Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Goel (lawyer)

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with WP:CORPDEPTH and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since nom has been sock-blocked, relist for good-faith comments instead of soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notwithstanding the technical questionability of the nom. Besides failing WP:GNG - the subject hasn't done anything that has garnered signficiant coverage - he is completely non-notable as a lawyer per my long-standing standards. I don't see that any of the awards are major. Lawyers do lots of things that get them an award or recognition. I have certificates and awards from the Sierra Club and local bar associations, and while I treasure them in my portfolios, they do not make me notable, either. This appears to be a run of the mill lawyer. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Easily meet notability requirements as the principal officer in multiple national attorney organizations that are substantiated by references already in article and probably bad-faith nomination. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adish Aggarwala

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

Do not show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since nom has been sock-blocked, relist for good-faith comments instead of soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Boldly closing speedily per WP:SNOW, consensus for deletion is extremely unlikely to develop. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rees (airman)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Being the first airman killed by Manfred von Richthofen doesn't make you notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also delete Herbert Bellerby, the third victim (and second victory). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of victories of Manfred von Richthofen, WP:1E and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. No compliance with WP:Before. Article is well developed. And too big to be comfortably merged in the list List of victories of Manfred von Richthofen. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief perusal, most of the references are about the Red Baron. The ones about Rees are either not about him specifically or insubstantial. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POINT. This article has been worked on by numerous editors to the point that it has appeared on the main page. It is therefore generally acceptable as an adornment to the encyclopedia per our policy WP:IAR. The nomination is based on WP:SOLDIER but that is an essay and so has no official standing and the current RfC demonstrates that there's no consensus for it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is clearly based on GNG also, not just SOLDIER. I do not understand your POINT argument, what are you trying to say? Mztourist (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POINT is the converse of IAR – unproductive activity to prove or score a point. For example, Mztourist recently went through my contributions and twice nominated the Dog & Bull for deletion. They failed and the article recently adorned the main page too. It was read there by thousands of people who had no complaints. See also vexatious litigation.

As for GNG, the subject clearly passes it as it would not have gotten through AfC and DYK otherwise.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Rees (British soldier) Discussion at DYK 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson I am asking you what you are saying is POINT about this AFD? POINTy is you and your friends putting up AFD pages for DYK and then holding that up as a sign that the page shouldn't be deleted despite a lack of SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No virtue in that argument.

The two of you have a repeated failure at WP:AFD, flouting WP:Before, and the articles are developed with sources you should have foundwith due diligence. These go on to successful DYK nominations and are on the front page. This state of facts only proves how misguided these AFDs are.

It's not about you. It is about the subject, the sources (including those that are out there, even if not cited) and the article as it develops.

The prosecution rests. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What repeated failure are you referring to? Poorly sourced pages are put up for AFD, debated and a consensus reached or not. Andrew Davidson says that this is a POINTy AFD and I am asking him what is POINTy about it and am yet to receive a credible answer. As far as your "prosecution" goes you haven't proven anything other than that you will Keep any page no matter how weak and irrelevant the sourcing is. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An essay is not even close to policy. It goes policy->guideline->consensus-by-common-usage->essay. Essay is the last/weakest type of consensus. The reason is anyone (or a few people) can create an essay that says whatever. Also, I would like to see that discussion you refer to, most of the time they are not so clearly resolved and/or tend to be dominated by a handful of people. -- GreenC 17:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nom cited SOLDIER and GNG. If they didn't cite SOLDIER someone would doubtless raise it and as the nom notes below it still represents MilHist consensus at least until the discussion: [1] closes. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is rich. Noms are citing SOLDIER in dozens or hundreds of AfDs while at the same time there is a discussion to deprecate SOLDIER, with most !oting to kill it. -- GreenC 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So? Both the nom and I acknowledge the discussion regarding SOLDIER, which is why the nom also mentioned GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Andrew Davidson and 7&6=thirteen are clearly engaged in a witch hunt to try and point out faults with my arguments on almost every single AFD I've filed in the past month or so. I remind them; WP:SOLDIER is a consensus that was established by the military history wikiproject. It may not be official policy, but it's the closest you can get to it. If it is deleted, I would understand their arguments, but it hasn't been deleted. :::::Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lettler This is not a "witch hunt." If you insist, then stop being a witch and doing silly AFDs.

You apparently are a slow learner, at least as to what AFD is about. It should not be about establishing your body count. If it hurts when you do this, don't do it anymore.

N.b., I was at this article FIRST. I built it up, and got a DYK. Many years ago. You did not have this account at the time; so as far as I know, you were not even a blip on my radar then.

Stop following me. WP:Stalking. WP:Pot. You caused the problem, and now want to blame me. Chutzpah.

You came to me, not the other way around. So stop with the sanctimonious bullshit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctimonious? That's rich coming from you who wrote this: [2] Mztourist (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You folks nominated scores of articles for deletion all at once. You want to wear that cloak? Go for it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes GNG as was determined by an earlier AfD and DYK. This AfD appears to be part of a larger ongoing war, another smoking battlefield. There is no place to merge without creating an over-WEIGHT problem in the target article. Keep per WP:PRESERVE (policy). -- GreenC 16:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "earlier AFD"? Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fine, well constructed, well documented, easy to read and look at article. It should stay. Carptrash (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Common sense and good editorial judgment intrudes into this discussion. Thank you User:Carptrash. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG above, and also per WP:ANYBIO, Rees "received [...] well-known and significant award[s]" that received news coverage, including BBC News, when they were sold at auction. From BBC News: "Such a group of medals, although hard-earned, would normally be regarded as somewhat commonplace, but the facts behind these humble medals make them a very special item," says Welsh antiques dealer Robert Pugh." Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "well-known and significant award[s]"? he received a set of very ordinary medals that only have any significance because of his WP:1E of being von Richthofen's first kill. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are "significant" because the BBC says they are ("very special item"). That you disagree with the BBC is a matter of your personal opinion, but objectively we report what sources say, in this case an assertion of notability. -- GreenC 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean "Welsh antiques dealer Robert Pugh" says they are a "very special item" as reported by the BBC? See the difference? As I said earlier, the awards themselves are not significant, their only significance is the WP:1E association with von Richthofen. Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant "reported by BBC News," which is also in-depth reporting about Rees in December 1999, in addition to helping make his medals "well known," per WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr you and GreenC are completely perverting #1 of ANYBIO here. #1 states "a well-known and significant award or honor", i.e. a VC, MoH etc., Rees's awards are stated in the BBC report to be "somewhat commonplace" so they absolutely fail #1. The fact that the medals have acquired some value/collectability because of their association with von Richthofen does not somehow elevate them to satisfying #1. Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you may disagree but don't call my position "perverted", are you perverted? Second, I never cited ANYBIO, I said GNG and this is "significant" coverage. Significant because it demonstrates notability asserted by the source in three words ("very special item"). -- GreenC 15:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is temporally relative; this airman was always notable for his distinguished career, apart being the Red Baron's first victim and the historical significance of his medals; he is still notable now. Many "notables" of today's Wikipedia will not be remembered in ten years' time, let alone 100+. Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "distinguished career"? There's nothing remotely out of the ordinary in Tom Rees (airman)#Military career. No significant patrols, no victories, nothing. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, Rees had no notability at the time of his death and only later became known for the retrospective WP:1E of being von Richthofen's first kill.Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point. Does not fail WP:SOLDIER

It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable (conversely, a person who meets these criteria is not necessarily notable, if no significant coverage can be found); ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources.

nor does it fail WP:GNG, so the two reasons for deletion fail.Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per available references. Meets WP:GNG. Timberlack (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rees is way more notable that many of the minor sports and entertainment personalities cluttering up Wikipedia who will be forgotten in a couple of decades.Bermicourt (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Nasheed

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

Not notable person Stonksboi (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Stonksboi (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject now clearly passes WP:GNG. This was not the case in the past, its very common for an article to be created and deleted multiple times before the topic actually becomes notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has references from the New York Times, CBS Atlanta,and CNN. Koridas 📣 04:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG, mentionings in US Newspapers like NYT and in CNN+many others, Search for him at Newspapers.com got 167 matches. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per available resources passes GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is clearly notable. The nominator apparently dislikes the subject or thinks that the subject is controversial, but that is not a reason to delete, but to provide neutral coverage of controversies. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see how this fails WP:GNG at all. Stonksboi please can you elaborate on your nomination and explain why the sources are not sufficient, in your opinion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no problem with his notability. The edit history of the article shows an obvious dispute between people who are offended by his viewpoints and others trying to avoid imbalanced coverage of the supposed controversy. That is probably the reason for the neutrality notice at the top. Calling for deletion is probably an act of revenge by someone offended by the man's viewpoints. That can be yelled about (until everyone gets bored and moves on to a newer outrage) in social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Levine (medical administrator)

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found this page when cleaning out a backlog or six, but other than cleaning up sourcing, I couldn't find anything that resolved the notability tag. He's name dropped due to his role, and his former party affiliation was in the news at appointment, but nothing significant to indicate notability as a person. StarM 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a not at all close to being notable health administrator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mosley

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

Does not state a reason for WP:N and sources do not appear to mention much that affirms notability. It appears to be written in a very WP:PROMO and WP:POV fashion as well. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it seems the nominator might be confusing this judge with a business man. Mosely definitely seems to pass WP:NJUDGE: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels, with Mosely being a federal court judge. In addition, I have found some sources sources, that might be of use in the article: [3] [4] [5]. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. The Canadian federal trial court appears to be the equivalent of a United States district court, for which we have previously determined that all judges are inherently notable. The Canadian court is described as "a superior court with nationwide jurisdiction", and has a relatively small number of judges (37 in total) to handle all of the country's business under its jurisdiction. We should probably have articles on all of them. BD2412 T 18:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denzil Connick

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay with no official standing or consensus support. The nomination's claim that the subject does not pass the WP:GNG is false. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep fails WP:SOLDIER but the aggregate coverage of him probably amounts to SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Weak as I am AGFing User:Mztourist's argument that there is some coverage. Sadly, I am not seeing it. Could you link to the best examples? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GNG is not satisfied. Sparse, weak media coverage, e.g. Blackwood Armed Forces veteran's 26 years helping others like him in a newspaper with a indeterminate subscription base, Denzil Connick remembers meeting Baroness Thatcher, from the BBC, but an interview and more about Thatcher than him. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all noted above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Schulz

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

Fails WP:NPOL since the subject has never won any national or state level elections Padavalam🌂 ► 16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being spokesman for the youth wing of a political party is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NPOL — but this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by his own political party, such as its own website and internal newsletter and directory entries, which is not how you get a person over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political role. The only source that clearly comes from a genuine media outlet independent of the party is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose core subject is something else, which doesn't help. And the German article (which should probably also be deleted, but I can't read or write German in order to navigate their deletion process) is just using the exact same footnotes and shows no evidence whatsoever of anything else, so there aren't any sources that can just be pulled over from de to salvage this. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With respect to WP:NPOL, he has not even run for any office that would give rise to notability, nor does any of the sourcing establish WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Those advocating keeping the article improved it or supplied sources, which were not challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rehana Fathima

