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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melody MacDonald

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

only one citation presented and I cannot find other reliable info about her. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she's only written the one book as far as I can tell, and I haven't turned up anything else that would count for notability. She's not even mentioned in the one citation that's on the article now. -- asilvering (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV either (via Google Search). No Merge material (that isn't already in Wilhelm Feldberg). The one ref presently in the article doesn't actually mention the subject. There is a low chance that old press material exists that would make her meet WP:GNG. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katina Stefanova (investor)

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

utterly non-notable CEO - no idea if the company is notable but she is not on her own - most sources are just passing mentions, co-written by Stefanova or press releases/interviews. Also worth noting this was previously created as Katina Stefanova by an undisclosed paid editor and subsequently salted by @MER-C:. CUPIDICAE💕 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Bulgaria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the significant coverage is of Marto Capital, although one of the sources cited spends quite a few words investigating Stefanova's claimed résumé, none of which is mentioned in the article.[1] Almost all biographical details are cited to WP:ABOUTSELF information (and a weird blog that only seems to host one glowing article about Stefanova[2]). I didn't find any reliable sources with significant coverage that weren't already cited in the article, and I don't find those sufficient to support WP:BASIC. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Send to draft to work on. Kathyspikes (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Kathyspikes is the creator of the article. Bishonen | tålk 09:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, non-notable per the sourcing as detailed above. Also, I don't see why it would need draftifying, when Draft:Katina Stefanova already exists. Bishonen | tålk 09:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Way below the line for WP:GNG and I can't really fathom what she is supposed to be notable FOR? The question usually is "does notability stack up?" here it seems to be "What is the notability?" Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore, this is something very advanced anti spam editors like Praxidicae already know, but for those not familiar with the laughable antics of Spam/UPE, editors, this gimmick, & this one too, are intentional gaslighting maneuvers intended to put Praxi or any editor querying their dubious edits on the defensive but unfortunately for them this isn’t Praxi's first rodeo. Furthermore @Kathyspikes no! nobody is draftyfing a non notable paid job. Furthermore this edit is disingenuous and borders on outrightly being mendacious as you are the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject's prior job at Bridgewater does was not inherently notable, nor does the subsequent coverage of Marto Capital's gyrations confer biographical notability of any individual there. (The previous SALTing of the obvious article title should really be considered as extending to any bracketed titles that might be appended in further instances such as this.) AllyD (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. I was unable to find content that meets WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted per G5 - I've just blocked the author as a CU-confirmed sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Girth Summit _(blether) 07:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ikeobi Ekwevi

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

Reviewed the sources provided and I don't see enough external coverage of this subject to meet WP:GNG at this time. One local news item turned up in a Google search (along with a press release just come out today announcing he's signed with a talent agency). The local recognition doesn't seem to reach the bar of notability at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Engineering. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the guidelines. Subject meets all notability qualifications and subject passes all 1-14 reasons for deletion. Uninvolved moderators usually do their due diligence. Thank you for your considerations.

General notability guideline

Shortcuts

WP:GNG

WP:SIGCOV

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

1.Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion

2.Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

3.Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

4.Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content

5.Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

6.Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes

7.Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

9.Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

10.Redundant or otherwise useless templates

11.Categories representing overcategorization

12.Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy

13.Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace

14.Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia 2601:5C5:201:CB80:ED94:17F:37D4:DB25 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've removed the worst of the sources (Tumblr and Blogspot, for example. See WP:RSP). Then I removed the sources that didn't even mention him, which were at least three of them. What's left is paltry. The Curb Consulting Ventures, ng-check.com, and nigeria24.me sources are all routine company listings, which are examples of trivial coverage (see WP:CORPDEPTH). That leaves the Africa: Journal source, but it's behind a paywall so I cannot access it; and an interview in The Burg, which is therefore not independent. Basically, what's left is a CV for LinkedIn, not WP. --Kbabej (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like edits are being made! 2601:5C5:201:CB80:10A0:EC23:FA39:BA6C (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin, please be aware the above !vote is from an SPA. Likely a sock. —Kbabej (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russ George

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

Has been the source of some dispute, but when you dig deeper there's not really any significant coverage that suggests notability. Subject does not meet WP:NBASIC. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with notability guidelines, but do this and this satisfy WP:NBASIC? Generalissimo Store (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissimo Store: The first one does easily–I'll add it to the article. The second one, however, is an interview, so it is not independent and therefore does not count towards notability. ––FormalDude talk 05:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at most of the sources listed by WP:RSP as reliable, and a lot of them seem to have articles about George. 1 2 3 4 are about George's Haida experiment. 5 6 7 are also about it, but they seem a bit opinionated, and 8 explicitly references The Guardian in an earlier article about the subject. 9 is about an event instigated by George which is unrelated to the iron experiment, and 10 is an investigative article which seems to cover a great deal of George's career but does not come from a listed perennial source. Are any of these worth adding? Generalissimo Store (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance it looks like some of those are worth adding. I'll take a deeper look as soon as I have some more time. ––FormalDude talk 20:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added those sources as they are reliable, but I'm still not sure that this article passes WP:BLP1E. ––FormalDude talk 20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would an added section on the Vatican Climate Forest (another initiative created by George) allow the article to pass that test? Generalissimo Store (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly help. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation. Most of the information in this article is duplicative and is either not significant or not independent.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mytchell Mora

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. The article improperly cites primary sources produced by the subject to support most of its content. Most of this journalist's work was local and did not receive national attention, and a search for secondary sources that are primarily about Mora as a journalist was not fruitful. Mz7 (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. Mz7 (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New Jersey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources that I could find were not reliable (e.g. blogs), not independent (e.g. interviews) and/or not significant (e.g. passing mentions). There is no indication that Mora passes either the GNG or any relevant SNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peepal Baba

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

The topic does not meet Wikipedia's General notability criteria that fails WP:GNG. Need more significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. Jayarama Reddy

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

Not realising WP:GNG policy of Wikipedia. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most of the Keep rationales are simply "it's notable" and I have concerns about some of the SPA issues (two of the users commenting have not been active for some while, on one case three years). However the biggest issue is that the article is simply the version deleted at the previous AfD with a very small section added about discovering a bug - it would not in my opinion have been wrong to actually speedy delete this as G4. When these issues are taken together, this pushes me towards closing this as Delete. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarthak Sharma

