shortly after the miscarriage, which honestly seem like the subject is only notable for one (okay *two*) event(s). Other than the two "scandals", which had gotten slight coverage at the time, what makes this vlogging family stand out from the tons of others on YouTube with lots of subscribers, views (although their views have plummeted a lot since the creation of this article, FWIW), and articles about them here and there. The subject has not received further or sustained coverage in the media post-the incidents, which happened numerous years ago now. Andise1 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Internet, and Texas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I would like to point out that in the past year this Wikipedia page has had over 12,000 views, so it appears people are still looking it up and finding that page to be useful. Also, this point you made: "The subject has not received further or sustained coverage in the media post-the incidents," is not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears you have a personal motive for removing this article, especially since you are the same person who nominated to have it deleted the first time and that was shot down and here you are doing it again without any justification other than your own opinion that runs contrary to the rules of Wikipedia and the support of other Wikipedians.Matthew T Rader (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- As stated, if you remove all the YouTube video sources, which are not notable, then you are left with a small handful of articles discussing the cheating scandal and miscarriage. I am not seeing any articles that discuss the subject outside of those incidents, nor am I seeing coverage after those two incidents left the media cycle. I fail to see what makes the subject notable, as one or two events that receive some news coverage do not make a subject inherently notable. While not all coverage needs to be current, the fact that no coverage exists outside of the two incidents and no coverage has been released since 2015, it shows a lack of notability for this family in terms of them being YouTube vloggers, and very limited short-term notability for the scandals. Andise1 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: no sustained coverage. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would also like to point out that they currently have a mini series on PureFlix that Amazon Prime (https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Sam-and-Nia/0NIT9TIPGHFYE8R80SE8K0O9NG) has also picked up and is airing. Matthew T Rader (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- That series needs reliable, independent coverage to be included in the article. Upon a Google search, I am seeing no such coverage of the series.
- There is simply not enough coverage of this family out there to support an article. Should more coverage come available in the future, a new article can be created, but as it stands now, they are not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)- Delete Most of the coverage in People and the like is fluff. He had an Ashley Madison account, she forgave him. They're pregnant but they had a miscarriage. I'm not seeing why any of this amounts to SIGCOV beyond normal celebrity gossip. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is something in the New York Times, but I'm at my limit for free articles. I'm not hoping for much. Anyone can click on the link above and confirm what it says. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is what the New York Times article says about the family, it is largely about their few "viral" moments and touches on child labor in terms of YouTube kids. It does not establish any sort of notability for this family.
- "And no YouTube couple has pushed the limits of the family genre more than Sam and Nia. “[singing]: We’re in this together.” The first time Sam and Nia Rader went viral was in 2014, when they installed a dashcam on their minivan, dubbed themselves the Good Looking Parents, and lip-synched a song from “Frozen.” The second time Sam and Nia went viral was when Sam extracted Nia’s pee from an unflushed toilet and then announced his wife’s surprise pregnancy to her. “What did you do? Did you get a dropper out of the toilet? No, you didn’t.” “I did.” — “No way.” At least that’s what they said happened. “Are you 100 percent serious?” “Well, yeah, I just did. That’s what I was doing when I was taking a dump.” [laughing] This is the part where I try to think of what’s not so bad about this trend. “Whoa, oh, man.” O.K., so these family vloggers show the messy, negative parts of parenting — “Ew, yuck.” — not just the idyllic, cutesy stuff. “Gross.” (Redacted) Andise1 (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redacted due to excessive quotation of a copyrighted source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is something in the New York Times, but I'm at my limit for free articles. I'm not hoping for much. Anyone can click on the link above and confirm what it says. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Most of the coverage in People and the like is fluff. He had an Ashley Madison account, she forgave him. They're pregnant but they had a miscarriage. I'm not seeing why any of this amounts to SIGCOV beyond normal celebrity gossip. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep (barely): Sources such as Nightline ABC News, Inside Edition, Cosmopolitan, People, BuzzFeed, Time Mag, E! Entertainment Television, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post. A subject doesn't get this much attention from all these RS without being notable on some level.
- All the Youtube promo needs to removed and ce article to focus on content that has IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- They are only notable for the two incidents, the cheating scandal and the miscarriage. Where is the sustained coverage? Where is the coverage about their YouTube channel? I am not seeing any of that doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep agree with the above comment as there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Washington Post, ABC news, Vanity Fair and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- They are only notable for the two incidents, the cheating scandal and the miscarriage. Where is the sustained coverage? Where is the coverage about their YouTube channel? I am not seeing any of that doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep,
as the article has 51 sources.Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)- The amount of sources is irrelevant, the quality of the sources and what the sources are about is what is used to determine notability. Andise1 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps not, but being the 3rd most influential YouTubers of 2015 is very notable, as well as being number six of 7 of YouTube's most shocking scandals is quite infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- The amount of sources is irrelevant, the quality of the sources and what the sources are about is what is used to determine notability. Andise1 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There aren't many convincing "keep" arguments: "YouTube channel with 952k subscribers" is irrelevant for notability, and the two sources offered have failed to convince others. Sandstein 18:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Amala Ekpunobi (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 individual, all coverage found is from social medial links. Perhaps too early in her career. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would argue the page on Amala should stay, and be developed.