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

The subject does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The subject has only recieved coverage for some contriversial events. The users Harryishere (talk · contribs) and Ritabharidevi (talk · contribs) (creator), who participated in previous AFD to vote as keep were blocked for socketpuppetry. Ghiblifanatic (talk · contribs) is also a suspected socketpuppet. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021 [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Not a WP:BLP1E. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being in the news does not mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Its true that the subject has been covered in multiple sources for some events. But that doesnt mean she passes WP:GNG. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: people who perform some symbolic act of protest in support of a political issue may appear in the news, but that does not entitle them to have a Wikipedia page about them. Suppose I run naked in the streets (repeatedly) to support some political movement I may get similar amount of media coverage. News items like "the serial streaker strikes again" will make headlines :) Will you support creation of a Wikipedia page about me ? Sahir 11:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sahirshah (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Delete: It seems to be a promotional article, which may contradict Wikipedia's policies.There are no significant contributions from this person and sources are mostly controversial issue . Padavalam🌂 ► 15:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bio subject is controversial but meets GNG. Our test for notability is not whether or not the topic should get SIGCOV, out test is whether or not the topic did get SIGCOV in "reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some people like Thjarkur have been ardent supporters of this page because they got the wrong idea about the whole thing. She is neither a famous feminist nor a human rights activist in the conventional sense. She was an employee of a telecom company in Kerala and became famous in social media as a bikini model or some such thing. When the Entry of women to Sabarimala controversy flared up she appeared in the news for attempting to enter the temple. She may be mentioned in this page, but does not merit a page on her own. Sahir 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sahirshah (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
- Comment: Agree with Sahir. Three users from Kerala including myself voted as delete as we know about this person very well. The subject is notable only for creating controversies. So it would be better if we have more users from Kerala to participate in this discussion. I am going to inform the users from Kerala that I know to participate in this discussion. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the opinion that She is neither a famous feminist nor a human rights activist in the conventional sense. Just recieved some coverage from national medias only for controversial events. Better to merge with Entry of women to Sabarimala.The article itself was created by a sock who later got blocked. I also suspect this article was created for an undisclosed payment.Poppified ^talk 13:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Poppified (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Comment'In my previous comment, I clearly said already said I am going to notify the users from Kerala that I know to participate in this AFD. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Poppified#Need_participations_from_users_from_Kerala. Since I know this user, who is also from Kerala I left a message, please tell your opinion which is not all canvassing. The user is also uninvolved in previous AFD. I have never said to vote in favour of me. I have also told Poppified (talk · contribs) to notify any other users from Kerala that he knows to participate in this AFD as I dont know any other active users from Kerala.Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 15:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Clearly fails WP:GNG. Just because this person appeared in news, it doesn't mean they are notable. This person is notable in certain areas only because of the controversial issues surrounding the person. So I believe this article should be deleted from main space . Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article also constitute a lot with WP:NOTNEWS. So, it also supports the idea of cutting off of the article from main space. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Toddy1: Noticed you added a "canvassed" tag to my vote. Kindly read the page wp:canvassing on what is and isn't appropriate notification about an event or a vote. The "canvassed" tag you added here is wholly inappropriate. Thank you - Sahir 02:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, this article includes significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, WP:SUSTAINED over several years, about her career as an activist, including but not limited to: Times of India, 2020, News Minute, 2018, Scroll.in, 2018. Beccaynr (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am working to revise the article before I conduct additional research, but I now better understand that her actions have been deeply offensive to many people; this seems to help explain why she appears to meet WP:GNG, because the offense she has caused, and the consequences and reactions she has experienced, have generated significant news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources confirm notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV in multiple RS; easily passes the GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When sources are enough to demonstrate GNG, we don't need any other "notability litmus test". ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and SIGCOV with a great margin... A simple google search brings multiple sources from reliable news outlets. I don't understand the argument above that she is not notable although admitting that she received "some coverage from national medias" for a controversy. The point here that she has received media coverage from a national media. Kolma8 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. No votes concurred with deletion. Discussion regarding whether to rename/move the article can be made outside of this AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Shu Min elitism controversy

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

This article is an example of WP:BLP1E where the subject has not been notable in the years after the controversy happened. The only wiki page that is linked to this is of her father's, Wee Siew Kim, which is a notable BLP. – robertsky (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wee Siew Kim: Definitely an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply here. This is an event which was notable and is often cited as an example of elitism. I can find secondary references in academic sources [15], [16],[17],[18], [19], [20]. There are also news articles such as [21], [22], [23]. If I am correct, the article was originally linked from Gifted Education Programme (Singapore) (in a criticism section), but seems like someone has removed the entire section. I understand the BLP implications and I wouldn't mind if the article is renamed to something like "2006 Singapore elitism controversy". However, I don't think the article should be deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss credibility of sources mentioned and whether WP:BLP1E applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw deletion nom, in light Justanothersgwikieditor's recent addition of a recent reference to this incident in newspaper publication. However, I am in favour of DreamLinker's proposal to renaming to "2006 Singapore elitism controversy". The nomination rationale for this AfD and the previous one is largely BLP1E, and renaming the article would address BLP1E concern to a certain extent. – robertsky (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename : I am in favor of renaming to "2006 Singapore elitism controversy". The new title will be suited and more generic for other articles about elitism / social issues in Singapore. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Maithil

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

Contested redirect. This person is clearly not notable enough for a stand-alone article and does not meet WP:GNG independently. The redirect to Mithila Student Union was contested by the article creator. All coverage of this person is trivial and he is never mentioned outside of his association with this organisation. I can't find any evidence of notability separate from Mithila Student Union. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. fails GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 15:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability outside of the student organization. Important info is covered there. —Kbabej (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Nemeth

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN Theroadislong (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on [24]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The promotional language can be fixed. But the lack of evidence of notability can't, as far as I can tell. Maproom (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's been plugging away for many years with a lot of albums, but unless he got into hardcopy books early in his career, he has practically no reliable media coverage. Various activities and releases have been noted by other musicians in social media chatter, and he has some self-promotions, but he will have to be happy as a behind-the-scenes journeyman. This WP article is clearly an attempted promotion to generate session work, and probably copied from his own websites and social media pages. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We should check for hardcopies and print sources first before coming to a consensus, just to be sure. This is because a lot of the previous comments have pointed to lack of internet sources, but the subject was performing before the popularization of the internet. There could very well be newspaper coverage or the like that didn't make its way to the web. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonora, Princess of Ligne

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

Fails WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cites no sources and fails GNG. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Private citizen whose only connection to notability is her ancestry. Sourcing does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability isn't inherited, and I can find no indication that she is notable in her own right. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Maleh

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

Subject does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NSOLDIER. Sources in the article and BEFORE did not show anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. The Times reference is the name in a list of two people killed, not even a complete sentence. "The Scramble in the Horn of Africa" does not mention the subject on pp.386 (it does mention a report from Colonel R. I. Scallon, but no mention of the subject or support claims in the article) and a search showed nothing on any other page. // Timothy :: talk 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No SIGCOV anywhere. SK2242 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete votes address sources, and while the keep votes attempt to refute them, they do not do so in a manner that is able to achieve consensus. Additionally the keep votes do not address the arguments for promotion in a way that is consistent with policy—simply claiming someone is notable is not a counter argument to the deletion votes on spam grounds as promotion is a violation of WP:NOT, which is an independent grounds for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Chanchlani

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani

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

As per the previous two afds, he still isn't notable - his Nick win is the only thing that changed but it hasn't resulted in any additional coverage. Forbes 30 under 30 is meaningless, it has no value and it's based on a lottery and persistence and is awarded to 600 people a year, which is far from unique. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani has an extensive review of the sources (minus the current passing mentions which are worthless.) The Nick award is interesting from a Wikipedia point of view because it's a kids choice award, and yet his channel is very much not a children's channel, which leads me to believe the voting was, let's say untoward... CUPIDICAE💕 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All sources claim, and a career was needed which I made. Ashish Chanchlani#Career — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.238.206.29 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: No new definitive GNG sources to help since July 2020. 30 under 30 doesn't establish notability. The Nick award really depends on better outside coverage and is about as notable as a Streamy award or a Behind The Voice Actors award. As I said in the CSD, this should have been rewritten completely at draft without any use of unreliable/not-so-reliable sources. If he is as popular as Dream (YouTuber) (23.5 vs. 24.4 million) there should be multiple RS'es that give him lots of coverage. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF The more I dig into the Nick award, the more concerns I have about it's value and general trustworthyness. Why is a channel - geared very clearly toward adults, publishing content like this, winning a KCA, intended for children? KCA is also overall kind of irrelevant to notability because all it requires is an online-click campaign. Not to mention our article on KCA India leaves me to believe this isn't the same award it once was. CUPIDICAE💕 19:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THe idea that because he has x viewers and so did y person, so he should be notable is flawed though. As the Nick award shows and the countless number of Facebook likes for certain websites that don't even exist, viewers and subscribers can be bought. The only thing that matters here is sourcing. And it simply doesn't exist yet. CUPIDICAE💕 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up Dream because he had an extensive AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination) where a pile of sources were vetted or rejected to clean up the article and other editors eventually allowed for enough RS'es to show up. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India depends more whether it's an established award or whether it's a trendy for that edition award or one of those magazine top 10 / year-end awards which don't really give the person anything except the media mention. It's hardly the Emmys though. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's some "favorite youtuber" garbage. Which is frankly laughable. Also their own website no longer works and doesn't appear to have worked for about a year, so that says a lot. CUPIDICAE💕 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to understand how come someone who is nominated for notable award like Indian Television Academy Awards See This and has won multiple awards like Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India This, see this and this and World Bloggers Awards See Forbes article mentioning his win, Apart from this he has references on highly reliable sources like Forbes, BBC World, Indian Express, Telangana Today, Republic Wolrd, Business Insider and many others How come this fails to not pass WP:GNG? Dtt1^Talk 20:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeatedly explained to you, these are all brand posts, press releases, unreliable and deprecated or social media. Go take a long read of WP:RSP. CUPIDICAE💕 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a single reference mentioned above is a brand posts, press releases, unreliable and deprecated at all If you have checked them closely then you must not have written this, and about WP:RSP I am VERY WELL aware about it and have gone through it briefly The Indian Express and others all are among reliable ones in the list :) Kindly Check Dtt1^Talk 20:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dtt1 WP:IDHT is jsut as disruptive as vandalism. I don't know if you're incapable or unwilling but literally the sources you linked: published by the awarding body, social media, press release, press release, a contributor piece which isn't reliable per WP:RSP about an award that isn't notable and cannot be verified in actual rs, a worthless 30 under 30 award given to 600 people a year that parrots an unverifiable story from a contributor, an interview that isn't remotely close to independent, a cruft piece in a listicle, a rehash of his video which i already outlined it's lack of appropriateness in the prior afd, deprecated source as per WP:RSP, literally sayas brand post in the header! CUPIDICAE💕 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Dtt1 (talk · contribs)'s comments, plus a lot of his youtube videos from 2 years ago were school and college oriented, and viewed a significant number of times. It’s entirely plausible that he legitimately won the kid’s choice award, and that his audience has since, let’s say … grown up. ~~He also won an award at the Cannes Film Festival.~~ SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, he did not win an award at the Cannes Film Festival. He won a non-notable award where the award function (a one-off event) was held in Cannes – no connection to the film festival. (Cannes hosts many festivals and events of various kinds, the city is known for it.) This was discussed at some length in one of the previous AfD discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani. --bonadea contributions talk 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right - I withdraw that statement. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the kids choice awards "Grew up" is just as flawed as Dtt1's WP:TE and has no basis in policy. What sources is this based on? CUPIDICAE💕 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the awards grew up, I was referring to Chanchlani's youtube audience.SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