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

Not enough work or links to realize WP:GNG. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Software, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough mentions in reliable sources to be notable. Clearly meets WP:GNG bechmark. UA3 (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article and available online appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Angad.uday (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can it be clarified which sources? To me they all look marketing posts. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references looks marketing posts to me. There are quite a lot verifiable independent sources for the subject. In my opinion, NDTV India source can be adequate to pass WP:GNG. Angad.uday (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please see cnbc link too. Same content translated. Very clear they had same source. Why would cnbc copy Ndtv on purpose on this minor event?Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If there are many more independent sources confirming importance and providing sufficient information to support content in an encyclopedia article, then the article can exist. But that is not the case here. Seems too premature. Probably just another attempt for self-popularization. --Engineering Guy (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are significant coverages about him from reliable independent sources. Sources mentioned in the articles are enough to meet notability. Ashish065 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish has edited after a year almost. And this is his first edit. This is also first AFD comment. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss the sources, don't just assert that they are sufficient or insufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (ref nums from this version) Refs 1 & 2 have identical opening paragraphs. Refs 3 and 10, while seemingly different from a vocabulary aspect, use an identical structure - covid, biz loss, "we had a chance to meet AutoForSure", quotes from founders, all in that same order. Thus none of these are independent. Ref 4 is an interview as every line is a quote. Refs 8 and 9 in Hindi again share the same structure. Note also that these articles are mostly from Jan 2021. All these along with Ref 5 are actually about the company and mentions of the subject are limited to quotes. Taken together, there is a strong hint of a coordinated marketing campaign by the company. The two remaining articles on bug-bounty cover the subject only briefly, telling us about the schools he attended. Whatever else search engines surface is similarly interviews or brief mentions. Hemantha (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~struck duplicate vote Comment: NDTV and CNBC doesn’t seem “copy” to me as said by nominee. CNBC was posted before NDTV India, and by the format and details mentioned in NDTV article, they both are entirely different. CNBC clearly discuss interests, past experiences, career life of him, and ends with how Discord exploit was found. Same topic was picked up by author Bikram, but was primarily focused on Discord. Yet did mentions the details and information about the subject which makes both the independent references valid and notable. OneIndia, Navbharat Times, and Zee news are some of the journalist written articles which do talk about the subject and prove notability. Ref 5 (NewsX) seems to be a post for company, but do mention basic details about the subject. If someone is running a company, there will be some articles about promoting the business. If we talk about the subject, article seems neutral and doesn’t sound promotional to me. Someone mentioned about references being posted on same month. As far I can see references are of different months, January, March, July, August, October, January’22. UA3 (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CNBC and NDTV are refs 6 and 7 which I did not say were copies. I said their coverage of the subject was minimal, restricted to his schooling details. The claim that others are journalist written articles doesn't explain why they share sentences or the exact ordering of events. 5, out of the remaining 8 articles, are indeed from Jan 2021 ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Hemantha (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my 'delete' comment closely once more. Your objections do not appear to be based on anything I've written. Hemantha (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was mentioning user Laptopinmyhands as he believes refs 6 and 7 had the “same source”. As per him, CNBC copied the NDTV article. However, CNBC was the first one to publish this article. I don’t think so user Laptopinmyhands has gone through any references. If you go through his contributions, you will find out user has requested deletion of many different articles in a short period.

Anyways, ref 6 mentions more than just schooling details. You should give it a read again. I’ve gone through all the articles, and the events and details explained are not correlated. Every article talks something different about it. The founder quote seems to be similar in a few articles, a generic one. They look independent from each other to me. However, I’ll go through them once again and edit my comment. Coming to your doubt that the articles could be a coordinated marketing campaign, indeed 5 articles out of 10 seems to be posted in January, dates are different from each other. Usually, marketing campaign articles are posted altogether, on a similar date +/- a day. If so, websites do mention the article being a advertisement/marketing post. Zee News, Amar Ujala, Navbharat Times are posted by journalists, not sure why an author would take up part in a marketing campaign. To me, the article sounds neutral and there is nothing promotional in it. I’m not sure why someone would run a marketing campaign to publish articles with no promotional/advertising intentions. In my opinion, this is just another poor case of nomination. UA3 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a poor case of nomination. Your logic is flawed and your two times vote of keep is concerning. I read everything.

[8] No journalist credited. Very little information about Sarthak. Not independent. Not significant. [9] No journalist credited. Very little information about Sarthak. Not independent. Not significant. [10] Not about him. Not significant. [11] No journalist credited. Sarthak is mostly talking himself in quotes. Not independent. [12] No journalist credited. Very little information about Sarthak. Not independent. Not significant. [13] I agree that it is one source [14] Headline is about him but the text is not. [15] It might look like a good source. But read the last paragraph. It’s rubbish. Makes no sense. Looks like bad machine translation of some english content. No journalist who is native Hindi will write this. I fail to believe it is independent. [16] No journalist credited. Article doesn’t even make sense. Starts randomly with generic information about pandemic and then mentions some study. Again some cut copy paste from somewhere else

Even if there is a journalist credited, the way content is written, it is very clear that it was influenced. And that’s what is central to an ‘independent source’ from what I read in policy. Just because there is a journalist name, source doesn’t always become independent. This is also important here because there are so many sources with no journalist name, it means, even other sources should be read with caution. This is not a notable person because the sources are not independent. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry, vote will be counted once. There is nothing to be concerned about. I still believe you did not read any references carefully. In your comment, Ref 8 (Zee news) you’ve said, Not about him. Not significant. What do you mean by “Not about him”? The article clearly mentions his name in the headline, I can see his picture in this article. The article content indeed reads information about him and the company. Ref 12 (Navbharat Times) Headline is about him but the text is not. A quick google translation of content can give you a brief idea that the complete article is based on him; text, as well as the headline, is about him. Please go through it again. Possibly you were reading Navbharat's article through phone, for me full content was not visible when visited through the phone. Try visiting this link from a Desktop. Ref 13 (Amar Ujala) It is indeed a good source, if some text appears to be rubbish, and makes no sense to you that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be useful to others. This is your opinion about the reference, and it doesn’t rule out the reliability of the reference. To me, it is a good independent piece of work. Ref 6 (OneIndia) is a journalist written article, there seems to be a glitch in their website where the name is not visible now. I took the Journalist's name from Wikipedia reference and checked his OneIndia’s profile. I did scroll back down to Aug 2021 and found the article under his author profile. I took a screenshot to save your time, do refer [17]. There is enough information mentioned and is independent.

Cut copy paste from where? You have vaguely stated “Not independent. Not significant.” to references without even discussing them and what is wrong. I remember your comment, NDTV article was a minor event and how CNBC was a copy of NDTV India. Once it was proved false, it seems a fair source to you. I still firmly believe this is a poor case of nomination. UA3 (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is a BLP I'm going to re-list it again. I'm unconvinced by the Keep rationales but not quite enough to close it as Delete ... yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Article is basically the same as the previous one deleted (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/pqTWn) and new article does not address the issues brought up at the first AfD (regarding reliability of sources and possible "paid media") Rlink2 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've visited the link and compared it with the previous article. I did notice a change, but a minor improvement. Furthermore, NDTV and CNBC are added to the reference list since then. In my judgement, both the sources are reliable and a notable one. Angad.uday (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the subject is notable. The article just needs to be improved a bit further. Upon assessing references and remarks thoroughly, I personally find sources to be independent and reliable showing subject is notable. Scerpellare (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have looked through the sources given. While some of them just make a passing mention and company operations, there are several which provide sufficient detail for his notability. I concur with user UA3, sources are reliable. No such text or information which prove sources are paid for. Passes WP:GNG Blakesmith11 (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Closing admin should note, the AfD discussion is being influenced by multiple WP:SPAs. - Hatchens (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Prabhakar