- Amala has a YouTube channel with 952k subscribers, and all of this has been done since January 2022. This is quite impressive, and I for one would like to know more about her background. 82.34.171.120 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- For reference, I am the person who made the reply 20th March 2023 @ 17:55. or 83.34.171.120 Cobblars (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Amala needs coverage in reliable sources, has she been featured in any magazines or newspapers? Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: There is some stuff at:
- And Google Books CT55555(talk) 20:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Student newspapers aren't generally a very good source. Second one seems ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- you can buy subcribers, so youtube numbers aren't a good indicator. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I agree this is probably a case of "too soon". I don't see sufficient coverage from outlets independent of PragerU. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to The Mole: Undercover in North Korea. ✗plicit 00:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ulrich Larsen - The Mole (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 would like to propose the deletion of this article - Larsen's only notable mention is the fact that Larsen is the subject of the documentary: The Mole: Undercover in North Korea. I would like to suggest that the article covering the documentary sufficiently covers Larsen as a subject - most significantly due to the fact that none of the listed citations or any significant, reliable sources that I were able to find mentions Larsen outside the context of the documentary. askeuhd (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Denmark. askeuhd (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Selective Merge to The Mole: Undercover in North Korea per BIO1E - insufficient coverage outside of the documentary for a stand-alone article. A rename will be needed if this is kept. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- According to a report by BBC Korea on October 11, 2020, a company named 'Chosun Narae Trading Company' was mentioned in a UN panel of experts report for its alleged involvement in North Korea's illicit arms trade. This is similar to the company 'Narae Trading Agency' which appeared in Larssen's documentary as a front company for North Korea's weapons trade. As the documentary and the UN panel report share this similarity, it can be considered credible. Therefore, just as many articles related to North Korea are being maintained despite a lack of sufficient reliability and objectivity, I believe that this article should also be kept. Kloyan.L (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested by Walt Yoder. The article has very little information not directly related to the documentary—just the personal life section. This information would fit better on the documentary's article if independent notability cannot be established for Larsen. Uffda608 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Merge only properly sourced and unredundant material per above. // Timothy :: talk 01:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The OP may have done a poor job of articulating their rationale, but procedural arguments to keep are always going to be weak when other editors have put forward substantive rationales. I don't see anyone making an argument to keep on the merits. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Frank Carrone (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:CRIME. The article only lists two sources, both of which are books. I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone, but it's evident from the titles that neither one is about him. I could not find any additional sources. Based on this, I don't believe he meets notability requirements. Baronet13 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak procedural keep. "I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone" describes the problem: We really do need to look at sources to assess their quality and depth. We can't just assume books are poor sources without reading them. Books are big things; a book might not be entirely dedicated to Carrone, but nevertheless contain an in-depth discussion of his life, and it's our job to check that before we delete an article. If there had been a third book, this would have been a strong procedural keep, as I'm biased towards three good sources for an article. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it is nigh-on impossible to judge whether a book has significant coverage of a topic without reading it, but it is possible to judge reliability. These two Google Books results don't scream "reliable" to me. They look like "true crime" dramas written in the breathless style so beloved by that genre. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:PERP and provides no other claims of any notability. That is good enough for me. Rogermx (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and Procedural close: without prejudice on future AfD: “I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone” The nom has failed to show any valid reason for AFD or do a BEFORE or explore ATD. // Timothy :: talk 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is that I couldn't find any evidence this guy even exists outside of allegedly being discussed in these two books (even that much can't be proven), which leads me to believe he could be a composite character, a pseudonym or maybe a hoax. It's strange that there don't seem to be any news reports about an allegedly notorious gangster. Baronet13 (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep "I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone" isn't a good reason to raise AfD IMHO. As per @Rogermx: if WP:PERP is reason enough, it should have been the AfDMetricMaster (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 08:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I have a simple question for @TimothyBlue:, @MetricMaster:, @MElemimele: and anybody else who wants to keep this article: can you find any evidence that Frank Carrone actually exists? Baronet13 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: The relevant policy guidelines that would determine the appropriate outcome (i.e. keeping versus deletion) in this case are WP:CRIME and WP:PERP. The issue at hand is whether the coverage that exists on the subject passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold in a manner that would satisfy CRIME and NPERP. If the nature of coverage is sufficient to demonstrate notability under these guidelines, there will be a case for keeping. The case for deletion would require that the sources fail to amount to significant coverage, thus failing to demonstrate notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)- The reliability of the sources has to be taken into consideration as well as the amount of coverage in them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that one of the two cited sources is a book written by an associate of Frank Carrone (assuming Carrone actually exists, which nobody has been able to verify yet) and is, therefore, not independent of him. That means there is, at most, one established example of coverage in independent secondary sources. Whether or not this is WP:SIGCOV is actually irrelevant, as multiple independent sources are required for WP:GNG. Baronet13 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Article's a mess, those two book sources aren't referenced within the article - and the first of them is actually titled The Life and Crimes of a Mobster, not a gangster. Nominator could have done better than leading with 'I didn't read no sources' but makes a good point about association - there's also this out there, derived from WP, which just adds citogenesis to the reasons to delete this unsourced, unverified - and virtually unverifiable - article. Outside of these two 'sources', WP:BEFORE throws up nothing - which doesn't really scream 'notorious gangster' to me... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I have done a thorough Google search, found nothing of value, and can only conclude that this article is likely a hoax. This supposed Manhattan mobster does not appear in the archives of the New York Times although an enthusiastic Yankees fan named Lenore Carrone is mentioned once. If all the colorful anecdotes were even half true, it should be relatively easy to find coverage in reliable sources. If anybody finds actual coverage in actual reliable sources, I will be happy to reconsider. Cullen328 (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Surprisingly not a hoax. I've found a copy of Goombata on the Internet Archive; pp. 83–86, 196. This 1992 book supports the existence of Carrone (sofar as the book is itself not a hoax). Frank "Buzzy" Carrone was a person, who had his right eye gouged out, worked under/for(?) Carmine Fatico, was arrested in Massachusetts, and died in jail. Interesting stuff. I was also able to find Joe Doggs, also on the Internet Archive, but unlike Goombata doesn't have an index and I'm not interested in reading the book to find where Carrone is mentioned. These two just aren't indexed in Google, making anything hard af to verify. Who knows how many impossible-to-search sources exist because no one cares enough for them. SWinxy (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have to wonder if "Frank Carrone" could be a pseudonym, since there appears to be no evidence outside of this book that he exists. In any case, three pages about in one book him isn't enough to make him notable. Baronet13 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- David Doyle (writer) (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)