his audience didn’t grow up magically in the 2 weeks since the award. It’s the kids choice awards. But what sources can you provide to support your statement as I’ve thoroughly debunked those that Dtt1 provided. CUPIDICAE💕 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article as written does not make a case for general notability.
- - The onus is on the author of an article to establish notability under any circumstances.
  - The onus is even more emphatically on an article to establish notability when previous deletion discussions have found that the subject is not notable.
  - There have been two previous AFDs and an MFD.
  - Prior articles did not establish notability, and this article does not establish notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: The current article mentions,"Chanchlani was interviewed on Worklife India..." This show is a regional chat show and NOT an interview of notable personalities. The Indian Television Academy Awards is a vanity award event. Moreover, he is one among 5 'social media stars' nominee. The Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India, cited sources (medianews4u, style.yahoo) are unreliable, which suggest that, these awards are not significant. Neurofreak (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The things that have changed since the last AfD are the Nickelodeon kids award and the Forbes India list. The award is of very doubtful notability, and being included on the Forbes India 30 under 30 list (which is not independently notable) doesn't in itself confer notability on an individual. Being interviewed on TV does not make a person notable either, unless there is independent coverage, but as it is, all sources in the article (including those that have been removed) are primary and/or not independent. Regarding the ITA Awards nomination, even if he were to win on Monday that means nothing – it's a "popular" category, not a notable award. This is an individual who makes money from adding covert advertising to his YouTube videos, and so it is probably important for him and his marketing people that he is as visible as possible on the Internet, to attract more customers. That's not Wikipedia's concern, however. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Dtt1. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig, which GNG sources are there? Please list them as the ones Dtt1 are being questioned. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is unfortunate that there are no WP:RS to reflect notability though the person is quite famous IRL. The three step methodology of the Forbes India magazine is a bit suspect as actual data is not provided to substantiate claims along with 'how were the experts chosen?' and 'what parameters did they use to identify the final 30?'. Further, voting in the second phase is prone to gaming and hence problematic. I'd have a similar set of objections to the Nick awards. Vikram Vincent 16:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would seem to meet WP:Entertainer, 23.5M subscribers is more than the population of most countries, certainly qualifies as "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followers, as pointed out in several policies and guidelines, are generally worthless since they can be purchased. WP:BLP REQUIRES independent reliable sourcing. Not some arbitrary number that is full of bot accounts. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that publicists like their clients to have Wikipedia articles is indeed not our concern, in that it has no bearing either way on notability. I have to question how "extensive" the review of the sources in the previous AfD was. One of the sources classified as "unknown/spam?" is in fact the Indian edition of Entrepreneur magazine, something that would have taken roughly 30 seconds to learn: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/346458. And whatever the methodology or rigor of the Forbes list, its result is nevertheless coverage in a magazine that consensus has deemed reliable per WP:RSP. (The previous AfD claims that the article is a Forbes contributor piece; it is not. It ran in the print edition.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the concerned source was kept under "uncategorized.." not under "unknown.." as you mentioned above. This is a link to a guest list of an Entrepreneur India event. The same wikpedia article still can be read here: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Ashish_A._Chanchlani. As far as I know, it is not considered as a reliable source for wikipedia entries. Neurofreak (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that a publication has ancillary promotional events, PR wings, or "X Under X" lists is not a referendum on the entire publication's notability or reliability. Forbes is a good example of a case where the extended universe of promotional/"guest" content is separate from the publication itself, and the Entrepreneur article appears to be similar (the note at the bottom states it, too, was published in the print edition). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither I commented on Entrepreneur notabilty/reliabilty nor I added the (entrepreneur.com) under "uncategorized/spam" in the previous AfD. I merely listed (entrepreneurindia.com) under uncategorized with a question mark, since the cited link was directing me to the speakers list of an event. Neurofreak (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomingstuff Did you even read my source analysis? Would you like to provide at least one independent source about this person? Because right now there's nothing that meets this criteria. Your assertion that my nom is simply because it's paid is ridiculous and untrue, considering I've now done three indepth analysis of the sources and not a single keep here has provided a single independent reliable source much less one that isn't paid for PR, which by definition doesn't contribute to notability. Further, Forbes is discussed EXTENSIVELY at RSP/RSN - 30 under 30 isn't a prestigious or notable award that establishes notability in and of itself, it's awarded to 600 people a year and there is nothing more that determines it other than a self-submission and luck of the draw. Further, he hasn't received significant coverage because of that itself. CUPIDICAE💕 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Gnomingstuff the previous AFD that discussed this forbes piece is a contributor piece as per the giant notice at the top and it is not in a print edition and the award itself is not from Cannes Film Festival, it just took place in Cannes and is a non notable award per our own determination. CUPIDICAE💕 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be talking about different Forbes pieces. The one I am referring to (https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2021/ashish-chanchlani-going-viral-for-a-living/66315/1) is a piece that ran in the magazine. The author, Mansvini Kaushik, was employed by Forbes at the time of publication, and the piece ran in the print magazine ("This story appears in the 12 February, 2021 issue of Forbes India."). This is the Forbes category listed as reliable on WP:RSP. The awards are not the reason I bring this piece up, but the fact that the magazine decided to run a profile of him in the print edition. If you would like to argue that these are "paid-for PR" you will have to provide proof of that (and, by definition, it can't both be "paid-for PR" and "luck of the draw"). Similarly, the Enterpreneur piece is also a staff profile independent of this guy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that's what I am trying to explain which Gnomingstuff just did well and better than me, apart from Forbes and Enterpreneur there are others too like (https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/entertainment-others/youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-family-coronavirus-covid-19-6565075/) this from Wikipedia:INDIANEXP which is again by their employee and also if we keep aside the fact that he won those notable awards we cant deny that these aren't at all paid stuff they are Notable.Dtt1^Talk 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Express is certainly quite reputed media organisation, but the article is not an independent profile of notable persons. It is a 2-liner news about his COVID-19 recovery, and the remaining article quote his twitter and instagram posts. Neurofreak (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes piece that Gnomingstuff refers to is independent in the sense that it does not appear to be commissioned by Chanchlani's PR people, but it is undeniably a primary source as it is an interview – and looking at the raw word count of that text, almost exactly half of it is direct quotes from Chanchlani. This was published because he is on the 30 under 30 list published by the same magazine, so not independent in that sense. (As an aside, the Forbes writer claims that the blogger award Chanchlani won was connected to the Cannes Film Festival, so not exactly a careful fact checker...)

As for the Entrepreneur article, the situation is identical. A piece based in its entirety on an interview with a lot of direct speech, published because Chanchlani was listed in their "35 under 35". To be clear, that kind of source does explicitly not count towards notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Lacks WP:RSP and no in-depth coverage. In my opinion the subject in question does not qualify for a standalone page on Wikipedia.- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 15:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt undisclosed paid-for-spam with no evidence of notability. GSS ^💬 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt No indication of notability. The editor must be having a laugh at us. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimous agreement here even after I discount a sockpuppet argument. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Abruzzo

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

Purely WP:PROMOTIONAL biography of someone who does not pass WP:GNG, potentially written for pay. WP:NOTRESUME. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Likely paid-for spam, creator blocked for advertising. MER-C 19:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability guidelines Padavalam🌂 ► 16:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. looks promotional Alex-h (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG Devoke water 09:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Go Phightins! 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lee Wolverton

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. The article was also clearly created by a relative. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This article was tagged as possibly not notable back in 2008. While Reagan's use of the prayer attributed to him might be considered notable (in terms of the prayer, not Wolverton himself), I don't see much else that is. Most of the sources aren't really what I'd call RS when it comes to Wolverton himself. Intothat darkness 17:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay and so has no official standing. The story of the prayer appears in numerous books including Words of a Century – The Top 100 American Speeches and so passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. His relatives have been busy, e.g. "Lee Wolverton: Spirit of D-Day warriors needed now", but Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Cited by the President Reagan at a D-Day celebration, and he now has his own monument there. Durindaljb (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearer consensus needed, especially as one delete was weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The D-day Experience museum in Saint-Côme-du-Mont, France, also includes information about Robert Lee Wolverton and his famous prayer, see D-Day Experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipp Flach (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC) — Philipp Flach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are of the self-published memorial variety or lack independence of the subject due to involvement of family members. Fails WP:GNG. We don't need an article on everyone's somewhat interesting grandfather. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that the article seems to have been created in direct violation of COI guidelines by members of his family. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting BLPREQUESTDELETE. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LDShadowLady

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject has requested deletion. As noted in the previous AfD closed as no consensus, there is some coverage, but in my opinion not enough to establish clear notability that overrides the BLPREQUESTDELETE concerns. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and due to the current lack of sourcing—the first two sources are primary and the third is not independent. Perryprog (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, poor sourcing. As the subject has requested deletion due to privacy concerns (she hasn't released her name, thus non-public), it clearly meets the criteria of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Additionally, the sources are weak, primarily consisting of social media links. Editor760 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even putting BLP concerns aside, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources does not appear to exist. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was taking a look at the sources mentioned in the prior discussion, and considering attempting to improve this, but the fact that the BLP vio existed since the articles creation, the poor quality of even the best sources in the prior discussion or previous versions of the article, and the fact that the subject requests deletion all push me towards delete. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - the subject didn't request deletion, just that her real name not be used. She uses her alias and photo on her social media so I don't think she's worried about those items being public. I just contacted Google since they indexed the version with her real name before we could revert it. I added some coverage - she was the #2 female YouTuber in the UK a few years back. That's enough for a weak keep. The question now is, do we leave this article up because it might be a magnet for personal info, or do we remove it to protect her from being doxxed? Tough choice but I think as long as she's notable enough, the benefit of compiling knowledge comes first. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote due to help desk request. IP address of request geolocates to subjects home area. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Someone claiming to be subject requested the article be deleted over IRC. I have not verified their identity, but I am taking their request at face value, and it was the same person as Wikipedia:Help desk#Please help, Wikipedia doxed me. Being "a magnet for personal info" was part of their argument. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she's a low profile individual and imo not notable anyway but if WP really wants to deal with gender gaps and equity with women, we should start by listening to them when they ask to have articles deleted, especially when they are not major public figures. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested and taking as WP:GOODFAITH. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough there would be hundreds of youtuber pages if this was notable enough which it is not. Also the page has many other problems. TigerScientist Chat 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jamie Lynn Spears and protect. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Spears

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

Article is being repeatedly redirected and restored. Listing for consensus on whether this should be kept as a BLP or redirected noting WP:INHERIT. Is the father if Britney Spears independently notable given appearance in recent news events? Polyamorph (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - notability is not inherited, and there is nothing that is not based on his relationship with his daughter. After redirection, protect from recreation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I would have agreed with the above until quite recently, but he seems to have become a public figure in his own right because of the controversy about the conservatorship, which has resulted in the public spotlight becoming focused on him as an individual. (See any news search for his name today.) If this turns out to be wrong, the article can always be re-merged into the Britney Spears article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect redirect this to Britney Spears because he's not notable enough to receive his own article and inherits much of notability from his daughter and events around the two. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The sole narrative of WP:SIGCOV of this individual is in the context of his daughter's estate. This is in the spirit of WP:BLP1E, if not the literal interpretation. I don't find any significant coverage of him otherwise. If there is future coverage that is not just about Britney or the conservatorship, the redirect can easily be reverted and a proper biography filled in. Schazjmd (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment having seen Lowellian's suggestion, I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should redirect to Britney or Jamie Lynn. I don't know if most readers would be searching for the father (WP:RECENTISM) or the daughter when searching for "jamie spears". Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamie Lynn Spears, not Britney Spears. Jamie Lynn Spears is more notable than her father, and "Jamie Spears" in public discourse commonly referred to her until recent news, and the father should not be overemphasized due to WP:RECENTISM. We can then add a hatlink to the Jamie Lynn Spears article pointing to Britney Spears for those looking for the father's conservatorship role. —Lowellian (reply) 00:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamie Lynn Spears per above; once the buzz around the documentary dies down this should be far more clear-cut a decision. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus of policy-oriented arguments clearly sits to delete. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Rodriguez (aviation executive)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Serving as an airport director is not particularly notable, even at the largest airports (which Indianapolis is not). Heavy edits from IP addresses and the text make it seem like it has been written by the subject of the article. TractorTrailer258 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bludgeoning by IPs