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

Not meeting WP:GNG. Also not big enough for WP:ENTERTAINER Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's not a lot of important coverage on the topic. --Vaco98 (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Paul

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

Can’t understand why this is notable. No links to realize WP:GNG. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per WP:A7. No acting credits are listed, hence no credible claim of significance. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR in any case. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Chandran

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

Marketing article. Saying did TED talk when he just did Tedx. Two are very different and Tedx now got no value since everyone do it just like that. Most links not talking about his work in detail. Not good for WP:GNG. Just interviews mostly. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sexuality and gender, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajen Kandel

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

No links found that would help with WP:GNG policy of Wikipedia. A biography that is not notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Angad.uday (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masahisa Naitoh

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

Not enough links for WP:GNG. Not notable by GNG policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Japan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potential sources include this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Low-Hang

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

Lack of significant coverage in RS that I can find. All cited sources are not RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and Africa. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although he's appeared in a handful of films and television programs, none of those roles seem to be significant enough to trigger WP:NACTOR, and my search similarly failed to find significant coverage that would meet the GNG. Perhaps Low-Hang will become notable in the future, but it seems that he isn't at the moment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Extraordinary Writ fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jochen Mundinger

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

Non-notable businessman. He received an entry in one of those "35 under 35" type lists back in 2010, but nothing since. He's been mentioned and quoted in a few articles about his company, but nothing about him. WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC is failed. schetm (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nominator. Knight Skywalker (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being in an x number of people in y profession under z age is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandava Sai Kumar

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

has only one project on his name a case of WP:TOOSOON, if not deleted shall be redirected to the page of film which he has worked for Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable director, actor, producer whatever. Oppose any redirect because the credit mentioned here is 100% fake. Likely using Wikipedia as a vehicle of promotion as this name is being added several times in edits like these. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable as an actor or additional crew member. No independent coverage in WP:RS found at all. Yet another example of trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete this good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.170.253 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here in the fake sources to suggest that they are remotely notable, a search brings up nothing in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not legible as an actor, director, and sources are not reliable. Foodie Soul (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing I can add apart from others' comments above — DaxServer (t · c) 08:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Tariq

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

The person has set a world record for the most A-Level exams taken and there has been some media coverage about this achievement. However, it does not justify an independent Wikipedia page discussing his personal goals and achievements. The page is written like a self-promotional advertisement, and he is essentially only notable for a WP:SINGLEEVENT. A shadowy figure (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the sustained coverage to show that the subject is of encyclopedic note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is not notable. Article seems promotional. Constant314 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer O. Manilay

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

Non-notable academic. Search finds nothing even close to satisfying WP:GNG, and I cannot see anything in here to show WP:NACADEMIC notability either. A single close and primary source cited, and a Google profile which shows an h-index of 16. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the many prongs for academic notability and we do not have anything that is even remotely close to showing a pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with John Pack Lambert above. CT55555 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything that would indicate notability in terms of WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Pretty run of the mill for a full professor and not much for secondary source mention. Even their citation indices for papers are pretty normal, and we can't really use those as a standalone for notability anyways. KoA (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person here is not notable and the sources provided are not sufficient for providing reliability as per GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she has an h-index of 15,[18] so not particularly high. She may become more notable later, but now is not that time. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that she is the Department Chair of Molecular and Cell Biology. Being chair is more than routine. However, and I hope this isn't snobby, I don't find UC Merced to meet the criterion of "a major institution of higher education and research", as required by WP:NPROF. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence for that (besides her own LinkedIn profile)? Also, I'm no expert, but AFAIK dept chair is mainly an admin role; I agree it's "more than routine", but how much more, and is that enough to make the post-holder inherently notable? I would argue not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Long precedent makes clear that being a department chair is, on its own, inadequate for automatic academic notability. Department chairs are not the kind of named chair given to individuals to honor their distinguished scholarship and recognized by WP:PROF#C5, nor are they the head of an entire university or major scholarly society, recognized by #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Witbooi

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

Fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage. Also fails WP:NPOL for merely being on a regional council LibStar (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Africa. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High commissioners/ambassadors/whatever you call the chief representative of your country to some other country are not default notable, and we do not have enough sourcing to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Louyebo

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Finland, Russia, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable, and we do not have enough sources to show his notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator is correct that we don't afford inherent notability to ambassadors, and my searches in several relevant languages did not find the significant coverage that would be required for Louyebo to pass the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those arguing for 'keep' did not demonstrate that the available sources meet the bar for WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khalifa el-Zaidi

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

The one source here seems to be too closely connected with scouting to show that this leader is scouting is notable. Anyway, GNG requires multiple sources, so it is not met. We have previously determined that being awarded the Broonze Wolf is not something that automatically makes someone notable, but without that there is really no justification to having this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon, People, Scouting, and Libya. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now two sources. I think the problem is less to do with notability than all the best sources are in Arabic: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A+%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF%D9%8A

The article does need expansion.--evrik ^(talk) 20:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in the article or in this discussion that the article meets WP:ANYBIO or any other relevant notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user Eggishorn. Blakesmith11 (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist as the previous one did not transclude it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 10
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bronze Wolf winner not automatically notable does not mean he's not notable - that's an error in logic. There are enough sources to pass WP:BASIC now, Atchom (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefor failing WP:GNG. Two current sources; one does not mention him, and the other is not independent. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG per BilledMammal. Avilich (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one. I can see WP:IMPACT here, and I'm willing to WP:AGF that it's not a hoax or anything. We have no WP:BLP concerns, and the subject lived long enough ago that it's impractical to expect any online news sources to cover that impact. There's "regional barriers" for a lot of editors because an editor would really most likely need to be in Libya to find offline sources. I'm going with Keep and I'm going to use the policy WP:IAR because it's the right thing to do.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Horvath

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. This Sydney Morning Herald article is about her pleading guilty for assault. The Cranbourne News source doesn't even mention her. The article in Sunraysia Daily only has a brief mention of her. Studio Tibor source is primary and unreliable. The only source that provides any real independent coverage is this article from the Life & Style section of The Border Mail, a local newspaper which has very limited circulation. I couldn't find any other source to satisfy the notability criteria. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Hungary. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this article for notability a couple of days ago as I couldn't see three good sources (edited to add: under either name). Agree with the analysis above. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately I could not find a single RS via Google, Newsbank or the Wikipedia Library. fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Mane

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Hasn't won a single election yet - either at the state level or federal level. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL does not hold a notable position. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 12:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. would've expected more coverage for a "founding member of BSP", but that seems to be puffery. Hemantha (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Okunoren Twins

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

advertising, and non-notable: Ref.1 is a collection of photos of their clothing; ref.2 a mere mention; ref 3 doesn't work; ref 4 a brief PR pseudo-article that resembles a paid advertisement , ref 5, a PR piece made up almost entirely of their own words, 6. another brief PR pseudo-article that resembles a paid advertisement DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Fashion, and Nigeria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above, looks like an advertisement. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Cooper