Can't find any sources referencing this author. Article is written in a very promotional tone. (Indeed, an editor with the same name has edited it extensively.) SWinxy (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- After a short search, I found a considerable number of articles, that cite works of Doyle, David as sources, including: 2½-ton 6×6 truck, 5-ton 6×6 truck, 6-ton 6×6 truck, Autocar U8144T 5- to 6-ton 4×4 truck, Brockway Motor Company, Chevrolet G506, Diamond T, Diamond T 4-ton 6×6 truck, Dodge M37, Dodge T-, V-, W-Series, Dodge WC series, DUKW, Gama Goat, GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, Hercules DFXE, Jim Allen (4x4 writer), K-31 truck, Kaiser Jeep M715, Kenworth 10-ton 6x6 heavy wrecking truck, List of soft-skinned vehicles of the US military, List of United States Army tactical truck engines, M10 tank destroyer, M123 and M125 10-ton 6x6 trucks, M151 ¼-ton 4×4 utility truck, M19 Tank Transporter, M2 High Speed Tractor, M274 ½-ton 4×4 utility platform truck, M35 series 2½-ton 6×6 cargo truck, M39 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M520 Goer, M6 Bomb Service Truck, M809 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M816 Wrecker, M939 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, Mack NM 6-ton 6x6 truck, Mack NO 7½-ton 6x6 truck, Mack Trucks, Mack Trucks in military service, Pz.Sfl. Ia, Steven Zaloga, Studebaker US6 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Willys Go Devil engine, Willys MB, amongst others .. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- That would be totally convincing if Wikipedia was usable as a source, but it isn't, so nothing here contributes to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- After a short search, I found a considerable number of articles, that cite works of Doyle, David as sources, including: 2½-ton 6×6 truck, 5-ton 6×6 truck, 6-ton 6×6 truck, Autocar U8144T 5- to 6-ton 4×4 truck, Brockway Motor Company, Chevrolet G506, Diamond T, Diamond T 4-ton 6×6 truck, Dodge M37, Dodge T-, V-, W-Series, Dodge WC series, DUKW, Gama Goat, GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, Hercules DFXE, Jim Allen (4x4 writer), K-31 truck, Kaiser Jeep M715, Kenworth 10-ton 6x6 heavy wrecking truck, List of soft-skinned vehicles of the US military, List of United States Army tactical truck engines, M10 tank destroyer, M123 and M125 10-ton 6x6 trucks, M151 ¼-ton 4×4 utility truck, M19 Tank Transporter, M2 High Speed Tractor, M274 ½-ton 4×4 utility platform truck, M35 series 2½-ton 6×6 cargo truck, M39 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M520 Goer, M6 Bomb Service Truck, M809 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M816 Wrecker, M939 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, Mack NM 6-ton 6x6 truck, Mack NO 7½-ton 6x6 truck, Mack Trucks, Mack Trucks in military service, Pz.Sfl. Ia, Steven Zaloga, Studebaker US6 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Willys Go Devil engine, Willys MB, amongst others .. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, History, and Military. SWinxy (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. No indication of notability in existing sources. Sources used in the article don't appear to be independent. Being used as a reference in a Wikipedia article does not contribute to notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as promotional and authorspam. I've tried multiple searches to find a source discussing this guy and can't find even one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus . Although there is most certainly no consensus to delete, I find no consensus between the "keep", "redirect", and "merge" !votes. A possible redirect or merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Insult of officials and the state (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:NLIST and does not have WP:SIGCOV that are fewer sources had been cited. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep If the existing sources aren't enough to convince you, you can easily search and find additional ones. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/23/fact-check-legal-experts-say-swearing-president-not-illegal/5785903001/ https://time.com/5813215/presidential-insult-history/ for example. Dream Focus 14:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I just found this. https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-insulting-head-of-state-can-land-prison-belgium-denmark-france-germany/ That references the information for most of the things on the list. Dream Focus 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Search for the name of any nation listed and "insult law" and you can find results. A website hopefully exist somewhere where you can search for the laws in each country. Sourcing everything is going to be time consuming. The article's creator did reference all the information they got to https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/8/303181.pdf Dream Focus 10:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I just found this. https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-insulting-head-of-state-can-land-prison-belgium-denmark-france-germany/ That references the information for most of the things on the list. Dream Focus 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The first two references by Dream Focus above are useless as for establishing list notability. The third is better, but it's restricted to Europe. You'd either need a pared-down list for that, or more widespread coverage. It's also a bit moot at this point...essentially nothing in the article is sourced, and it's complete OR at the moment...you'd have to cut it down to basically nothing, leaving no article to keep. Moreover, trying to compile this information into a table is ultimately futile due to all the different nuances in the laws of every country. At best, you might be able to construct an article that actually goes into some detail for each country, but as a simple list, this fails on its face. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Question: Is it possible to move to Insults of officials and the state in Europe per the source that Dream Focus found? Lightoil (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I also prefer the use of the plural in that title. Using "insult" as an uncountable known just sounds awkward if you don't know legalese. small jars
tc
16:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I also prefer the use of the plural in that title. Using "insult" as an uncountable known just sounds awkward if you don't know legalese. small jars