KEEP - Receiving the “Sagamore of the Wabash” Indiana’s highest civilian award limited to only a select few is notable. Receiving United Sates Congressional Recognition is notable. Being a member of the Biden-Harris PRESIDENTIAL Transition Team is Notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.168.30 (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Saving lives during and after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.168.30 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - It is good to note that there are only a very limited amount of people that have ever been awarded the "Sagamore of the Wabash", Indianas highest honor given only by the Governor of Indiana.
KEEP - Serving on the Presidential Transition team is important, winning the most important Indiana civilian award is important, Cogressional recognition is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.167.137 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Saving lives during and after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is notable. Being awarded the Sagamore of the Wabash by the Governor of Indiana is Notable. The award is the highest honor which the Governor of Indiana bestows, a personal tribute given to those who rendered distinguished service to the state or to the governor. Among those who have received Sagamores have been astronauts, presidents, ambassadors, artists, musicians, politicians and citizens who have contributed greatly to Hoosier heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.168.30 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Response.: - 1. The Sagamore of the Wabash is given by the Governor of Indiana for outstanding service to the State. It was started in 1945 (75 years ago)so there has been many (Notable citizens of Indiana that have received this very Notable award for their outstanding service. This is an excerpt from the indystar article "There are thousands who have received the honorarium, including astronauts, musicians, actors, and politicians. Among the distinguished recipients are:

   David Letterman
   Eddie Rickenbacker
   Eva Mozes Kor
   Gus Grissom
   President Harry Truman
   Jeff Gordon
   John Wooden
   Muhammad Ali
   Ryan White"

KEEP - 2. In lieu of just making a broad statement on "Congressional Recognitions" it would be intelligent to review what the recognition was for. refer to the link in the article.
KEEP - 3. Saving lives during and after Hurricane Katrina is Notable. I encourage you to research.
KEEP - 4. Being selected and participating in a PRESIDENTIAL transition is notable. TractorTrailer's comment would lead the reader to believe that selection and vetting of a PRESIDENTIAL transition team is a trivial matter and done in a haphazard manner and anyone, with or without talent, can guide the course of a new administration. That could not be farther from the truth. It would make sence to study PRESIDENTIAL transitions (especially this very historic and difficult one) before making uninformed statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.168.30 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The summation of all his, very well-documented, achievements makes this person notable and meets all requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:50 (talk) 2021-02-24T12:33:57 (UTC)
KEEP - Saving lives during and after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is notable. Being awarded the Sagamore of the Wabash by the Governor of Indiana is Notable. The award is the highest honor which the Governor of Indiana bestows, a personal tribute given to those who rendered distinguished service to the state or to the governor. Among those who have received Sagamores have been astronauts, presidents, ambassadors, artists, musicians, politicians and citizens who have contributed greatly to Hoosier heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.168.30 (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.: I've tried to reorder the comments from the IP addresses so that they are more understandable. IP address 184.170.167.137 has been blocked for repeatedly removing the AFD tag on the article in question. The comments above repeatedly mention how notable the Sagamore of the Wabash award is, but it appears that the award is routinely given to all manner of people, both notable and not. This article notes that "thousands" have been awarded, that there is no centralized roll of awardees, and that the Sachem Award is more prestigious. The "Congressional Recognition" that is mentioned appears to be no more than a minor laudatory statement that was submitted into the Congressional Record (for example, the next entry in the Congressional Record is congratulating a couple on their 50th wedding anniversary). Finally, serving on a Presidential transition team is also not inherently notable; hundreds of people serve as transition team members every time there is a Presidential transition and while their work is important, it is ultimately just temporary and preparatory staff work. In fact, only one of the Department of Transportation transition team members appears to have an article (Polly Trottenberg, and she was Commissioner of Transportation in New York City and nominated to become Deputy Secretary of Transportation. I'm very sorry these IP users (who very much appear to have a close personal connection with Mr. Rodriguez) are taking offense to this AfD, but I still believe this article fails WP:NBIO and should be deleted. TractorTrailer258 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views from others who have not contributed to the article would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 08:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs input by more people who are not (or not associated with) Mario Rodriguez.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can some one have a look at the spamming on this article --Devokewater 11:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have collapsed the comments by IP. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have performed a quick source analysis and could only find two sources that came close to meeting our gold standard of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. That said, I am not particularly familiar with sourcing for airport-related articles, so an independent second opinion on some sources would be appreciated (noted in the table). All told however, I highly doubt this person meets the general notability guideline. Simply serving on a Presidential transition team is nowhere near close to being of inherent notability - hundreds of people serve on each team. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page is now semi-protected for a month after I have requested it. This should stop the spam from IPs. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 17:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the questionable items from the talk page links do not speak to notability due to lack of independence. When you have similar stories from multiple sources, all with time and geographic correlation, it's a fair bet they are all written from the same press release. The Sagamore of the Wabash is an honorarium akin to "Kentucky colonel" - it doesn't speak to notability. 174.254.192.230 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bob Sinister

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

Unreferenced BLP with no reliable sigcov that I can find. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly Redirect to Corrosion of Conformity. Most of this guy's career is local, and his longtime band Ugly Americans got some local media coverage (e.g. [25]), but that would be more useful for an article about them if they were notable. He was with the notable Corrosion of Conformity but only for about two years, and during that time he generated no reliable coverage that was specifically about himself outside the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure why this is a page for only the lead singer and not the entire band since the article is largely about Ugly Americans. Either way, though, no sources are provided and a google search turns up mentions in databases but no significant coverage beyond the minor one cited above. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 17:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Recife

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

Article is completely unreferenced and I can't find any reliable significant coverage. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (medium-ish). Google books has lots of coverage (example), and he has been mentioned in books by important design folks like the Smithsonian's Ellen Lupton. Possibly (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview in Juxtapoz magazine, and coverage in a book on illustration. He is included in this book on Brazilian design by the Museum of Modern Art, Sao Paolo. Let's also remember that there may also be sources in Portugese.Possibly (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Judging by this WP:PRIMARY source, we should expect a GNG pass because it looks like he has arguments under WP:NARTIST 4 b) and 4 d). Turning directly to GNG, here are some independent and in-depth Portuguese or Spanish RS that others might have missed: 1, 2, and two that are not very in-depth but give indirect evidence of his notability, 3 and 4. This is on top of a bunch of coverage of his books, some of which was given above, which gives further credence to the signs for an NAUTHOR argument too even if the NARTIST direction isn't sufficient. Note that I have just included Portuguese or Spanish sources; there are lots more English sources but I assume others can find those. Some of these sources directly attest to his notability (a good sign for, say, NARTIST 1), with for example the Hoje em Dia article calling him "bastante procurado" — really sought-after. This article needs better sourcing but in terms of notability it is a comfortable keep. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This AfD has been relisted three times. It has had few contributors to the discussion. Of those !voting, three - including the nominator - are in favour of delete due to lack of significant reliable sources, with only one keep (from Piecesofuk, because they added sources). With three to one in favour of delete, numerically that would favour a delete. Also, lack of interest in a delete discussion in itself favours a delete on the principle of "no objection". On the other hand, the article was nominated for deletion when it was in this state: [26], when it had only two sources, and one of those was IMDB, which is generally considered to be an unreliable source, but it has been built on during the AfD discussion, and more sources added. However, two of the deletes came after the sources were added, and commented that the sources were not adequate - for example that the BBC source was an interview, and that coverage of her art career (her assumed notability) was sparse. Having looked at the BBC interview, I agree. The interview is about the town - she is used as a commentator on the town as a resident there. And other mentions, such as in the Irish Independent and Evening Herald, are "sparse" in that they mention her only in passing, in a trivial rather than the detailed or significant manner required of WP:GNG. However, The Impartial Reporter, a reliable source, does provide two detailed articles on her. And here's the rub. Certainly, they do not provide the information required of either WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST as pointed out by the nominator and user Possibly, when !voting delete, but they do provide some detailed coverage of her, as Possibly says, a "public personality". The downside of those sources is that they are local, which brings us back to the point made in the nomination that "The single source in the article is local coverage from her birthplace, so it counts for very little in terms of notability". That point has not been challenged, and has been implicitly supported by those commenting. It's also worth noting that two of those !voting to delete have been active in editing the article to provide sources, yet concluded after doing their research that there was not enough notability evidence for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Falconer

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

Does not appear to meet wither WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. I was not able to find enough coverage of her to meet WP:GNG, or to indicate that she meets any of the points in the SNGs. The single source in the article is local coverage from her birthplace, so it counts for very little in terms of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Found and added two more references. The talk page lists three other references which are all now deadlinks, but this may indicate more coverage exists. Tacyarg (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added that she was interviewed in the BBC series Town, also added a reference from the Culture Northern Ireland website which probably could be used to add some more information Piecesofuk (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some !votes apart from comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added an interview from Queen's University Belfast youTube channel Piecesofuk (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the one hand, she has been covered by BBC and a few other good sources... but several of these are interviews. Might meet GNG as a sort of former public personality. On the other hand, coverage of her art career is very sparse. Definitely fails every point of WP:NARTIST. Possibly (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly relisting a third time, no consensus above currently but with a more detailed review of sourcing one may be established with another 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was on the fence about this one, added a couple of references and appreciate those added by others, but I don't think there is enough coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 09:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Clare

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails in meeting WP:NAUTHOR Tbyros (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tbyros (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user Tbyros is known for trying to shake down users for $$ to eliminate the delete nomination - it is a scam. 2601:588:C100:6260:15B2:AB12:25D4:2D17 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2601:588:C100:6260:15B2:AB12:25D4:2D17 - this is a pretty big allegation to be making against another editor. Do you have any proof of this? ser! (let's discuss it). 01:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy is notable as both a writer and an activist. He has significant coverage in college papers, was selected as a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the University of Buffalo and has been the subject of radio interviews. And that's all without looking too hard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He won Randy Shilts Award in 2018 and was a finalist in some other events. The article meets WP:ANYBIO. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Isenburg

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

I can find no evidence of WP:GNG notability (it's almost an A7). The article says that her father is the heir of the last ruler of a tiny state abolished 200 years ago, and her late husband also was the heir of the last rules of another tiny state abolished 200 years ago. The only content specific to the person (and not her relation to others) seems to be her date of birth, not quite enough for a BLP I think. —Kusma (t·c) 11:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 11:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 11:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability and a clear case of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Lennart97 (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (lack of notability). — csc^-1
Delete Whatever her career is, it's not notable and not stated in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak case of notability. Mukt (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited, and there's no evidence that she's notable in her own right. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is relevant, together with her husband, was representative of an active mediatized family from Germany. Cronista de Historias (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per ab0ve.--Alcremie (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Her claim to fame is that she is the younger daughter of two people neither of whom have an article and the wife of a man who doesn't have an article. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No GNG claim. Kolma8 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DrKay. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VocalIndia (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Procedural close given that the nominator is checkuser blocked. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Penttinen

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

This page is a BLP, does not have sources, and have a lot of other issues. Larryzhao123 (talk | contribs) 19:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Larryzhao123 (talk | contribs) 19:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While indeed a BLP with a number of issues, AfD is not cleanup. I have done just a couple chronological, punctuation, and wording fixes, as well as added headings/subheadings just to make it easier for other editors to review. I am not familiar with racing or racing-related sources in the least, so in the spirit of WP:CIR will leave it to editors who know more about the subject. There are Swedish sources solely about the subject here, here, and here. --Kbabej (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 03:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the subject is notable (ALMS/ELMS are fully professional series, NSPORT is satisfied) but this is an all but unsourced BLP. Can someone with more time (and, likely, non-English skills) locate sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He appears to be driving at a motorsports level below that of WP:NMOTORSPORT. There is an indication that he will likely join the European LeMans circuit later this year, when he may well qualify for WP:NMOTORSPORT. Until then, it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Bothongo

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks good Refs, and some parts have flowery wording. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a lawyer, a businessman or anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a lot of the references cite his CV and some of the references look like promotion and/or advertising his businesses. So I am inclined to say this is a case where WP:GNG is not satisfied. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, G11, G12 by Deb TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rakib Khan Akas

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

Article and sources provided do not establish notability of this filmmaker per WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. ... discospinster _talk 18:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete wholly promotional and copyright violation. RationalPuff (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Reena Wadia