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

This was nominated for deletion in 2006 and the result was "no consensus". I do not think that this article demonstrates notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. He was a contestant on a dance show but did not win (he was in the top 12). He has appeared in some shows here and there, but not as a significant character. He also participated in a track meet and tied for 8th place. The sources are a couple of local newspapers, a blog that offers to interview people, and some other articles where he is not the main focus. There is one short article about him in the Calgary Sun, a recap of one of the dance show episodes. A Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results (which includes Wikipedia mirrors). ... discospinster _talk 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems like most of the edits made on the article are from Musa Cooper using an IP. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 14:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, for failure to reach WP:BIO's notability guide. I note spam links are being inserted by various IPs with misleading edit summaries. Ifnord (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. Already speedily deleted by Liz for the reason "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G4, G11". Sandstein 12:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Keagon (humanitarian)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The sources in 1, 2, and 3 are unreliable and probably self-written while reference 4 makes no mention of the subject. Just an attempt to make the subject look notable all together. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is clearly notable as the humanitarian organization founded by him has been proven to exist with a Google search, and is well known. Only reason someone like you would want it deleted is because he lives in a poor country that probably no one knows about.

(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete = appears to be speedy deleted already. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santadas Kathiababa

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

Simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Was draftified for improvement, but moved back into mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, Hinduism, Bangladesh, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first source is a translation of his collected advice, so not independent. The second isn't about him, but about his teacher. Source Ei Samay is blocked. Whatever it says/said, a single source is not enough to establish notability. The remaining three sources are primary source images (which don't support the content where cited, by the way). Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found no independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of him. Fails WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra, Scope creep, and Vinegarymass911: Pinging as interested editors not already notified. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the sources provided do not demonstrate notability so based on them we should not keep this. There may be better sources in Bengali but I have not been able to find anything that looks useful. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written and poorly sourced. Sources barely confirm his existence let alone establish notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be only one reference there and its a gallery. There is a shop ref. I couldn't find much in English sources on a WP:BEFORE but depending on how popular he is, there may be sources in other languages, although I would have assumed they would have already been added. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Reddy

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

Non-notable academic whose article seems to have been editorialized pretty extensively over a number of years by an SPA who seems to care an awful lot about the unsourced names of a random academic's grandchildren.

Other than that, sources pretty clearly fail academic notability guidelines. BrigadierG (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Pennsylvania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrigadierG,CAPTAIN RAJU Prof. Raj Reddy is the recipient of Turing award in 1994, ^[1] and a prominent academician published several papers^[2] and a University Professor of Computer Science and Robotics and Moza Bint Nasser Chair in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. I suggest to review your decision. I will help in wikification of article. Dollyrajupslp (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Raj Reddy - A.M. Turing Award Laureate". amturing.acm.org. Retrieved 2022-03-02.
^ "rrlong". www.rr.cs.cmu.edu. Retrieved 2022-03-02.

Keep: Meets WP:ANYBIO as a Padma Bhushan awardee and WP:NACADEMIC as recipient of the Turing Award, among other criteria. Article is not overtly promotional, so concerns may be taken up at the talk page, WP:Deletion is not cleanup. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NACADEMIC and GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:ANYBIO with multiple significant awards — DaxServer (t · c) 08:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is clearly a notable academic as a Turing Award winner and a Padma Bhushan recipient. Any WP:PEACOCK language can be edited and cleared through the talk page. Aftab104 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Turing Award winner, the highest academic award in computer science. If the article needs editing, fine, but this isn’t a close-run thing. Robert Merkel (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely a notable academic. What edits are required to comply with the Wikipedia policies? Dr.VishalGarg (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has made significant contributions to the field of computer science and artificial intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.75.226 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Archer

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

The article was created today in an apparent attempt to smear Archer and Hunter Biden, and the article creator included a new reference to Archer in the lead of Biden's BLP to insinuate guilt by association. Hunter Biden had nothing to do with Archer's fraud, and the article fails to note Archer's conviction was overturned,[19] leaving readers to believe he went to prison. ~~Just another smear job.~~ soibangla (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla, the source you cite is from 2018. Yesterday on February 28, 2022, Archer was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. [20] Please stay up-to-date on current events. –trn ^{(debate me)} ^• ^{(my accomplishments)} 00:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. The rest stands. soibangla (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not meeting the standards of WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, or WP:CRIMINAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify. Thanks. –trn ^{(debate me)} ^• ^{(my accomplishments)} 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's not notable per GNG for lacking significant, in depth coverage of him as a person. He does not meet criteria of BLP1E as he is only known in the context of criminal accusations (and this conviction), he otherwise remains low-profile, and the event is not particularly significant. He doesn't meet the notability guideline CRIMINAL as the victim of his crime is not a renowned figure and the nature of the crime is pretty common – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Archer has been heavily reported on by news outlets due to his association with Hunter Biden. Thus, he is notable enough for the page about him to remain as opposed to being deleted. –trn ^{(debate me)} ^• ^{(my accomplishments)} 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - He has been mentioned by disreputable outlets in an effort to smear the Bidens. He is more notable for that than for anything he's done. soibangla (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, really? So per your words, PolitiFact [21][22], Newsweek [23], the DOJ [24], and Washington Examiner [25] are disreputable? –trn ^{(debate me)} ^• ^{(my accomplishments)} 00:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newsweek has been depreciated as a source since about 2013 or so, the DOJ is basically a press-release and the Washington Examiner is not a preferred source, so one NO and two weak maybes as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - In the context of disreputable outlets in an effort to smear the Bidens, reputable sources have mentioned Archer to dispute/refute what disreputable sources have claimed. You know...factchecking. soibangla (talk)
        That does not dispute my point regarding the notability of Archer due to the mentions of him by news outlets. The fact that reliable sources would strenuously mention him in an effort to refute alleged misinformation only makes him notable. –trn ^{(debate me)} ^• ^{(my accomplishments)} 01:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, he got his 15 minutes in 2019 when the Hunter Biden fake scandal was emerging but it amounted to nothing and he has since been ignored, apart from disreputable sources who now report his sentencing by naming Biden in their ledes[26][27] to keep this endless fake scandal alive. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Koncorde has it right. Archer has been mentioned in press reports, but that is not "signficant coverage". Where was he born? When was he born? Where did he go to school? What else can you tell us about him that goes beyond his criminal activity and his association with Hunter Biden? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per relevance and notability. "Devon Archer" was linked to from several other articles prior to my creation of the page. –trn ^{(debate me)} ^• ^{(my accomplishments)} 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I count five (BHR Partners, Burisma, Hunter Biden, Rosemont Seneca Partners, Trump–Ukraine scandal). That's not so significant, having five pages mention a non-notable individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you are asserting that a firm partner of Hunter Biden who held positions in Burisma Holdings and Rosemont Seneca Partners is not notable? –trn ^{(debate me)} ^• ^{(my accomplishments)} 00:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hunter Biden isn't especially notable apart from the fake scandal invented about him, so yes, Archer is even less notable. soibangla (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since being a firm partner of Hunter Biden has resulted in such little coverage of him beyond a rap sheet, yeah. Whatever positions Archer has held do not make him notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but at the very least it should be re-written (which I have attempted) to get at what is actually significant - i.e. Archer would be just another criminal businessman if not for his circle of friends. His coverage in sources that want to farm that relationship will be pretty predictable, and far from exhaustive, as he is just another name in events that happened around him. Would agree with Soibangla about WP:BLP1E, or WP:CRIMINAL, but I also think WP:SIGCOV is of relevance. The articles don't address Archer particularly - they are about the criminal act - and then attempt to circle back to Hunter. Also per WP:NOTNEWS item 3 and to an extent item 4 which works both backwards and forwards - such association is gossip. Koncorde (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Koncorde. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources listed. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He defrauded a Native American Indian reserve out of money, hardly wiki worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that Koncorde and Muboshgu are correct in that WP:BLP1E applies, we don't really have the material to meet WP:CRIMINAL, and there isn't the WP:SIGCOV to write a true biography. Notability is not inherited from the organizations in which he was a partner or the other people who also had that status. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per SINGLEEVENT, the event has already been written about and there is nothing left to say about the person. Other than the scandal he was convicted of, which appears to be unrelated, insignificant, and lacking in references.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoram Symons