- Keep: Per the source Dream Focus found. Lightoil (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Merge with Lèse-majesté which is (quoting the lede) "an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state... or the state itself". This article is about "Insult of officials, as well including the head of state or foreign heads of state, the state itself or its symbols, is a crime in some countries." No daylight between the two.Oblivy (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep or merge -- Assuming the article is accurate and merely needs referencing, not rewriting as well. Oblivy is absolutely correct about the meaning of Lèse-majesté. I do not know if the "no daylight" comment is true of all countries, but most countries do have a civil law legal system, based on the French Napoleonic code, so it's quite plausible. I suggest adding a section listing the names of this crime in the various jurisdictions Elinruby (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Many JStor hits for "lèse-majesté", including Thailand, Germany and Russia, and of course France. Some will be metaphorical, but there are about 5500 so it's not looking *too* difficult to reference Elinruby (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - As a list. This article's scope is broader than Lèse-majesté. The issue is one of finding existing sources for the article and then citing them. I found Wikipedia already has articles for insulting both the President of Turkey (Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code) and the Turkish Nation (Article 301). However, those articles bear obscure titles based on the number of the article in the penal code. So this list has the potential to become a navigational aid to finding these obscurely named individual articles concerning the applicable laws in different countries. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment it's a reasonable list to have, but (1) I have absolutely no idea what the final column ("Criminal blasphemy/religious insult") is supposed to be about, and (2) Any editor would be within their rights to reduce this table to four lines, the lines that actually have a reference. The rest is some guy's unsourced opinion. In effect, this is very close to a case for TNT. I'm not removing the unsourced lines at the moment as it would be unhelpful to blank the list mid-AfD. Elemimele (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as a list. Starship 24 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Keepbut it probably should be renamed. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)- No, the concern is that the article is largely unsourced. It also isn't a list, as there aren't links to articles on Lèse-majesté in Thailand (which, strangely, isn't in the list). Walt Yoder (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lèse-majesté#Current laws, which is superior to the content on this page in every way. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I just spent about an hour putting about 12-15 sources on the talk page, fast and dirty for demonstration purposes. It wasn't even slightly difficult, although in some countries it is against the law to insult anyone, so search results for "insult laws" are a bad metric. But yeah, there are many such countries, especially if you include the blasphemy laws. Doing this article right would be a lot of work though. Although I concentrated on normal google results, the sources I mentioned are mostly solid news organizations, with a few scholarly sources, and the scholarly sources are definitely out there; various UN and EU guidebooks for example, and quite a number of universities and International freedom of speech organizations such as CPJ and HRW. Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment First of all, point well taken by user:Elinruby - the sources are out there (these kinds of cases tend to make a media impact) but they need to be found. However, apart from sourcing there are lots of existential issues that need to be resolved:
- the article fails to link to any related concepts, or to country-specific articles (as user:Walt Yoder points out in the case of Thailand). I already pointed out the intersection with Lèse-majesté.
- the headings are undefined, and conflict with the lede - yes, blasphemy is similar in some respects, and may overlap with disrespect for national symbols, but it needs to be explained
- the article is nearly an orphan (Turkey and Germany have country-specific articles linking it)
- as pointed out by user:Elinruby it's hard to tell the difference between a prohibition on insult and one on insulting the state (of which more in a moment)
- When Walt Yoder said this is "some guy's unsourced opinion" I thought he was being glib. Actually, it really is[28] almost 100% the work of one edit by one account User:HeliosX. By tracing that account's edits, I found this article Insult_(legal) that ALSO has a long (heavily sourced) list. The topic self-evidently overlaps this article. The user seems to be dormant since early 2022.
- I'm still at *merge with Lèse-majeste*, but TNT looks awfully attractive! Oblivy (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- It'd be a good idea to remove the blasphemy element as it confuses the issue. Blasphemy at some level (e.g. when used to foment religious hatred, or to insult an individual based on their religion) is illegal in many countries that have no state religion, where logically blasphemy becomes a crime against an individual rather than a crime against the state. Even in a country with a state religion, it's not always clear whether blasphemy laws are intended to protect the religion or the state, which remain two separate things. Interpreting blasphemy as an insult against the state is synthesis unless sources indicate it explicitly, which renders the whole sourcing job twice as big for no real benefit to the reader. Elemimele (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well put. Oblivy (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- It was Elemimele who said
"some guy's unsourced opinion"
, but it is a good line. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)- I would support trimming off the blasphemy section, as blasphemy laws are widespread and the mind-boggling aspects of comparing Irish Roman Catholicism to Iranian fatwas would reduce the likelihood of me, for example, working on the article. The laws about insulting the government are somewhat adjacent to my interest in free speech and disambiguating civil law concepts from commonlaw concepts which is a problem that Wikipedia currently has. However my hands are full at the moment, so yes there is something to the question of who would do it. But as we are frequently reminded, this is not a reason to AfD. It would be good if someone committed to working on it, or on the non-blasphemy parts of it. De-orphaning the article would seem to also just be a matter of doing it. Elinruby (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- It'd be a good idea to remove the blasphemy element as it confuses the issue. Blasphemy at some level (e.g. when used to foment religious hatred, or to insult an individual based on their religion) is illegal in many countries that have no state religion, where logically blasphemy becomes a crime against an individual rather than a crime against the state. Even in a country with a state religion, it's not always clear whether blasphemy laws are intended to protect the religion or the state, which remain two separate things. Interpreting blasphemy as an insult against the state is synthesis unless sources indicate it explicitly, which renders the whole sourcing job twice as big for no real benefit to the reader. Elemimele (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NLIST; there's a broad array of sourcing on the issue as a two minute search of insult laws in Google scholar reveals. Title and contents no doubt could be improved, but current state of an article or its orphan status does not relate to notability WP:NEXIST. Lese-majeste refers to the head of state, the issue of insult covers far more than that and relates to specific laws which limit freedom of speech in regard to the state or religion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- If this is a list article, the lack of any articles to link to is a concern. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Walden, Ruth (2002). "Insult Laws". In McLiesh, Caralee; Islam, Roumeen; Djankov, Simeon (eds.). The Right to Tell: The Roll of Mass Media in Economic Development. World Bank. p. 207. ISBN 9780821352038.
In more than 100 countries, individuals - including journalists - can be imprisoned or fined for insulting or offending government officials and institutions.
- ^ Clooney, Amal; Webb, Philippa (2017). "The Right to Insult in International Law". Columbia Human RIghts Law Review. 48 (1).
...in many states, it is a criminal offence to insult royalty, rulers, or religion. Prosecutions for such insults are on the rise. The number of journalists who are being imprisoned across the world is, today, at its highest point in over twenty-five years
- ^ McCracken, Patti (2012). "Insult Laws: Insulting to Press Freedom - A guide to the evolution of insult laws in 2010" (PDF). Freedom House.
- ^ Balule, Badala Tachilisa (2008). "Insult laws: a challenge to media freedom in the SADC's fledgling democracies?". The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa. 41 (3): 404. ISSN 0010-4051.