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

Vanity and promotional article. Full of puffery, run-of-the-mill stuff. Do not pass WP:BASIC,WP:ANYBIO, WP:RS RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it's promo, and should be deleted. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs clean up, multiple independent and reliable sources in the article and elsewhere (e.g. Telegraph, HuffPost) quote Wadia as an expert, so WP:BASIC notability appears to be established. Beccaynr (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Telegraph and HuffPost articles aren't even about her; they are about gum health and ask her questions about gums. They aren't focusing on the subject's contribution to her profession, or an award she's won, or any type of analysis. This is basically a CV. --Kbabej (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff-piece at the best of times. Please delete. Not notable Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just puff. She seems to have got a grand total of 2 citations to her published work. For the field she works in 2000 would be closer to the norm. If the BLP is kept the title Dr should be removed as it is not used by Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It's actually impressive how few citations she has and how low her h-index is for how many papers she's published (the bulk seem to be either uncited monographs or from a series in British Dental Journal called "Periodontal diagnosis in the context of the BSP implementation plan for the [year] classification system of periodontal diseases and conditions: [case report]". Xxanthippe is correct -- per Scopus, the average citation number for her coauthors with more than 10 papers to their name is 2711 (median: 1212, Wadia: 88). Her coauthors manage this with way fewer papers, too: avg: 79, median: 66, Wadia: 112. Her h-index is over 5 times lower than the average (avg: 23, median: 17, Wadia: 4)! JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No GNG claim. Kolma8 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have also said. If kept though, article needs renaming too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above. There is no sign of her meeting any notability criteria. Dunarc (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Sikha

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable -- the references are PR, and so is the doctorate from non-notable university DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he meets WP:GNG. The citations from the Toronto Star and The New Indian Express are WP:RS. PK T(alk) 21:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

both those references are promotional interviews, the sort of interview where the interviewer asks leading questions, and the subject of the interview says whatever they please about themselves. We have for several years realized that these are not independent sources in any real sense--the paper simply prints whatever the subject (or the subject's PR people) tell it. Even otherwise good papers do this, and it essentially means we cannot trust as independent sources anything in a news source which does not clearly indicate independent reporting with editorial control. Even the NYT does this sort of promotion and even more blatant choice of products to include in its style pages. It always did, but they're harder to distinguish in the online version. To the extent they show anything at all, they show the work of the press agent. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keephas few wp:rs on google but article reads promo.needs rewriting can be saved by editing,deletion is not necessary.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marielle Legair

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

Contested PROD, the user's reasoning can be found here.

There's a fair bit of self-promotion going on, but aside from that, I am not actually convinced that the sources provided are enough to establish notability (WP:NBIO). A detailed look at the sources can be found on the article talk page.

Some of the claims are either unverified or fall-short of the what is implied.~~For example, under the Career section, it says that she's worked with the BBC, but the reference provided is actually a feature on Louise Broni-Mensah (apparently a client), and not Marielle. [27]~~ There is some ambiguity over what the author means by media coverage: some examples (ie. BBC), are about a client rather than Marielle.

The blurb on her personal website [28] says that she has had "media features" in Forbes, Bloomberg, Financial Times and Essence, but there are no links provided and I've been unable to independently verify this. KH-1 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious promotional article that looks like a CV. The cited sources are mostly dependent sources based on customer sites, not based on independent sources. Fails GNG. Graywalls (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is becoming somewhat of a witchhunt with dubious undertones rather than a balanced view. The cited sources WERE mostly dependent sources based on customer sites after the profile was unfairly edited to make it look that way. You can now see all of the original references which include Red Bull Amaphiko Academy, New York Public Library, PR Week, Black to Business and Black Enterprise. The page is also now linked to from Louise Broni-Mensah Passes GNG. Bamberini8 11:16, 11 February 2021 (AEDT)
Delete Social media such as FB, Linked and YouTube cannot be used as a source. The articles written by herself can also not be used. The best source seems to Black Enterprise, but overall there is not significant coverage here to meet WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. To Bamberini8: If you are connected contributor, you must disclose this. Check WP:COI and WP:PAID. There are content on this article that is not available in the sources. For example, how would you know what her GPA was? Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Posey

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

Fails WP:GNG and SIGCOV. Being the first woman to die in an industrial accident during World War II doesn't make you notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG as she lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. First U.S. woman to die in an industrial accident in WWII isn't even referenced. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. If she really was looked on as "the first American women to die in the line of duty in World War II", then we would have reliable sources that support this claim. We do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had she died in 1938, she's be a non-notable industrial accident victim. Nothing special about her life/career/death. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Hickox. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Hickox

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to USS Hickox, lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary for GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to USS Hickox as there's no evidence that WP:BIO is met here, or is likely to be. This should be covered in the context of the ship. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article requires clean up more than deletion. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhurit Bhirombhakdi

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

5 references are from Youtube, 4 are from bogus sites like wikivisually, reference 1 doesn't open, 2 is an interview, 6 is like internet CV, Some of Forbes Thailand references don't open, and rest Forbes coverages have been repeated or are not published by core Forbes editorial team (taken from PR NEWS). Dial911 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable businessmen. We need reliable sources, not youtube.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is an article on the Thai Wikipedia though. Basically all sources are in Thai. –Cupper52^Discuss!
- Neither of those are reasons to support deletion. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable sources, article uses advertisement-like tone. — csc^-1 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason given to support deletion. The subject is clearly notable, given the amount of coverage in third-party reliable sources, which the nominator has not even claimed don't exist. I'd be happy to comment on the reliability of each source individually, but invalid arguments such as to delete an article because of links being dead and sources being in Thai are completely against policy. AfD is not for clean up.
Regarding the YouTube links, the first and third ones are episodes from nationally broadcast terrestrial TV programmes. The second is produced by Forbes Thailand; the fourth is a self-published source, which should be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF matters. Only the last one is questionable. I have no idea what "bogus sites like wikivisually" is supposed to refer to. So two of the Forbes Thailand links are PR pieces. The other four are cover articles from the print magazine.[29][30][31][32] The nom has forwarded no argument to disprove their reliability, nor those of the other sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Covered by Forbes Thailand articles as mentioned by Paul 012 above. Thailand top newspaper Thai Rath also has his name tagged in racing sport section with lots of news articles (click individual pictures and rows to go to published news piece) [33] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Paul. Passes GNG. LucyLucy (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY Now sufficiently sourced and compliant with GNG. Thanks to Paul 012 for finding new references. VocalIndia (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks but the article has not been edited at all. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is completely PROMO at present, *but* AfD is not cleanup ... (tone that follows is as polite as possible) content is irrelevant in determining notability, that is the point of BEFORE. Billionaire head of family business that is ranked 15th wealthiest in Thailand according to Forbes. Multiyear coverage in Thai and foreign RS. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarel Robinson-Brown

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

Clearly fails WP:BLP1E- he is solely known for comments made about Captain Tom, which is one event. Being a part-time chaplain, and a preacher/minister/vicar doesn't make him notable, and he doesn't pass WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the coverage of his remarks, there is no other assertions of notability. As note by the nominator, being a part-time chaplain isn't something that one would expect to be notable. One event / not news applies in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a throughly unnotable person who made some bigoted comments but those alone do not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a loud-mouth doesn't make you notable. Otherwise he's not even notable in his job. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:BLP1E for a minor cleric, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's little discussion of the actual sources. Sandstein 11:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilpeled

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

Non-notable Artist,fails to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article, but there's not enough in-depth sourcing found to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pilpeled is a very known artist in Israel. the article is well sourced, and actually is like the Hebrew article פילפלד. Do pass both WP:GNG, and WP:NARTIST. Ovedc (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovedc:Sorry, I could not find any in-depth sources about him, Btw Other language wikis are not considered to prove his notability -- Padavalam🌂 ► 07:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padavalamkuttanpilla:, Thank you for your remark, I added much more 3rd-party references from around the world, please read and re-consider your opinion, Thanks!

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is supported by reliable sources on Pilpeled and his work (e.g. [34], [35]) which are independent and whose coverage is non-trivial. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pilpeled is an artist with a proven record of international activity for years, including exhabitions in important museums and works for international brands, like Coca Cola and Puma. The article is written well in an encyclopedic style and it is based on a variety of sources. So it should be kept.Anatbc (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see decent coverage in a search. Meets GNG. It is not helping things that someone related to the artist appears to have been editing the page promotionally. Possibly (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed Mohammad Ziaabadi

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

A thorough internet research revealed that almost all news stories related to his death are copies of exact press release circulated across platforms. Also, there is no other coverage available about him or his works. To me, this article doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Dial911 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NBIO. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:26. 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability. — csc^-1 20:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Livingston

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

Non-notable journalist,fails to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does have a number of sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the podcast may be notable (and I'm not saying it is), there is not enough in-depth coverage on Livingston to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Onel5969 on this, although I think the podcast has enough independent coverage to be notable on its own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Note that Timberlack is a blocked sock. Sandstein 11:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Carvalho

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

References provided are non notable, majority of them are from Twitter and other primary sources. Two books he wrote are available on Google Books but no significant coverage in secondary sources found for them either. Almost every other reference is an article written by him for the organization he works for. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Out of 22 sources, two are from Twitter, about minor details (also confirmed by other sources). Most sources are from major news outlets in Brazil, like Grupo Globo (one of the biggest media comglomerates in the world), Grupo RBS, Quem (magazine), Terra (company), and also some local newspapers. Article was created a few minutes ago, I doubt the editor who nominated for deletion even had the time to read it properly, let alone check the sources. Subject is relevant (journalist nominated for an International Emmy Award and published author) and article is properly sourced. — Mr White 17:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While creating articles for Wikipedia, please keep in mind that number of sources doesn't matter. The quality does. Reference number 1 doesn't confirm his DOB, reference 6, 7, and 11 are from Twitter, majority of the rest are from his news organization Globo itself. No significant, secondary, reliable and encyclopedia-worth content found for this journalist. Dial911 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is Globo not a reliable source? It is one of the biggest media companies in the world, recognized by many awards over the years. Also, most of the information on him is not from Globo. Globo is mostly used as a source to prove he did the coverage of the cave rescue in Thailand, the royal wedding, etc. All of his work that is notable are not sourced from Globo, but from other news organizations. The tweets are not used as sources for information on him, but on his wife, cousin, and dog. If the tweets can not be used as sources, that can be changed in the article, but why does {{cite tweet}} exists? How is this subject not encyclopedia-worth? A two times published author and journalist nominated for a Emmy for his documentary is not encyclopedia-worth? What criteria are you using? — Mr White 22:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference-wise breakdown:

1 is a bogus reference that does not even confirm his DOB. (Rejected reference)

2 take us to g1.globo.com (the company he works for) where we see a video clip from a news channel stating his documentary is Emmy finalist. (Might be an okayish reference)

3 & 4 list his books. No coverage, no reviews, nothing. Just listing of his books. (not enough to have standalone article on him)

5 tells that he is the cousin of another journalist working at Globo. And it basically cites their tweets. (again, heavily relies on primary source)

6 & 7 Twitter (bogus)

8 is somewhat acceptable but certainly not enough

9 is interview (primary source)

10 is literally 2 lines that repeat same information as Reference 2.

11 twitter (bogus)

12 takes you to globoplay (same company) and is interview. (again, primary)

13 tells us that his dog takes part in an interview (is it encyclopedic?)

14 to 20 takes us to Globo website (company he works for) Dial911 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 Reference to his full name, although not his birthday, I must have seen that date somewhere else, but the date can be removed if there's no reference to it.

2 The number one news channel in the country is not an "okayish" source, but here is the official emmy website stating the same info.

3 and 4 His books are listed on other references (8, 9, 12). I used his books as references to his parents and wife name, and the release date and publisher of the books.