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No links to realize WP:GNG policy. WP:BIO is also not realized. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Band Pacino

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

There is no WP:RS about him. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His murder received some news coverage, but per WP:VICTIM that does not qualify him for an article. His music, where notability really matters per WP:NMUSICBIO, received no coverage and is only visible in the usual streaming and social media services, and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NMUSICBIO his murder did get some coverage but per WP:VICTIM as noted above does not qualify him for an article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Rafiq (actor)

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

Not a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. I can't see lead roles or any significant work. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamir Rafiq and Draft:Am (you'll need to view the history of the draft). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable meet notable criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 18:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON for an article. Not enough significant roles to show WP:NACTOR, and the sources aren't there for general notability. I did some cleanup to remove unsourced BLP and found that one article was basically used as three different sources (different publishers, one was direct copy and the other paraphrased). Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep not delete this is the ref link and a reliable source that proves he is a verified influencer link of his profile https://www.amazon.in/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AHUNLCJSU7BNAMD3SPFZPFDIIJOA?preview=true,he also have a verified facebook page ,and have relevant news sorces — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, he has a verified profile. That's it. He may want to call himself an influencer, but absent solid reliable sources - not a blog, not a scraper, not a BS site, not Amazon, Wikipedia will not help puff up his resume. Ravensfire (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not paid for article dear Ravensfire i just tried my best to put all reliable source but it seems that suspision is a big issue on article made through afd editors are not searching for the article sources on google i think just giving there feedback the actor did lead roles in the project and did prominent characters in tv & films and have relevant media source on main stream media and the article on pinkvilla and its content from the heading to the last is different that why i used that for reference and pinkvilla is a mainstream media of bollywood film industry they only publish article for notable actors not for everyone i have search google news about the aamir rafiq actor its quite decent and cover by good news channel of tv and film industry he have been part of big bollywood films and did good character — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Keep: i believe that article has enough news sources on reliable main stream media which easily qualify {wp:actor} category and notability ^[1]^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No indication of notability at all. No significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been gone through various deleted projects there is a project name ahan shetty which was considered for deletion and deleted by raising he is not a known actor and not meet wp actor criteria ,he was lead actor actor in tadaap ,has various news on unlimited main stream media ,i guess no body is google about the ref and dod not add any ref hence the articke was deleted ,now i am coming to my point ,Aamir Rafiq who is famour for jhansi ki rani ,paramavtaar shri krishna ,his name in the news for these projects over and over ,those character was much liked my audience that is why i guess media news publish about him,on times of india ,pinkvilaa ,tellychakkar ,bombay times ,spotboye and many more ,the actor was seen with akshay kumar in fortune oil add and also on the cover with him on print for the same add, he has been seen in jammu & kashmir tvc which was the biggest budget add ,the actor doing projects on lead roles and parallel ,still he not a notable actor,aamir rafiq has verified social media account facebook page and verified amazon influencer,you cannot get verify untill your a notable enough ,the actor been seen doing paid partnership adds with addidas ,marks&spencers,veet,collaoborate with sarnaya umakanthan for promitimg her novel one day life will change on paid partnership on instagram. _aamir_rafiq , if hes doing alot of main stream work and did film with national and international director rupesh paul ,and did a prominent character in rocketry the nambi effect ,in penalty as cameo ,and featured in show khul ja sim sim with aman verma , and who has been the show stopper for the biggest show of nesco for brand RUSK india. Who have numerous reference, then how he fails the wp criteria and an notable criteria i strongly believe that this article should not be deleted by audience, Keep this article !.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hasibe Çerko

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

Fails notability, WP:AUTHOR Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources insufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I really don't think a WP:BEFORE was even attempted here, there isn't even an attempt to explain why the sources in the article are insufficient.
- TEİS: this source, used in the article already, is a reliable source written by a scholar. It also cites two different critiques of Çerko's work.
- This journal has an article about one of Çerko's books.
- An offline article about the short story writing of Çerko.
- Here is another article about her in a literary publication.
So yeah, the sources are more than sufficient. --GGT (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't speak the language, but the sources presented by GGT appear to be directly detailing the subject and her works. I'll have to AGF these sources meet independent RS, but the appearance and links appear to check out. Very difficult to find English sources on a subject only covered in Turkish. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the new sources that are revealed now. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metas Opas-iamkajorn

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

Non a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Quite clearly WP:TOOSOON. While he already appears to be an online celebrity of sorts with over a million Instagram followers and has appeared in entertainment news columns,[28] what's known about him so far is mostly in relation to his more notable brother, and notability is not inherited. This will probably change with his upcoming works, but until then, the notability guidelines aren't satisfied. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete is solution here. 1st neither the series is notable till now, 2nd even if it is then he needs to be a lead actor in mulitiple series of movies. Juggyevil (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON at best, and possibly an A7-speedy deletion candidate as the article stands now. No better sources found. --Finngall ^talk 17:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Weber

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

Fails the notability criteria. All unreliable sources or the interview. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Fashion, and Hong Kong. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not enough independent reliable secondary sources giving in depth coverage of this person to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search for GNG-qualifying coverage was similarly unsuccessful. The only sources available seem to be unreliable and/or not independent. Perhaps it is just too soon, but in any event Weber does not meet the GNG or any relevant SNG at the moment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Giampaoli

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

Footballer who fails WP:FOOTY, has never played in a WP:FPL, only in low-level non-pro leages. Discussion from WP:FOOTBALL Talk RedPatch (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Argentina. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL as per others and discussion Zanoni (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Czech Republic, Greece, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Guatemala. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. He's been pretty close throughout his career - I note that two of his teams were subsequently promoted to fully professional leagues. St Anselm (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Mingze