...many of these states still have anachronistic laws on their statute books that unduly insulate public functionaries from criticism over how they conduct public affairs. One form which this protection takes is insult laws, whose rationale is said to be the protection of the honour and dignity of public functionairies
- Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, @Walt Yoder, I realise I've probably misinterpreted your comment. Do you mean a lack of Wikipedia articles to which to link? While one needs to keep WP:ORPHAN in mind ("An article being an orphan is not in any way, shape, or form a criterion for deletion"), nevertheless, more or less every criminal code article could be linked. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. If there were links to 20 Wikipedia articles such as Lèse-majesté in China, Lèse-majesté in the United Kingdom in the table, there would be a much stronger argument to leave an imperfect article for improvement. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Current state of the article (links or ortherwise) has no bearing on notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. If there were links to 20 Wikipedia articles such as Lèse-majesté in China, Lèse-majesté in the United Kingdom in the table, there would be a much stronger argument to leave an imperfect article for improvement. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, @Walt Yoder, I realise I've probably misinterpreted your comment. Do you mean a lack of Wikipedia articles to which to link? While one needs to keep WP:ORPHAN in mind ("An article being an orphan is not in any way, shape, or form a criterion for deletion"), nevertheless, more or less every criminal code article could be linked. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
CommentReading the tea leaves here, seems we aren't going to end with delete, so I decided to WP:BEBOLD and start tinkering with the article. Here's my thinking:
- discussion seems to be heading towards some version of Keep/Improve
- there's a separate article on Lèse-majesté and there's nobody (on my reading) saying it doesn't at-least-mostly overlap, so I've included a short sentence and link to that article
- I've also changed the lede to be more like "list of" articles found elsewhere; eventually we should link to this list within Lèse-majesté
- a specific objection has been raised to the blasphemy column and nobody (on my reading) is arguing for its inclusion. A bit of regex work and it's gone
- article title would need to be changed to something like "List of Countries with Laws on Insulting the State, Its Symbols or its Officials". That's not quite right, but it's a start. I won't rename the article as that will probably mess up the AfD process.
Happy to see any comments, polite objections, whatever. My goal isn't to cut off debate, just to try to model what's going on in the discussion. If you want to make more changes to the article that's great too.Oblivy (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Oblivy - thanks for doing this, although I would recommend copying this comment to the article's talk page, since this is far more content related than notability related. Also FWIW, am in heated agreement, no moves until the AfD is closed, it does mess things up! :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. Added a comment on the talk page - anyone here can ignore it. Oblivy (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as list and all above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Merge into Lèse-majesté. The topic of offence against the head of state is obviously notable, and I can see a clear scope for a list article discussing it in different nation states. The article as it stands is appalling, however. It has four references cells out of >200. Any editor would be justified in draftifying or redirecting it without further discussion; that standard doesn't change because it's been brought to AfD. The referenced content is easily accommodated at the merge target, and if someone wants to write a sourced spinoff in the future, they're welcome to. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Lèse-majesté per Oblivy and subsequent editors. I acknowledge the sourcing found, and concede this is capable of being turning into a reasonable list, but it really is at the WP:TNT level currently, and there is a superior target to develop. Leave the redirect, if one is felt to assist navigation, and move on. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Lèse-majesté, per arguments above. Nothing will be lost if this table is added to that article. BD2412 T 01:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Mizraab (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)
Notability doesn't established, fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NBASIC, 28 sources, all are interviews, primary, not working, irrelevant, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources, award section is empty, name drops with Faraz Anwar, also take part in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraz Anwar M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep easy pass of WP:NMUSIC. There is so much about this band. Perhaps, we should WP:SMERGE List of Mizraab band members to this article. A major band in Pakistan, no way we can delete this. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also related articles, Mizraab discography and List of songs recorded by Mizraab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- From the 70s, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Rainbow to Pakistani bands like Junoon, Noori and Mizraab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Mizraab released their album, Panchi, which was well-received by their growing cult following
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:BAND - in particular prominent representatives of a notable style in Pakistan. Coverage is available in several sources per WP:PKRS. Also secondary coverage in WP:RS books: We'll Play Till We Die Journeys Across a Decade of Revolutionary Music in the Muslim World and Heavy Metal Islam Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam. ResonantDistortion 09:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Further evidence The Herald in 2005 stated here that Mizraab was, for a while, the most famous band in Pakistan. Easy pass WP:Band#7. ResonantDistortion 07:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- WP:Band#7, Representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city, of what? and the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, does it do that? M.Ashraf333 (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Further evidence The Herald in 2005 stated here that Mizraab was, for a while, the most famous band in Pakistan. Easy pass WP:Band#7. ResonantDistortion 07:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as books and national newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple reliable sources coverage, 1: an interview with one passing mention, 2: one passing mention in rock music history related article, have no significance in-depth coverage. The refs on the article's page are already mentioned, primary, unreliable and YT videos. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Which of the sources provides in-depth coverage? My reading of the sources linked above is that they lack sufficient depth about the band. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Source Assessment. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the table 404s can be fixed using internet archive so dismissing a source because it is 404 is not a valid analysis, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed now. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Due to source analysis above, which shows only one qualifying reference. And the focus of that reference is the guitarist Faraz Anwar who already has a separate article. I'm happy to reconsider if additional sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep easy pass of WP:NMUSIC. Lightburst (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Can you please explain on what criteria it meets WP:BAND? M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - as per the excellent assessment table above. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 23:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Article referencing at time of AfD initiation was poor. However several independent reliable sources are referenced in this AfD which clearly demonstrate a national level of notability (both in 'fame' and musical impact). Several of these references have subsequently been added to the article. It should be noted that none of these are presently included within the source assessment table. ResonantDistortion 23:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple independent reliable sources should have non-trivial coverage to address the topic in detail per WP:SIGCOV. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG and BAND. Nothing in the article shows SIGCOV from IS RS and source eval shows this. The above mentions new sources added to the article so here they are:
- [29] is a brief tongue in cheek mention, nothing SIGCOV;
- [30] is a grand total of 13 word, not about the subject but an opinion about a song, 13 words is not indepth and opinions do not establish Notablity;
- [31] quotes in reference show this is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
- [32] is the extent of the coverage, nothing that meets SIGCOV.