5 Independent source, from Portal Terra (not Globo).

6 backed by source number 5, 7 is backed by source number 9

8 Yes it is. What is the reason for ou not to consider it acceptable or enough as a source?

9 Interview from an independent source. Also the piece is not entirely an interview, some information used was written independently by the authors.

12 Interview in a big television program, in a major network, makes it clear the dog is notable by the public, information that is also backed by other independent source (number 13).

13 Source mentions the dog appeared on television besides him multible times, other independent sources say the same. Notlable enough to deserve a sentence.

14–20 Yes. His notable coverages (namely, the natural disasters in Angra dos Reis, 2010; the San Jose Mine accident in Chile, 2010; the French presidential elections, 2017; Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, 2018; the Tham Luang cave rescue in Thailand, 2018; and the canonization of Saint Dulce, 2019) are mentioned in sources 8, 9, 12, 13. Sources from GloboNews just corroborates that. — Mr White 23:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References explained as per Mr White. Timberlack (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Meets GNG and has improved significantly since listing. (non-admin closure) — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Franciszek Zamoyski

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

~~No evidence of notability.~~ DrKay (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Article has been expanded and sourced since the nomination opened. DrKay (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been without references since 2008, but a search reveals that there is coverage in multiple books. All those sources are in Polish so I can't improve the article myself. In the Polish project there is a bit more information and one reference along with a picture of a statue in what seems to be his grave. I translated the google snippets and they seem to be more than trivial mentions. Mostly about his involvement with a library. Since there are multiple sources with non trivial coverage, WP:GNG would be met in this case, and even though it has not been improved in years, articles don't have deadlines. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the pieces you think "non trivial coverage" and not related to insignificant facts of being ordynat and a library patron in his fief/lien. Lembit Staan (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lembit Staan: WP:SIGCOV cites "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" as an example of a trivial mention. Building a library cited in many books is not a trivial mention and neither is being an Ordynat as you can check here Zamoyski_family_entail#Ortynats_of_the_Estate. Besides those you can find significant coverage on Poczet ordynatów Zamoyskich which includes a biographical 8 page chapter (pages 101-108) devoted to the subject. I have also added information to the article based on a reference sourced to encyclopedia Britannica that mentions that the subject got recognition of his family title of count by Russia (also non trivial). There is also coverage by the Institute of Polish History, that deemed the fact notable enough to mention and a short biography by the museum of Polish History that includes brief details about his political and profesional career and his place and date of death. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No significant coverage that could indicate notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Lembit Staan: Please review the sources you asked for. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article and added three references. I will add some more information from the Polish History Museum reference but I am confident that polish speaking editors will be able to further improve it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Excellent job by Crystallizedcarbon to fix this article's issues, by removing cruft and adding sources and content. Also see this AfD. VocalIndia (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@VocalIndia: Thank you. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is needed opinion from an experienced Polish native editor Piotrus, So I mentioned him. VocalIndia (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note: also known as just "Tomasz Zamoyski" . Found following sources (before looking at other posts here, some have already been presented): A pagraph-long biography in a footnote in a Polish academic article. I think there is a lenghtier biography here but snippet view prevents me from seeing how long - at least several sentences long. Another biography of unknown length is in this book: [36] (he gets at least a page heading?) There is a lot of mentions in passing. I think the coverage out there is enough for NBIO, with a note that Polish sources are still not well digitized and the odds are 'there is more' that is simply not searchable online for. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ionică Minune

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

Article fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. BLP with no sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extraordinary claims require sourcing. We can not just bluntly call him "on of the most respect in the world" with no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather notable, independent sources do exist, mostly in Romanian: a major daily, another major daily, Romanian Cultural Institue, significant art journal, National Radio, major private TV network.Anonimu (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable Romanian sources identified above that show significant coverage of the subject so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources identified by Anonimu demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JGHowes ^talk 18:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeetha Thanapal

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

I'm not really convinced that the subject warrants enough notability to have its own article. From what I'm seeing, they are just someone who writes their own (arguably controversial) political views on social media. Fails WP:GNG.

I'm sure many have come across way more controversial social critics who do not have their own Wikipedia article, so I'm not sure why this should be any different. (In fact it seems like this was only created back in June last year). ShelteredCook (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ShelteredCook (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep The Straights Times interview and a few others give her notability, but I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not really convinced that the nominator has interrogated the sources presented in the article at all to prove their assertion that it fails GNG. Also their overall "argument" is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and WP:BIAS (and what relevance does the time of creation even have?!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at the 9 sources in the article. I'm still unsure as to why you felt the need to create an article for this subject? Where's the notability exactly? ShelteredCook (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to engage in fallacious & flimsy arguments based on feelings, I'll entertain you... Nuff said Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the AfD from India-related discussions, I see no link to India in the article apart from the ethnicity of the individual. --Soman (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been referenced in numerous Singaporean newspapers,The Guardian, ABC Life and The Atlantic. Coining a new term and sparking a discussion about it warrants having a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worlder2020 (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 keep. Daniel (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Christie (film director)

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

This article have no news article. Doesn't meet any criteria. So I think this page should be deleted. DasSoumik (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to stop having BLPs sourced only to an unreliable source and the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note, first of all, that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current state of the article — if enough sources are available out there to repair the problems with an article, then we keep it. I've found and added four sources, which isn't as much as I would have liked but is clearly enough to pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE is your friend. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep indeed, lacked of WP:BEFORE. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG per sources added by Bearcat. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stace

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

This BLP cites no sources and has been tagged for notability since 2017.–Cupper52^Discuss! 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has four guest appearances from the early 2000s and nothing else, not notable at all. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chanux Bro

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. The DoMedia reference is essentially a primary source. This article was speedy deleted as being ambiguous advertising or promotion. It was then subject of a PROD for which the article's creator stated: "i think he is on his field around 10 years and made a huge impact for sri lankan social media and explain technology in sinhala with over 1 million fan base. people should know this stuff. maybe some people will update this page with more info soon." Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough sources to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough sources to meet GNG.Felixseen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Vogel

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and the sources I can find don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS satisfying WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As per above fails WP:SOLDIER. Setreis (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or delete per above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yukika Sohma

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

Only notable as a founder of a company with no Wikipedia article.–Cupper52^Discuss! 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person was a well known peace activist for decades, known in particular for her work in relation to land mines and refugees. It has no bearing on her notability whether or not a company she founded has a wikipedia article. That is not a valid reason for deletion, nor is the fact that the article does not currently include the available sourcing that exists. After a 5-minute Google search finding lots of hits, before even attempting to do a news article search. For example: two obituaries (unpaid content) in the Japan Times [37] and The Sunday Times UK [38]; other coverage: [39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44] - Netherzone (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG, one WP:BEFORE thing nominators can do with people from non-English speaking countries is to look at their language wikipedia, checking the Japanese wikipedia we find a well developed article with plenty of references that show why Yukika is wikinotable - see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Duncan

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

This was deleted under the title of Danny Duncan (YouTube personality), by the time I wrote that article I thought it would pass WP:GNG but now someone has changed a redirect page to a whole new article, the references are just YouTube videos of himself. Mjbmr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman Mjbmr (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no significant coverage in RS. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER.Less Unless (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Definitely a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have improved the article somewhat and found plenty of other sources. I am just surprised that above editor "Barely found anything about him," Google news returns more info about him, including VICE and Variety. I am reserving my vote for now, until I do a little more research. Expertwikiguy (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just being mentioned is not enough. There have to be at least 3 independent reliable sources with articles fully dedicated to the subject and talking about him in detail. The fact that he blew up his car or gifted one to a random girl is not the kind of coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned previously, I haven't been able to find any WP:RS. Danny Duncan doesn't seem to meet. Redoryxx (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the sources being some big names, the actual content itself is just crufty garbage and quoting him about his love of being a virgin, so blp1e at best. CUPIDICAE💕 21:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Podhorzer

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

Doesn't appear to pass GNG. Sources are not about him, just passing quotes from him in broader refernce to AFL CIO. Or are just PR bumpf from the AFL CIO website. Pipsally (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Thanks BubblySnow 💬 17:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. or at least dradtify. Ignoring the initial comment, the position is in practice a notable one in Americna politics. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THe office might be notable, but that doesn't make the office holder notable.Pipsally (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Jewish guy with serious influence, subject of non-trivial sources. --2A00:CA8:A1F:B0AE:E5A2:53BA:7936:F860 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm unable to find enough sources to meet WP:SIGCOV, most are quoting the individual or brief mentions. Unless there's a policy that states that his position establishes notability, doesn't appear to meet GNG. Redoryxx (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably notable without it, but I'd say the TIME article nudges him over the top. —Morning star (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comments moved from top of page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complainer Pipsally is clearly disingenuous in invoking on Feb 8th the notoriety requirement, right after seeing an extensive article in Time.com, released on Feb. 4th. Time magazine is one of the mainstays of American press, established in 1923 and with print circulation of over 2 million. Indeed, the article sorely needs an update beyond 2012 references and should be expanded. So just say that, by calling it a stub or otherwise drawing attention to it, rather than launching this feeble and likely politically motivated attempt to have it deleted. Telling is the fact that the second voice for deletion, user BubblySnow, is labeled at a sockpuppet of a banned user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:47D0:7660:C872:3760:781C:AB5A (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t delete this page. Podhorzer is one of the greatest heroes of all time. He saved democracy in the US per the recent Time magazine article. His contributions should be celebrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.39.208 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, do not delete this post. I write this in relation to an article that drove me to look Mr. Podhorzer up. It is in the Feb 15th, 2021 (needs verification) issue of Time magazine which places Mr. Podhorzer as the "architect" of a systematic strategy to maintain democracy in the United States, this in the face of the anti-democratic implications of the existence of Donald Trump. So if anything, he is a national hero. In fact, while reading the article the name that came to mind was that of Paul Revere, shouting his legendary warning about the British.

So please, please, do not delete this post. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4002:AFD0:1D89:A946:A885:FEBD (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Gilman

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

There is no RS available for her, most of the sources are primary. Also her work in 2005 as just as a coach intern and she is definitely not professional athlete. Fails GNG too. Niligirinorbert (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Niligirinorbert (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I did a fair amount of looking and saw nothing that wasn't a press release or an "article" on a promotional website. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom being new notwithstanding, coverage is weak and specifically blogs, Thrive Global puffery and Q&A interviews with yet other blogs. Mazurkevin (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OnlyThenDidI (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reliable Sources are week and fails to meet criteria for GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDreamBoat (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Kennedy (businessman)

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

He does not meet notability requirements and there are no independent RS sources. Deltagammaz (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Deltagammaz (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Deltagammaz (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A case of WP:BEFORE. A quick search of "Brendan Kennedy cannabis" shows plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. AfD is not clean-up, and nominators should at least do a modicum of research. Just because all the sources are not in the article, this is not a valid basis for nomination. Edwardx (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a Times feature already in the article, add to that the article in Fortune. Googling reveals more coverage of him; not all of it reliable, of course, but I'd say he meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Neither the keep or delete votes are particularly convincing (the former ones mostly given weakly). There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus at this time other than that she may scrape WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Robinson (author)

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

Current sources shows borderline notabilty, Fails WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a notable person and has been featured on many independent notable sources like Forbes, CNN and Wall Street Journal. Yoziak (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being "featured" in Forbes is basically like saying "but they have an approved Facebook account!" For the right amount of money, Forbes will pretty much publish anything. CUPIDICAE💕 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect to the magazine. CUPIDICAE💕 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Current sources seems somewhat promising to pass WP:BASIC. Pilean (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - in the publishing world, there are few publishers who are notable, and I think she passes barely. I am leaning keep to avoid our inherent bias. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravko Dizdar