AfDs for this article:

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

Just being the daughter of Chinese president is not important enough to merit an article on its own. SochneyDe (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SochneyDe (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and China. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - subject of article has 14 independent references to prove wikinoteworthiness. in addition, at the same time this article is being proposed for deletion, the article has page views of about 4,500 views on just one day of February 25, 2022. This delete proposal may be the Barbra Sterisand effect in action. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — the article's sourcing right now leaves a bit to be desired, but she is notable. See e.g. coverage in the New Yorker, New Zealand Herald, and Agence France-Presse.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Numerous sources discussing her in her own right, not as an additional biographical curiosity related to her father. Atchom (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary "Skeeter" Reece

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

We seem to have had this article since January 2011. Umm... look at it. —S Marshall T/C 00:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 00:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, the first hit in Gnews is "How popular is your dog's name". It's pretty much downhill from there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate delete. It feels like there's something interesting here, especially with the mentions of performing at the White House, etc., but without good sources there's not much that can be done. If anyone turns up references, I'm happy to rethink this. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Zalph

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and lacks significant coverage. Only source is a column written by the subject's cousin. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to say that just because we can't find much on the internet doesn't mean the article's subject fails GNG. The article's subject lived before mass adoption of the internet. That being said, I'm not able to find much so may fail GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 22:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Journalism. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried the NY Times back files. He's listed in this article with the title: Senate Unit Finds Red Link in Press. But he just gets a mention in a list of people brought up before the committee who took the fifth. He's mentioned in another similar article, just a name check. He also is listed in the Senate report. Unfortunately he was just one of many hundreds who were hounded during the red scare of the 1950's, and he wasn't important enough, as far as I can tell, to merit more biographical information. Lamona (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Sadly, one of hundreds who were blacklisted. The only source in the article is self-published by his cousin, and the two sources since found by Lamona are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest keeping a revised version of this page. True he is one of many pursued in the 1950s "loyalty" hearings but his testimony is notable for its citation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the First and Fifth, in support of his refusal to answer questions. Sources (at least one of which would need to be added to the page) are the published transcript of the testimony: https://books.google.com/books?id=z6B9imvD-P0C&pg=PA1014&lpg=PA1014&dq, and this article in CQ Press: https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal56-1347749, as well as other newspaper sources including the Galveston Daily News: https://newspaperarchive.com/galveston-daily-news-jan-05-1956-p-2/ and the Billings Gazette: https://newspaperarchive.com/billings-gazette-jan-05-1956-p-1/ . I've been unable to find any reference to any other "loyalty" hearing witness citing the Ninth or Tenth Amendment. His reliance on the Ninth Amendment in the loyalty hearings seems noteworthy in light of the limited history of use of this Amendment prior to the hearings, and the Amendment's more recent growing prominence, as reflected by its later discussion in Supreme Court decisions and the recent statement by US President Joseph Biden to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wanted "a Supreme Court candidate with a judicial philosophy 'that suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment.'” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/23/supreme-court-ninth-amendment-bork-biden-00010847. (Full disclosure: I am a family member.)

Editor 5050 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Removing the sentence in the article explaining why the subject's brother is notable would reduce the size of the stub by 25%. After this much time, it is unlikely further references will be found. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm actually seeing a lot of coverage in 1956 on newspapers.com, but it's mostly AP wire stories (or modified AP wire stories). A bunch of newspapers reporting that he refused to testify in front of congress, pleading a bunch of amendments, is clear WP:BIO1E. WP:SUSTAINED notes that If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. The lack of any meaningful follow-up in the 66 years since his testimony from anyone other than his cousin shows that reliable sources only cover him in the context of a single event. Since he remained low-profile throughout his life, I see no compelling reason to consider him notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Laura Bush. There is no consensus to keep the content/article, but redirects are cheap. Although consensus is divided on where, going with Laura Bush for the reasons JPL puts forward. No objection to that being changed should consensus change Star Mississippi 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Welch

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

Mother of Laura Bush, First Lady of the USA from 2001-09. Seems to be notable only for her death and her daughter being the First Lady. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Arkansas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Sources are mostly about her death, not really useful. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability isn't inherited. Laura Bush is definitely notable but that doesn't make her mother automatically notable. Cirton (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ - there is a by-lined obituary for her in the New York Times [29], and other papers [30][31][32]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep - in addition to the by-lined obituary, I have added coverage of her in birding and as the eponymous of the Jenna Welch Nature Preserve, and citations discussing the Jenna Welch Women's Center, and the Jenna Welch and Laura Bush library at El Paso Community College. All told, these add up to enough for keep. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bush family. Not independently notable. KidAd • SPEAK 22:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would a redirect to Laura Bush be better? Welch is not mentioned in the Bush family article. Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laura Bush. Because A-she is not part of the Bush family, so redirecting there makes no sense, B-the institution named after her is jointly named after her and her more famous daughter, so that makes good sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three institutions are only named for Jenna Welch, only the library is jointly Welch/~~Busch~~Bush. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot even spell Bush right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is relatively clear. Star Mississippi 01:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athar Aamir Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

Single event notability. No page for other peer-level District Magistrates, or 1st, or 2nd rankers. Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi User4edits (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on notability, but want to point out that this page has been the target of persistent vandalism over the last few months. Check the history for edits by IPs, and be warned that the vandals may try to interfere in the AfD. pburka (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to close this but this article was subject of a previous AFD just 6 months ago that involved a Deletion Review so more editor input is sought here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. and obvious violation of WP:BIO. User4edits (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to vote once more; as nom, yours is already counted. Hemantha (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think these - on UPSC rank,^[1] marriage,^[2]^[3] and divorce,^[4]^[5] - from very reliable sources, all offering details on other aspects of his life as well, are enough for WP:GNG.

References

^ Rashid, Omar (11 May 2016). "Athar Khan of Kashmir secures second place". The Hindu.
^ Dhawan, Himanshi. "Athar Aamir Khan loses UPSC rank one to Tina Dabi, wins her heart". The Economic Times.
^ Jameel, Yusuf (10 April 2018). "IAS topper Tina Dabi and runner-up Athar Khan tie knot in Pahalgam". Deccan Chronicle.
^ "Tina Dabi And Athar Aamir Khan, IAS Topper Couple, Divorced". NDTV.com.
^ Mir, Ehasn (11 May 2016). "UPSC success story: From militancy-hit Valley, India gets an inspiration". The Indian Express.