- These are the best references for the subject and they all fail IS RS with SIGCOV nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 06:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is she isn't independently notable. ConnectHear does not exist so this cannot be merged. However if someone does create that, I'm happy to restore the history and redirect this to the article. Star Mississippi 18:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Azima Dhanjee (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)
Notability doesn't established in reliable sources, fails to meet WP:NBASIC, references are unreliable, blog and business posts, few mentions in reliable sources of her startup. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Per winning the Diana Award as the first Pakistan[[33]] and global impacts with connectHear[[34]][[35]] and also been selected National Youth Council [[36]] for me , it shouldn't be deleted.Epcc12345 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Winning of Diana award (won by her startup, not herself) wouldn't make her notable, the refs you highlighted have no significance, only brief mention in the articles. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- M.Ashraf333 I am currently on duty today, if ping I will dig deeper to get more sources but was able to find this [[37]][[38]][[39]]. While I was making findings/reading about her impacts, she deserves to be here along with her start up ConnectHear.Epcc12345 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Winning of Diana award (won by her startup, not herself) wouldn't make her notable, the refs you highlighted have no significance, only brief mention in the articles. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. The Diana Award and most of the media coverage is for the startup ConnectHear, not for the subject of this article. I think ConnectHear deserves a standalone article. Insight 3 (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per argument by Epcc12345, which notes many sources, fulfilling requirements.Historyday01 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I think I see a merge potential. // Timothy :: talk 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 08:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. As per WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 due to winning the Diana Award. CT55555(talk) 16:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- The award won by her startup, not herself. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep multiple WP:RS with sig cov meeting WP:GNG, plus leading team to win a notable award. ResonantDistortion 21:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- As described above, the sources are about her startup and business blogposts. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfa (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 page appears to be solely sourced to religious websites, making its contents wholly unverifiable and functionally useless from the perspective of Wikipedia's content standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I believe this nomination is flawed. We have many articles about Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox bishops which are sourced entirely to sources related to their respective denominations. There are a few companions of the prophet about whom very little is known today, but most have been discussed constantly in Islamic scholarship for more than 1400 years because of their critical role in the transmission of Hadith. In any case there are sufficient sources in English for this to be a GNG pass (Google book search) without even looking in Arabic or other languages. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Google books shows two footnotes. Scholar hints at a few mentions, but the relevant passages are not apparent. There is nothing to currently indicate the presence of any non-trivial mentions of the subject in reliable sources. The page is just as poorly supported in its Arabic version. The other premise is also invalid. This individual did not play a major role in any tradition, because he ostensibly died in the Battle of Yamama, and thus was prevented from ever passing on whatever material he might have recollected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- simply false. I find multiple sources (not including the ones I enumerate below) citing him as the source of Hadith. You’re just making it up. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge to Battle of Yamama. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment it’s not true that the subject appears only in a couple of footnotes in a google book search. In English I get multiple pieces of coverage, including
1,2, 3, 4 and 5, with other instances too. From this we learn that the subject, on account of his exceptional knowledge of the Quran, led the community in prayer in Medina before Muhammad himself arrived, and that the caliph Omar stated that, had he lived, he would have made him his successor. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- in Arabic, setting aside explicitly religious sites and only looking for substantive coverage in general sources that editors can auto translate, coverage includes two extensive profiles in daily news sources, 6 and 7, and this from wikisource 8. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- While some Arabic news sources are reasonably sound sources for local news, and Youm 7 is generally speaking a respected publication, I don't think Arabic news sources are realistically reliable sources for Islamic biographies, and that Wikisource text is a primary source, so not super useful in of itself without supporting coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Mccapra, You may be right in your overall assessment, but you should get rid of the first book that you list above. It lists Lulu, a well known self-publishing outfit, as its publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes thank you I didn’t spot that. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- in Arabic, setting aside explicitly religious sites and only looking for substantive coverage in general sources that editors can auto translate, coverage includes two extensive profiles in daily news sources, 6 and 7, and this from wikisource 8. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Mccapra has shown that there are a number of sources. Furius (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be interesting to see the nominator respond to the newly identified sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin (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 religious figure. Entire article is based on a single source, and a search finds nothing more. (Would have draftified this, but that has been done before already.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Indonesia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, single source (which appears to consist in the main of lists of charismatic preachers), nothing else out there: 5 search results. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: There is substantial coverage in the main source used, and evidence of other mentions on google books, including in reference to his playing of the gambus (a musical instrument). Much of the material on the page is poorly unsubstantiated and undue (the family stuff in particular), but I think there is enough to maintain a stub. It would be worthwhile to see what someone Indonesian might be able to find in historical sources dating to the Dutch period in some of the various scripts that could well be relevant here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- For the record: the 'main source used' is still just a single source, and as such not enough to establish notability. Likewise 'other mentions', unless they measure up to sigcov. And notability, which is what's on trial here, is required of stubs just as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 10:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Draft: I can't !v Keep because it only has one source. I can't !v Delete because I think there is probably IS RS out there. I this is a good case for Draft; if its not improved with additional sources, it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 11:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: It looks like a lot of work has been done on this since the 14 March, when it was initially nominated, and it now has a second published book source. And we now have a newspaper death certificate, which is a source of sorts. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Google books shows other sources talking about him, his music, his son. The second one I added speaks about an Indonesian book profiles him. He seems clearly notable, and I am certain that only translation issues prevent that from being clear to us. WP:NEXIST CT55555(talk) 16:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Other than taking a hajj, I don't see what he did that was unusual for his day. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Krishna Stott (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)
Impressive looking wall of text, this, until you start looking at the sources and then we find ourselves faced by theatre programs, blogs, Facebook pages, owned media, incidental mentions and sources with no link to the subject (the 'I am Kloot' interview doesn't even mention Stott; source 45 - one of a number like this - is a generic article about Whatsapp and totally unrelated in any way to the article subject). Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I can't quite work out if this is fake or a joke, but there is more text in this article about the subject matter than on the rest of the internet combined.MNewnham (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there – I really tried hard here to make sure I produced an in depth article that was source rich, both with secondary sources, as well as contextual sources. In addition, in preparation for this I explored a lot of transmedia Wikipedia pages seeing what had been flagged on stub articles, and worked to improve some of the Wikipedia media pages for Stott as well. Over the last six months I have watched his visual media and got hold of some of the harder to find transmedia items too. In short, I put a lot of work into this to try and make sure it was fulsome, and not one of those stub items with ‘need more details and sources’ pegged to it! I see commenters have said things like this article uses blog posts and facebook mentions. However, these tend to be used for context and dates of release. There is also secondary sources such as newspapers, The Guardian, Liverpool Echo, The Bolton News; broadcasters, the BBC, industry magazines, such as Pocket Gamer, industry podcasts, such as Conducttr, and academic journals such as Journal of Screenwriting, Screenworks, Journal of Media Practice, as well as conference proceedings. I believe that there should be more representation of emerging artforms on Wikipedia, with their creators given the same depth of coverage as say filmmakers and musicians (which I have previously worked on). Given Stott’s 25 year career, vast mediaography, and awards (inc Webby Awards 2008) I thought the work and profile of this person in the UK artscene context to be an interesting project. I truly tried my best with this, and so am a bit disappointed it has been flagged. I don’t think the perfect should be the enemy of the good, but I also realise that the flagging is coming from a good place to keep Wikipedia the best it can be. In that spirit, if anyone can give me concrete advice how to improve this, I would be very open to that, as while I have been doing Wikipedia updates and page creations for a few years now, given this is just a hobby and a giving back to a resource I use all the time, I am certainly still a beginner, or newbie I guess. Thanks for reading. (User:McrPhilosophy) 11:03, 15 March 2023 (Indonesia)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- J. Denis Bélisle (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)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep As Bélisle has been Canadian ambassador to four French-speaking African countries, there are sure to be good sources for this page available, largely in French. I see LibStar is still putting much effort into getting pages about ambassadors deleted, but I do not see him making a positive contribution to any of them. Moonraker (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not ad hominem, LibStar, just a comment on your unwillingness to look for sources and improve the pages you target when you find them. Moonraker (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep I think he just squeaks by NPOL status as the director of a UN agency. I will look for more sources though to see if article can be improved. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- Delete After searching, I cannot find any independent sources with significant coverage to meet GNG unfortunately. (Gscholar and Gbooks turn up several hits, but they all seem to be published or have significant ties to the International Trade Centre which he led). Since NPOL is a secondary requirement, I withdraw my keep !vote. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced BLP. fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The keep didn't supply sources or arguments based in policy and guidelines, so the only response is an offer of cheese for the whine.
- BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 13:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- David McIlroy (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)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The supplied sources include a primary source and small routine mentions. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, as sources are available. The comment "Ambassadors are not inherently notable" is too sweeping, there are some postings which are sure to lead to notability, although Guinea is not one of them. Moonraker (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Another two ambassadors article I started, Carole Crofts and James Lyall Sharp, were deleted for the same vague reason. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, found no additional coverage to pass WP:GNG and have sent his predecessor, Catherine Inglehearn to AfD for precisely the same reason. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Notable under WP:ANYBIO #3 for entry in Who's Who (UK).NB, I have also started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Ambassadors to clarify whether my interpretation here is correct. --Mgp28 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)- Who's Who is apparently not a national biographical dictionary so I withdraw that !vote --Mgp28 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Notable diplomat. Additional sources include The Belfast Telegraph NI diplomat David McIlroy tells of shielding from gunfire and explosions during Guinea coup and The Irish News Co Derry-born ambassador tells of violence in Guinea as military coup took place Piecesofuk (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
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! 06:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)- Weak keep. I see a consensus that Who's Who isn't good for verifiability, but is good for notability, therefore helping with a WP:BASIC pass. CT55555(talk) 03:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite - Who's Who is no good for notability, it's not a national biographic dictionary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I see a consensus that Who's Who isn't good for verifiability, but is good for notability, therefore helping with a WP:BASIC pass. CT55555(talk) 03:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete fails GNG and BIO.