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice this AfD just as I added a reference to a journal article written by this person to an English Wikipedia article. D'oh! :) https://www.bib.irb.hr/pregled/znanstvenici/20735 shows 112 entries: 50 journal articles, 18 articles in convention proceedings, 14 summaries from conventions, 10 other papers, and 9 book chapters. https://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+Zdravko+Dizdar seems to indicate over a hundred references. The article lists an award, hr:Nagrada Ljubica Štefan, which seems a bit recent and isn't particularly well known in Croatia, though. However, a generic search finds me a fair bit of general notability, with some coverage in Jutarnji list [45], BBC Croatian [46], Index.hr [47], etc. He appears to be generally recognized as a relevant historian in Croatia, and if we can have an article on Barbara Radulović, we can keep this, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WorldCat[48] seems to suggest he has ten different books, several of which have gone through multiple editions (up to 11). Tends to suggest successful reviewed books, just hard for English speakers to find the reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joy; a historian with a sizable body of work and overall coverage that passes the WP:GNG threshold. I've also found a journal review of one of his books. On a side note: WP:NACADEMIC, interpreted strictly, is a ridiculously high hurdle compared to e.g. WP:NFOOTY. The notion that a country like e.g. Croatia has 10x more notable footballers than notable academics leads to reductio ad absurdum, therefore the degree of scrutiny (such as what counts as "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed") should be adjusted accordingly. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Johanningmeier

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

Current sources doesn't meet WP:GNG SpareSeiko (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable since Google gave me several notable sourceCommanderWaterford (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)s in a quick search, just needed to be added.[reply]
Keep I added information from notable sources (Variety, Deadline, Playbill) as well as full filmography to improve content Buzzers1 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the article's sources, 1 and 2 are trivial, 3 is IMDb 4 is a self-published source from Phillip Silverstone, whose article was deleted as "not notable" - not considered a subject-matter expert. 5 quotes her, but does not establish any significant coverage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider validity of sources highlighted. The keep !votes are not compelling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR; I added a Chicago Sun-Times and a ReelChicago review for her recent film, and a Hollywood Reporter review of a previous film, as well as a Getty Images reference indicating she was a guest star on a television show that is noted in other press as part of her career (e.g. Chicago Tribune), so it looks like Johanningmeier has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," and has just recently cleared this criteria with her latest film. I also think the filmography chart is a great addition but it could be split into films and television shows to make her acting career more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting also that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Monen

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

Current sources don't pass WP:GNG SpareSeiko (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is that including the ones on the Spanish Wikipedia article as well? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been improved. In any case, the AfD is one of several part of a disruptive and indiscriminate edit rampage by a currently blocked blocked sock puppet account with a clear WP:NOTHERE behaviour (see following thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#"Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay" comment at AfD).--Asqueladd (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG and has two starring roles which is enough to make him notable, in my opinion. User:Asqueladd has demonstrated this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is keep. Please note that the nominator's rationale is discounted as they have been blocked as a sockpuppet and Doomsdayer520 has changed from a delete rationale to keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z LaLa

AfDs for this article:

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

Current sources don't pass WP:GNG Woinfosd (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator has been blocked as a sock related to a probable UPE and/or extortion scheme. Nomination should not be considered in Good Faith. -- GreenC 16:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Woinfosd (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is the second nom. Fails WP:SINGER. There is some media presence, but mostly related to her extravagant clothing on a few awards ceremonies. Kolma8 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a close call because she has a charting single ([49]) and some media notoriety in "worst dressed" lists. She has some listings for modeling work, and gets noticed occasionally for her gimmick of singing in lots of different languages. Those are minor achievements that the article desperately over-interprets with terms like "controversial" and "pushing the boundaries", or implying that she is a social justice champion because she has LGBT fans. She is present in the media but not quite comprehensively enough for the requirements at WP:NSINGER and WP:NMODEL. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Wikipedia topic fall for WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This topic has everything that is needed to fulfil General notability guideline. According to WP:SINGER second rule (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.) and serval other rules this topic meets WP:SINGER and singing in lots of different languages isn't minor achievements. WP:NSINGER has no guideline for having good third party charting like this ([50]). The topic also falls under WP:NMODEL, with significant roles in multiple notable singles, large fan base and made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. So this topic is nominated the second time, which seemed clear attack as it was last time.Umair Ahmad Butt (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has a enough notability to stay. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Couldn't find any substantial coverage of her music, reviews of it, interviews with her, etc. besides one small podcast -- worst dressed slideshows don't qualify as "significant." Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to WP:GNG & WP:NMODEL with significant reliable reference, should stay on Wikipedia.Arslan Ahsan (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most editors suggesting this should be kept are failing to do so with policy/guideline based reasons and so this is leaning delete. Relisting to see if better consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above: plenty of non-trivial coverage in independent sources, Sadads (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I revised the organization of the article, added a reference from HuffPost, and edited WP:PUFFERY. Per WP:MUSICBIO, Z LaLa had a single on the Billboard chart for twelve weeks, with a peak position of 10, so notability is supported. In addition, she objectively appears to have WP:BASIC coverage of her "notable style" in independent and reliable sources (e.g. SFGate, HuffPost, Business Insider, E!Online) because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My original vote above was to delete, but thanks to the recent work performed by others, I would now support a Keep verdict. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punya Elizabeth

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

She has starred in three films but the only film where she got to play a major role would probably be in Gauthamante Radham. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi there, I created this article and I thought it will meet the criteria, But whatever it is i will accept the decision of Wikipedia. I only want to contribute best things for Wikipedia. But she appeared in 3 movies, so could anyone help to improve the article, if possible ? Otherwise, it is okay ! Much Love Onmyway22 (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Don't see the subject passing WP:NACTOR. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even so please don't Delete the Article if she hasn't Participated in Multiply Movies Yet it means she's just a starter it doesn't do any bad if we give a chance until we get more updates about her. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Author Hi there, I failed to find the supporting reference for Punya. And I understand the article is not meeting the criteria that is mentioned by the nominator. I want to keep the Wikipedia right. You may delete it. I am agreeing with the deletion. Thank you. Love you Wikipedia :) Onmyway22 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence in article or searches that this person passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dia (film). While keep participants argue for notability, no policy/guideline compliant sources or criteria are mentioned. Redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kushee Ravi

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

The article was previously AFD'ed and deleted for not satisfying WP:NACTOR. The subject has since worked in two films which have not been released yet. So its pretty much WP:TOOSOON for an article to be considered. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have the multiple significant roles in notable productions we require as a minimum to show an actress is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should Not Be Deleted the subject has been notable in the south Indian film industry. Very strong references have also been submitted to justify the claims. The subject's released films maybe just one at this point in time but she is in the limelight and working on a couple of films with renowned production houses. The strong references have been submitted to justify that as well. User:rangasn (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2021 (IST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete a case of WP:TOOSOON. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dia (film), where they played the lead role. WP:CHEAP and possible search term.-- `Ab207 (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Must Not Be Deleted Or Redirected The title looks to be notable in their respective field. The latest edit also shows that the individual has received some awards & accolades recently. It again proves the individual is actively involved in their respective field. The title deserves to be in the encyclopedia. User:Subashini_srini (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2021 (IST)
Keep has some good reliable sources, can be edited.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Ahlawat

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

Non notable actor and film producer with a few minor roles and sourced to paid sources. A Google search doesn't show in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:BASIC. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he meets WP:BASIC. Nalbarian (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nalbarian, Could you please clarify how he passes WP:BASIC? Ref# 1 and 2 are paid articles while ref# 3 is a press release with disclaimer at the bottom. None of these are considered reliable and independent of the subject.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hussein Taslimi

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

Fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Serv181920 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Baháʼí Faith in Iran or Persecution of Baháʼís. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject falls below notability criterion. Luciapop (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable functionary in a religious organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Persecution of Baháʼís, the article has valuable information about the persecution of Baha'is in Iran. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss delete or merge options
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, no evidence of notability. Setreis (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maxamuud Xoosh Cigaal

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

WP:1E + Article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NSOLDIER. Source in the article and BEFORE did not show anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 06:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search does not bring anything that gives GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being subjectively the "last" person captured in a fort does not in any way make someone notable. The page tries to claim much bigger impact and importance than really exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added three more sources to the page. The sources describe him as a leading anti-colonial figure as well as one of the main native African sources regarding tactics both by the Europeans as well as the counter-tactics used by Africans. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Taleh#Dervish_forts -- all the sources seem to discuss him in that context and I am not seeing an independent pass of GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please check the sources that are being added against the information that is being added to the article. They are not SIGCOV, they do not support the material being added to the article. They are simply being added to puff up the article, not because they have anything to do with the subject. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Just because a Latinized name is spelled different from its native name doesn't mean the two characters suddenly become different people. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of the sources you are adding are about individuals other than the subject. But directly, how does this reference and this reference support any of the content you have added? // Timothy :: talk 15:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "Africa in Soviet Studies" source discusses a "false letter". This letter they're speaking about discusses a letter which Xoosh claims was forged by the British to be derived from a man named Salah, a revered individual who the British knew was influential enough to cause a rift within the anti-colonial camp. According to the claim of Xoosh or Hosh, the original letter contained no damnation of the anti-colonial struggle, whilst the forged letter did. (if you are interested in the Salah letter, this page gives some insight [51]). As for the "Diwaanka" source, you most sources have snippets, but this link gives you most of the content (here). If you try word-find the term "Xoosh" on that page, you frequently see "waxaan ka qoray" before the name of Xoosh. The term "waxaan ka qoray" literally translates to "this was derived from" or "this was written from". On the extended Diiwaanka version you see even more such examples. In each of these examples entire chapters of colonial and pre-colonial history is singularly derived from this man. The entire chapter you see on these pages come from this man as a source. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What you just described is a mention of a name, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, now its your turn to translate what "madaxdii Daraawiisheed" means. It means "head of the Dervishes", meaning Xoosh was among those who led the longest lasting anti-colonial resistance in African hsitory. How does leading the longest anti-colonial resistance in Africa translate to non-notable? Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Go on any translating service and type "madax", the lemma form of the word madaxdii. It will either translate as "head" or "leader". Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Anyone advocating that this page be deleted, you should also advocate that Koos de la Rey and Christiaan de Wet be deleted. This page is essentially an overlapping subject because Boers and Daraawiish not only had the same adversary, but at the same time. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Goenka

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Merely on the basis of awards nobility can't be established. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple references in the article, many in languages I don't read/speak, the argument by the nom is very week based on existing references. Is this a drive by nomination, or does the nom have a point? I don't know, but a better argument the explains why those references don't meet WP:GNG would make for a more effective AFD, also addressing what is different between now and the AFD the resulted in Keep Jeepday (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has a number of reliable sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 09:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that the industry rewards (NASSCOM, Computer Society of India etc.) are a "well-known and significant award or honor". I can't locate significant coverage outside of mentions of these rewards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Goenka participants who are not blocked: Vejvančický (talk · contribs), Eastmain (talk · contribs), Panyd (talk · contribs)
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Goenka (2nd nomination) participants who are not blocked: Mccapra (talk · contribs), Csgir (talk · contribs), and Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus unclear. The comment appears to lean keep, while the keep vote is weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shashidhar Kote

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

Did not think it meets WP:SINGER. Passing mention in the tabloids and fails WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in these two refs. [52], [53]. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 7 sources are not enough to show significance and the first one is self published.Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seven sources is more than enough if they have significant coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a singer she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. As an Actress or TV host, there may be something there, but I still don't see any significant sources or significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Current sources satsifies WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. There are more than 5 references with significant coverage. So it's correct to keep the page. Thanks. User:NinadMysuru (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Evarts

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Evarts (DE-5). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Evarts (DE-5). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Evarts (DE-5). Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Evarts (DE-5) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. // Timothy :: talk 02:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many national news stories and the Navy put his name on a ship. A ship. A ship was named after him. Don't have time to keep adding sources, but many more hits were available.Comm260 ncu (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Where are the "Many national news stories"? Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability, which shows that being a ship namesake doesn't prove notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a few I found with a quick search. You may add more as you find them. Thanks for the notability guide. That's quite the rule!Comm260 ncu (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with USS Harold J. Ellison (DD-864). While the most preferred target was the cancelled DE-545 destroyer escort, I assume that is a result of the bandwagon effect, and that given the choice, most people would prefer the target to be the destroyer DD-864 since that one was actually built. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold John Ellison