Hemantha (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is difficult. In theory, the sources are reliable, in depth and plenty of them written by staff writers. My worry is with the reasons of coverage. Every year, UPSC will have top 1,2 and 3. I think he has got more coverage because there is a Kashmir angle. Further to that, I feel, a lot of these are announcements of his appointments. I am finding it difficult to spot coverage that discusses his work in a way that it would distinguish him from his peer IAS officers. Divorce related news has no merit. I don't even know why they are following and talking about his divorce. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree:
- For UPSC rank, his preceding ranker (AIR 1) in the same year (Ms. Tina Dabi's) article has been deleted, as here.
- For marriage, his wife and better UPSC rank holder, Ms. Tina Dabi's article has been deleted, as here.
- For divorce, the other party to the divorce, also the party to the marraige, and better rank holder, Ms. Tina Dabi's article has been deleted, as here.
As for references supplied, however reliable sources they might be, they appear each year in same volumes for each topper of almost all major national exams. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing here is impeccable and hasn't been questioned yet. Whatever the underlying reasons (a "marketing" angle isn't readily evident), the coverage is indeed significant enough. Tina Dabi's article was deleted in 2016/17 when a couple of these newer articles hadn't appeared. The articles that appear in same volumes in each year, are clearly about different persons with obviously different details - that's like arguing a film is reviewed in review section every day, so all of them should be ignored. Hemantha (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. We have to be very careful using media sources from India because the standards of journalist integrity are not the same as in the West. The sources provided above by Hemantha are unreliable as these publications often take money from the subjects themselves to induce them to write the articles. They therefore lack independence even though they have bylined authors. Further, even if this was not the case its clear that these sources have quality issues per WP:TABLOID.4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have anything more than your own claim that WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP take money from subjects, I invite you to add it to Paid_news_in_India and raise it in WP:RSN so that their green "generally reliable" entries in WP:RSP may be downgraded. Hemantha (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may do that. Even if they are independent though, the style of journalism is akin to tabloid style press in the United States which is not significant for establishing notability. We need better quality sources than these. WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:NOTGOSSIP applies.4meter4 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS focuses on events and about what kind of details are covered in an article. It has nothing to say about determining notability. In other words, it is a policy about what to include in an article once it is decided that an article should exist. The determination of whether an article should exist is being made here and for that WP:GNG (and other notability guidelines) apply.

My claim is not that the article should be written based only on the links above; my claim is that given the above references, the subject is notable per WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't in anyway refute that argument. The purpose of AfD is not to exhaustively list all possible references on which the article can be written; it's only to bring forth evidence of notability per GNG or other SNG. Hemantha (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point. Tabloid press like this is trivial coverage (as confirmed by NOTNEWS); thereby failing the "significant coverage" portion of WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doing especially well in an exam is not a reason for notability. One event rule applies. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WP:BLP1E is also an issue here.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Springnuts (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Zakaria Ahmad

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

Deprodded without rationale or substantial improvement. Does not meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are quite a few media articles mentioning the subject of the article, it's invariably in his role as a press spokesman for the police, rather that actually being about him. Otherwise, the director of a regional CID unit doesn't seem to have inherent notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhav Singh Bassi

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

Not a notable person, there is no independent commentary of the journalist. All the sources are nothing more than interviews or the promotion of his live shows to sell tickets. Juggyevil (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of The Hindu and Indian express article. Found more by WP:BEFORE. Can be enough for WP:BASIC. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I second to Laptopinmyhands. Additionally the article can be improved with some content and editing with resources as there are available resources to support the article. --Nang Nandini (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can you offer some specific sources supporting WP:BASIC?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Some examples here [33], [34], [35] Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Izadi

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

Non-notable computer scientist. Sources cited are primary and/or offer only passing mentions. Search finds more of the same, as well as the usual social media etc. mentions, but nothing contributing towards notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Scholar gives an h-index of 88 (in a highly topical buzz field), in case that has any bearing on academic notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I had left a message on the creator's page asking for them to declare their COI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Could find nothing on newspapers.com extended. BBQboffin (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwath Bhatt

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

I don’t see any important roles. Role in Raazi film is not main role. And in coverage, it is only interviews which can be organised so easily these days with right connections for actors. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot see any evidence of multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR requirements, would be willing to change my !vote if anyone can prove otherwise. Agree with the nom that interviews are not WP:GNG worthy sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

\

Delete per nom and above fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret MacLean (civil servant)

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

The only source in the article is not independent. It's an obituary written by the brother and a friend of the subject. I could not find any coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject to meet our general notability guidelines. I first tried moving the article to draft so it could be incubated but that move was reverted. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete family written death notices do not add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question Is my understanding of previously established consensus correct: that family submitted death notices in local papers are not considered reliable sources, but major write ups in national newspapers do have editorial oversight and therefore are considered reliable sources? (based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Obituaries)? CT55555 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of article published in a reliable source subject to editorial control may be valid as a source, but if it's authors are related to the subject (Brother and friend) it is not independent and therefore does not help establish notability and does not contribute towards meeting WP:GNG. The second source you added includes only a mere mention of the name in a list. It does not qualify as significant coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd advise the creator of this article to move it into draft, try to find some reliable, secondary sources that back up the museum founding or other work, and if you can find, move to main space. This is one of those scenarios where it seems like she should be notable, but we need at least more source or sources. I agree with Crystallizedcarbon above that my second citation isn't useful for notability, just fact verification. I respect the point that the obituary is not independent, but I do think that an obituary published in a national newspaper has some editorial oversight and should not be discounted as if it were a simple death notice. CT55555 (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reluctantly. While I'm all for the Women In Red Project, I'm surprised by this article getting through. It was clearly at the draft stage and even with the one obituary source from the Scotsman (regardless of the author) it doesn't meet WP:N. A lack of sufficient coverage, a lack of sources, etc. Which is a shame because while this woman contributed to the cultural history of Scotland, it's not enough to keep the article on Wikipedia. I tried looking for additional sources but didn't come up with any. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is not uncommon for British newspapers to ask friends/family to write the obituary of a notable deceased person. The Scotsman obit seems to fall into that category. Atchom (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to This is Us. there's a clear consensus to redirect, and CHEAP. A toss up on destination, but her show seemed more likely target than the person who got her there. If the target eventually changes, that can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 01:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Thompson

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

Thought to CSD this, but was a little unsure. The subject doesn't look like it meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. And a Google search doesn't give too much details about her, and nor are reliable sources found. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ohio. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added three sources which establish notability, plenty of interviews out there as well. Mujinga (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to This Is Us, her only notable role. Fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not add towards establishing notability, and one significant role is not enough to show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that none of the sources added to the article during this discussion consist of interviews. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dan Fogelman CHEAP, and definite influence on who got her on This Is Us. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is clearly no consensus here in this divided discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, half the editors say that WP:NFOOTY has been met while the other half say that WP:GNG is not met. Although there is a recent RFC challenging sports notability criteria, I'm not willing today to disregard arguments based on a long-standing notability guideline even if it is in the process of being reframed and rewritten. So, I came down as No Consensus, rather than leaning toward Keep (prioritizing WP:NFOOTY) or Delete (prioritizing WP:GNG). Of course this decision doesn't prevent future AFDs for this article which might result in a more decisive outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Bukuru