- Source eval table:
Comments Reference From article Who's Who entry, not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 1. "McIlroy, David Thomas, (born 3 March 1968), HM Diplomatic Service; Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, since 2022" in Who's Who, online edition, 01 December 2022, accessed 10 March 2023 (subscription required) Government announcement, Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to Guinea in June 2019". GOV.UK. Retrieved 13 November 2020. Failed V 3. ^ "Meet the British Ambassadors – Francophone Africa". Invest Africa. Retrieved 13 November 2020. Government announcement, Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth 4. ^ "Foreign Secretary Confirms Appointment of New Ambassador to the Republic of Guinea – UKPOL.ORG.UK". Retrieved 13 November 2020. Government announcement, Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth 5. ^ "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to Guinea in June 2019 – Africa Arbitration". Retrieved 13 November 2020. From above Interview as the source title clearly states, interviews do not show notability The Belfast Telegraph NI diplomat David McIlroy tells of Interview as the source title clearly states, interviews do not show notability The Irish News Co Derry-born ambassador tells of
- BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
- BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On a pure nose count, this might be a "no consensus". However, the argument that sources about this individual are extremely thin at best went unrefuted. The arguments, not refuted, of this being a BLP with insufficient source material for an actual biography tip this into "delete". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Kali Kumar Tongchangya (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)
Local politician fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC, nothing at all in reliable sources except brief mention of his chairmanship, need in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources, elected chairman of local council wouldn't make him notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Mizoram. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I originally tagged this paged as lacking notability. I still think that's the correct view. It does not seem to satisfy WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL but passes WP:NSUBPOL. He serves as Chairman of Chakma Autonomous District Council. WP:NSUBPOL says that in India, "Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability.". Generally many deletion discussion of Members of the Autonomous District Councils of India are kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia. (Note: I am creator of this article and also note that I voted Delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia and after the closing of discussionn, I got that they are notable)𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 06:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @LordVoldemort728 just to clarify, WP:NSUBPOL is a supplimentary essay, it is not a guideline. It is written to provide extended detail to WP:NPOL. A subject cannot fail NPOL and pass NSUBPOL. Membership in legislatures detailed in NSUBPOL indicate presumed notability of NPOL, in other words NSUBPOL indicates whether or not membership in a particular legislative body will satisfy NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Does it means that Wikipedia:NSUBPOL is detailed information of a notability guideline.. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 05:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- NSUBPOL is a supplement to NPOL; there are parts of it which are very clearly within consensus (eg the presumed notability attached to members of subnational legislatures of unambiguous federal states like USA, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Germany etc) and where there is less certainty (ie the issue has not been tested). Thus, NSUBPOL is meant to be a reference tool, but also one under development. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Does it means that Wikipedia:NSUBPOL is detailed information of a notability guideline.. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 05:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- @LordVoldemort728 just to clarify, WP:NSUBPOL is a supplimentary essay, it is not a guideline. It is written to provide extended detail to WP:NPOL. A subject cannot fail NPOL and pass NSUBPOL. Membership in legislatures detailed in NSUBPOL indicate presumed notability of NPOL, in other words NSUBPOL indicates whether or not membership in a particular legislative body will satisfy NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: We keep articles about members of sub national parliaments of India because the government of that parliament federal or similar systems of government and Chakma Autonomous District Council also have federal or similar systems of government. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep satisfies WP:NPOL, member of a subnational parliament. See dicussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia for explanation and previous consensus on status of the ADCs as subnational parliaments. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, which establishes a low bar for politicians. UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @BoyTheKingCanDance@M.Ashraf333@UtherSRG - can I ask you to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia, with specific reference to the points which elaborate why the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) can be considered subnational parliaments. Given this, can you please indicate how you interpret the sourcing differently which has been used to demonstrate the ADCs are subnational parliaments and thus accord presumed notability available via NPOL. Many thanks and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. ADCs have "less power than states but more than local governments", so they're in a gray area as far as NPOL is concerned, but I'm leaning against notability. The main issue is that state governments have a lot of authority over ADCs: governors (acting on the advice of their ministers) can dissolve councils, annul or suspend acts, and simply deny assent to duly passed bills. Importantly, that power to deny assent isn't just hypothetical: according to this article, there are numerous bills that have been awaiting assent for over a decade, creating the impression "that these autonomous bodies are treated as extensions of the government". There are also "structural arrangements provided in the constitution itself which makes ADCs dependent on the state government", and the councils have only a "paucity of resources" and "solely depend on the state government for grants". And, of course, the ADCs can only legislate within a handful of particular areas. That article concludes by mentioning "the overriding role played by the state governments on many matters", and I think that shows that ADCs are closer to local governments than to subnational legislatures. More generally, making all members of ADCs inherently notable would open up the floodgates to hundreds of people who don't even arguably meet the GNG, and I think WP:WHYN explains why that's a poor idea. Tongchangya thus doesn't meet NPOL, and since he doesn't appear to meet the GNG either, he's not notable, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: There is also an open discussion about member of autonomous council. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuliram Ronghang (2nd nomination). I request all editors that they don't do any vote until they read about Autonomous administrative division. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 09:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify – The supplementary guideline states that politicians in ADCs may have presumed notability, not that they have presumed notability, so general notability should still be established. This article has two sources, one of which is one sentence. In other words, the source is a journalistic stub.
Number | Reference | Remarks | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | theprint.in | One sentence. (The source is a stub.) | Yes | No | Yes | Probably |
2 | dailynews360.patrika.com | 200 words. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Probably |
Move this article to draft space, and the subject may have significant coverage in the medium future. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 13:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per LordVoldemort728 and Goldsztajn. Satisfies WP:NSUBPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to respond to Extraordinary Writ's !vote. There are all sorts of limits to state/provincial powers in federal states, all sorts of means by which federal authorities may intervene in the decision-making of subnational legislatures, that similar patterns exist with the ADCs and their relationships to the state governments is not by iself an indication that the ADCs lack autonomous legislative power (which to my interpreation is the sine qua non determining NPOL notability at the subnational level). That there are ADC powers that the state (as opposed to national government) has no jurisdiction over, is enough to make the ADCs clearly have legislative power, as distinct from local councils which only possess administrative power. I also disagree that this is a floodgates issue; members of an ADC not found to have more than the most basic information available could be redirected to lists of members of the particlar session of the relevant ADC. For example, in this particular case, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of current members of Chakma Autonomous District Council. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I tend to lean more towards Extraordinary Writ's comments about the notability of ADCs than Goldsztajn. I do agree with Goldsztajn that lists of members of an ADC are very appropriate. However, the core of Wikipedia is an expectation that there are high-quality reliable sources written about living people. I think the case is clear that nearly all federal and state legislators meet this standard, and for those that may not, there is enough visibility of the government to verify service (as well as being able to track how an individual votes on particular issues). If we were to move beyond national and state/provincial officeholders, we would want more confidence that nearly all office holders for a type of government are likely to have coverage that meets WP:GNG. To that end, I think the standard we judge this AFD is WP:GNG as the community has not decided that ADCs fit under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - ADCs are national political authorities of sort, chairman clearly notable by default. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Extraordinary Writ's analysis. Robert McClenon makes a reasonable case for drafitication, and I could accept that outcome. My concern is that this is BLP and I can't accept presumed notability when the sources are so incredibly spare and constitute routine political coverage. No SIGCOV to be found so far on such a minor functionary and presented sources are quite local. IMHO the case for presumption is not met. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Bonetti Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muppala Sridhar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Ameya Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajith Jagadnandan