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a ship named after you in the circumstances Ellison had it occur is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least one warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). It's probably more appropriately part of the ship's history than a standalone article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 01:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TimothyBlue: I think you have the wrong target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merging as necessary, to USS Harold J. Ellison (DD-864). @Mztourist:, @PamD:, @GPL93:, you may wish to change your suggested targets to the completed ship that was his namesake (as USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545) should probably be redirected to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort,never having been completed or commissioned). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I'm ok with either, as you note DE-545 was cancelled while DD-864 was built, but given that DE-545 has a page its not unreasonable to redirect there. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: agree with a redirect to DD-864 and a merge for DE-545 to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort. // Timothy :: talk 09:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood the earlier comment, I agree redirect to DD-864 and merge DE-545 to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort. Mztourist (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in my view, having the US Navy name a commissioned ship for an individual should confer notability of the subject. Merging into multiple other ship pages just feels sloppy and harder to maintain as we find time/sources to improve a bio article about this person. I agree that more independent sources would be ideal to improving article quality, but this is sometimes difficult given the time period. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what that says. You aren't notable from being related to someone, or loosely connected to something. Having your achievements notable enough to be recognized with a significant award or honor like this is totally different. Dream Focus 06:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that having a military ship named after someone is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Dream Focus 06:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545) No-one above seems to be saying that sufficent sources exist to meet WP:BIO here, so covering this person in the context of the ship is the logical solution. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545), insufficient sources for independent article. Cavalryman (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). Only George H. Gay Jr. and John C. Waldron from Torpedo 8 have received sufficient coverage, one for being the sole survivor, the other for commanding. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update. ~~I am now in the process of seeing if there are other Torpedo 8 articles to nominate for deletion; already found Henry R. Kenyon Jr., John P. Gray.~~ I have bundled the rest of the Torpedo 8 articles in one nomination, Kenyon's. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damon M. Cummings

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643). Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to the ship per Mztourist. It is apparent from the various deletion discussions regarding these single Navy Cross recipients with ships named after them that we need to get a community view on whether having a ship named after you is a “significant award or honour”. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a ship named after you is not a "significant award or honor" when the navy is churning out almost 500 ships in a very short time and for some inexplicable reason feels they all need to be named after people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was were named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is that at all relevant? There was no discussion of this specific page (nor any of the others below where you've cut and pasted the same comments) in the mass deletion which was closed as a procedural keep. What possible difference would it make if this was marked as the 2nd Nomination? I'll tell you, none whatsoever. Mztourist (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is relevant, faux outrage, hyperbole, and walls of text are camouflage for lack of sources showing SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643) per Mztourist. Cavalryman (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus.Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Campbell

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor" and the ship wasn't even completed) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one tertiary source is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Lot of reliable sources. No compliance with WP:Before. Cf., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. England. Will easily meet or exceed WP:GNG. This is just a part of a mass deletion effort in different form. It was a second deletion nomination, that was part of a proposed mass slaughter. Wolf in sheep's clothing. As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is the second nomination for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly.Further, if it is not kept, the proposed redirect is a poor fit. Clearly it would be better to go to Squadron 8, rather than some generic medal burial ground. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC) t[reply]

What are the "Lot of reliable sources"? Just throwing every comment you can think of and pointing to other pages up for deletion which will all be judged on their own merits is absolutely no basis for which this page should be kept. The technicality that this page was part of an earlier proposed mass deletion closed as part of a procedural keep is irrelevant. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the policies cited on the shortcut to the right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Shortcuts

If you have RS add them in, just saying they exist is unlikely to save this from closing as a redirect. As noted on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles "The provision of reliable-source references is the best way to save an article.". Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lettler

You said you did WP:Before. Assuming for the sake of argument that is true, why don't you add some more? And how did you miss the ones I've added already? If you didn't find them, you need to recall that WP:Competence is required. If you did find them, we should not be going through this exercise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for GNG, BASIC and does not meet ANYBIO or NSOLDIER. REFBOMBING the article when the soruce is not SIGCOV does not make an article notable. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article went from something so short it could be merged to something quite well developed. [54] Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is a reliable source. This person had a notable award/recognition by having a navy ship named after him. Dream Focus 19:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not the article it was when proposed for deletion. WP:HEY. WP:Not paper. Arguendo, if it is not kept, it should be REDIRECT AND MERGED with VA-8 rather than some generic agglutination of Navy Cross winners. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: User:7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. –dlthewave ☎ 13:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

See shortcut. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Does not meet WP:NSOLDIER, and in no SN is having a ship named after you grounds for automatic notability. The current sourcing does not meet the level necessary to pass WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up anything more substantial. He gets mentioned in action reports regarding the battle, but nothing in-depth, unlike George H. Gay Jr., the lone survivor of the action. I would say merge to the ship's article, however, since the ship was never completed, it does not have one. Personally, I think that all Navy Cross awardees (and their counterparts in the Air Force and Army) should be part of NSOLDIER, but currently, they are not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to the generic and overpopulated List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II is a disservice in so many ways. If a redirect and MERGE were to happen, it makes sense it should be to VA-8, where his contribution makes sense. WP:Preserve and WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG, two sources (Mrazak & Mooney) provide SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Not Delete Either Userfy/Draftify or Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II and Merge with VT-8 (Squadron 8), or Keep, depending on the notability & significance of the ship being named after him, relative to that of a "nation's second-highest award for valour."

A single Navy Cross is insufficient for WP:SOLDIER, and as far as WP:ANYBIO, it's hard to say that having an (uncompleted) destroyer escort named after a person (during WW2) qualifies as "a well-known and significant award or honor." If it is sufficient, it should be included on the WP:SOLDIER page.

However, I'm wondering how it compares to a "nation's second-highest award for valour." [I.E. Is it more or less of a "well-known and significant award or honor" than a nation's second-highest award for valour?] If it is at-least as well-known and significant as a nation's second-highest award for valour, then perhaps it could be combined with his Navy Cross to qualify as being equivalent to 2 second-highest award for valours, and thus qualify for WP:SOLDIER.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with VT-8. I agree with Cavalryman that these two sources might make the subject meet GNG. On the other hand, he is really only notable for WP:ONEEVENT and might not qualify for a stand-alone article. Merging seems a good idea to preserve the reliably sourced content. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The only !vote was expressed weakly and no interest expressed for deletion. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Douglas

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

notability Robingunes (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robingunes (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a few sources of Hürriyet: [55], [56], [57], though I’m having trouble to understand what this is. Is it a stage name for VEYasin or is it an album? Because one of the sources calls him "DJ Hey Douglas" while this article says its a project. We need to look into WP:ENT or WP:NALBUM depending on what it is. Also a note for the nominator: nominations on the English Wikipedia tend to have more than one word in it. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 11:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more additional source in the ongoing AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if the third time is a charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 21:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources above. Also has been selected the "Best DJ of the year" in the 46th Golden Butterfly Awards as seen here, which is a pretty big thing in Turkey. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I put it up - interesting music but hard to pin down since it is a 'dj project' of an individual. But anybody approaching 8m views of a track on Youtube is obviously a substantial artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batterbu (talk • contribs) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Jarvis (cricketer)

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

This article about a cricketer born in the 1790s has no evidence of notability-it says he only played one match in his career and there is only one source. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Added a few more refs. In 1826 there was only 7 first class matches played so not much chance of actually playing many games. Nottingham CC have him down as one of their History makers. It's pre Wisden and coverage of sport in newspapers was non exsistant, but as an early player I think there is a case for him to be notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A historically important person in the early organisation cricket in Nottinghamshire, a leading figure in the Nottingham Cricket Club (the forerunner of the current Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club). In many regards, he's like Paul Foley in his importance to a specific county. StickyWicket (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a claim requires reliable sources to have any weight. Please present them or (better) expand the article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nottingham Cricket Club players. Notts have an excellent set of sources on players at this link, which includes a number of Nottingham players. It's really helpful in determining the relative importance of players and their histories. Jarvis' brother, George, was clearly much more notable (and his article needs more work). Charles, however, we know very little about - compare the two Notts summaries of Charles and George. I think it's reasonable to suggest that George is historically important in terms of the development of Nottinghamshire cricket (although I'm not sure it's entirely clear compared to other players from the same era fwiw); I'm utterly unconvinced that Charles is. The table at the list article pretty succinctly summarises Charles; I'm unsure what else we can really add to that if I'm honest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Nottingham Cricket Club players or George Jarvis (cricketer). Trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus is an extremely weak guideline, but fails all meaningful criteria for a standalone article, including GNG. No substantial independent non-database sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davidstewartharvey's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nottingham Cricket Club players as a plausible search term. As much as we say thinks like "he is notable" does not meet WP:GNG which is our minimum standards ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After a month, there is no clear consensus one way or another. As ritchie notes, the delete !votes are generally rather lacking in policy, but there is not substantial weight or strength behind the 'keep' votes to establish a clear keep consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Costello

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about being one of two people from a specific geographic area to die in a rebellion. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable individual. Not everyone who dies in a revolt automatically becomes notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’ve added six references. On the one hand it is true that little is known about his life so there’s a lack of in depth coverage. On the other hand there are three factors. First, the number who died in the 1916 uprising was not great, so they are very commonly listed by name and regarded as being of national significance even if they were otherwise quite ordinary men; second, the fact that he is buried in Ireland’s equivalent of Arlington National Cemetery; and thirdly, that he is important enough to have had a memorial built to him in Lurgan which is very controversial and itself been the subject of news coverage in Northern Ireland. Mccapra (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, one of two X to die during Y is no basis for notability and sources aren't there. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Was not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Venusecxces (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete arguments are all very weak and arguments to avoid, but only one keep argument has been placed. Need further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mccapra. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that now with the addition of the statue/monument controversy, he is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to fail WP:SOLDIER. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and so it is eligible for the BOLD reformulation proposed below. Any disputes about this may be discussed using the normal dispute resolution process. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Tinker

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

Fails NSOLDIER. No RS for most of the details on the page. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Details and references are all found within the book A Message from the Falklands. MrMarmite (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone killed in battle is notable. That is basically what we would have to set notability at to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER, he may qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. The book has reviews [58], including in the prestigious London Review of Books [59]. A play has been created from the book [60], and is itself the subject of scholarly interest. [61] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if this might be redirected to a possible future article about his father Professor Hugh Tinker who has both an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article and a UK Who's Who entry but no English Wikipedia article? Piecesofuk (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure this in itself would make him notable, but The Stage and Television Today archive should have some interesting material about how the play Falkland Sound initially was banned from Plymouth but then was staged at a smaller theatre. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the subject does have one book and it is reviewed I'm not sure I would consider them any more notable for that one book than any other author who writes one book. The play is an interesting spin on the subjects impact but the question remains to be determined whether a person's work, alone, can make them notable even if all that is referenced is the work while there is little to no in-depth coverage of the works creator. Is the work notable or the creator? While the subjects father or relatives may be notable that notability is not inherited. The subject must be notable and while the work they create or the heroics they may perform can be a catalyst in which notability is incubated and emerges, the works and events can not, themselves, be the sole source of notability that receives significant coverage independent of its creator/performer. I find, after conducting my own BEFORE search, in this case that the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion. There are flashes but flashes are no better than mentions in that regard. Fails WP:SOLDIER, Fails WP:NAUTHOR, Fails WP:N, Wikipedia is not... WP:NOT --ARose Wolf 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to be about the book, which does seem to be notable, most of the article content is already about it anyways. Deletion is inappropriate because the notable book is memoirs of the person, making it really easy to re-purpose for the book itself. I can do it if consensus is reached here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more references, and more about the book and play and his letters. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyoti Tripathi (2nd nomination)