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

This topic fails WP:GNG. On its face this topic satisfies WP:NFOOT, but as WP:NSPORTS notes this is not a substitute for the GNG. My WP:BEFORE is only turning up sports database entries (so far the article is sourced to one such database entry) and a few sporadic mentions such as this, with no significant coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:BIAS. She is an international footballer from a country where not much of their newspaper coverage is online, and we'd never consider deleting a male international footballer with appearances. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Africa. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joseph. I note that lots of criticism levelled at NFOOTBALL is that it encourages the creation of articles about European male players - well here is an African woman you are trying to delete! Giant Snowman 10:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ongoing career as a senior international player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Joseph2302: @GiantSnowman: I was hoping this would not be taken in bad faith. Half of what I write about is about African topics.... like look at my user page, I've written most of the GAs and the only FA under the Burundi topic area. While doing my BEFORE checking I looked at one of the other new female Burundian footballer articles, Asha Djafari, for reference, and she has much more mentions in sports coverage (much of it routine, granted) that could be used to improve that article. Not so with Bukuru. I don't see how creating bunches of permastubs fixes any systemic issues. It just drags down the average quality of articles on African women even further with, as my BEFORE for this article suggests, no room for improvement. Burundi has a small media footprint but most of their publications cover sports (Iwacu, Le Renouveau, Jimbere Magazine, for example), especially soccer. I've searched all three (Jimbere is expressly focused on women's issues and likes to follow what the women's national football team are up to) and found nothing. Maybe we should consider that the Burundian media didn't consider this person that important. In the intro to BIAS it reads Wikipedia tends to show a White American or White European perspective on issues due to the prominence of English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. So how is it BIASed to delete this subject if the black African-run sources from Burundi don't consider this important? Too many European male players is not what's being debated here and is a separate issue. I hope the closer will note too that BIAS is not a policy-based reason for deletion. To the "Ongoing career" argument all I have to say is that is not a policy-based reason either and WP:TOOSOON. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Senior International Player, regardless of gender. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @ArsenalGhanaPartey: What criterion is this satisfying? -Indy beetle (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NFOOTY: Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following: 1. Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA Which they have done. And we shouldn't be randomly picking off international footballers from less well represented countries- I've never seen an international male, European footballer nominated successfully for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - To quote the explanatory notes at the top of WP:NSPORTS, of which WP:NFOOTY is a part: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. The reasoning "Keep because international footballer" stands in direct opposition to this guidance. Complaints about international male European footballers is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If they bother you, go AfD them. I noticed this article because I work with Burundi topics. As I said above, this was not "random", this was because this player (unlike some other Burundian footballers) seems to have almost zero SIGCOV footprint in RS. Also it is factually incorrect that "not much of [Burundi's] newspaper coverage is online". Most of it actually is, because a lot of their market is Burundian expats in other countries (particularly for Iwacu, the only private newspaper). But I'm humoured to be accused of BIAS. Because the Western editors (according to userpages) voting keep here and so worried about BIAS seem to think that they know better about what Burundi should value than the Burundian media market! How progressive! My sarcasm aside, I will happily withdraw this AfD if sources are provided to demonstrate this person's notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As an international player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Caphadouk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT requires GNG to be met. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Burundi women's national football team#Current squad in the light of the currency of her career, and WP:BIAS issues. Sourcing is extremely weak, with two DB-grades, and one that doesn't even mention her at all, does nothing to establish actual, as opposed to baseline-presumed, notability. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Senior International Player and hence meets notability Zanoni (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean per the notability guideline which states, inter alia: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Indy beetle's explanation of the lack of Burundian coverage and the hubris of assuming women's football is given the same degree of attention and importance there as it is in (some) Western nations. !Voting just "keep, meets NFOOTY" is only defensible if the deletion rationale does not address that point; since it does, and instead raises the lack of GNG, per NSPORT those wanting to keep should provide evidence for the implicit claim there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and redirect to a suitable list article (e.g. List of Burundi women's international footballers if such a list existed – Burundi women's national football team is not a suitable target because she will almost certainly not always be mentioned there). This stub is a prime example of WP:WHYN, and it fails comprehensively. In cases such as these, barely meeting the SNG is not enough; successive RFCs have also reaffirmed community consensus that GNG must be met in the case of NSPORT. Essentially, the presumption of notability offered by NFOOTBALL is no longer valid without significant coverage from independent secondary reliable sources. Ultimately, we need significant coverage in order to write an article; none has been found here, and that is most likely because none exists. As for BIAS, artificially boosting article count is not the solution – creating quality content is; having countless junk database-entry-type biographies containing nothing but statistics is not the way to counter systemic bias, and if anything it makes the situation worse. Bare statistical information (which is all we have) is better presented in lists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the 'current squad' does indeed work as a possible target, for the very rationale offered above: she's a currently active international player, whose notability and coverage may consequently increase, rather than being limited to that stemming for her current appearances. If that doesn't happen, the 'disappearing target' is less of an issue. But it's not a hill I'm planning on dying on, and I'd be perfectly happy with the above list article too. I also agree that this is outside the strict focus of WP:BIAS -- which is a) an essay, and b) written in terms of counteracting Wikipedia's own internal biases, not the biases of the internet, sources, and indeed of the world generally. If only we could fix those with some web edits. If we intend to have some sort of CSB presumption-slack on those wider lines, we need to set that out in terms in a guideline somewhere, not by setting peephole precedents. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as she is not selected, the current squad is no longer a suitable target, and a target with an expiration date is not a valid one when there are good alternatives (even if they don't currently exist). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidently fails GNG. It's important to note the actual wording of NFOOTY: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline". Avilich (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: sigcov?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- If I might comment on the relisting comment -- or question the question, as it were -- are we extending the discussion to see if SIGCOV can be found? Or to argue some more about whether it's actually needed? (Maybe a bit of both.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I meant: "But does it meet sigcov?" in regards to the keep !votes. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you needed to ask that question if nobody even bothered to say an explicit yes, and several others explicitly said no. Avilich (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. St Anselm (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search, including in Burundi sources, only turned up a few trivial sources and database entries. Note that WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't exist anymore since participation-based parts of NSPORTS have been removed per consensus. And even when it existed, it was clear on that all subjects had to meet GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NFOOTBALL was removed while this discussion was taking place (on 7 March 2022). St Anselm (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Ampimd (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a result of consensus established at this RFC (#3), the participation based criteria of NSPORT, which includes the entirety of NFOOTBALL, should be considered as effectively removed from the guideline. As a consequence, "meets NFOOTBALL" !votes (which are low value ATA anyway) now have the equivalence of citing a wikiproject essay. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Neil Maternick

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

Not clear how they pass WP:NMUSICIAN? Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Colorado, and Virginia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting dilemma. Reading the article and looking through the references provided, there's definitely an interesting story here - the subject has quite a background, has faced some fascinating challenges, and totally deserves the attention he gets from local media in his region. Having said that, his music itself has very little external attention that I can find. I don't know that any level of work could lift this to a level at which it would meet notability guidelines for musicians, unfortunately. Regional notability in this case doesn't hit the mark. Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why???? Was the article deleted? 2601:6C0:C107:9E70:51B2:70B3:3A01:78E8 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anchal Singh

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

Lacks sources per WP:GNG to indicate if the roles played are significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Crofoot

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

I proposed the article for deletion but it was removed. WP:NACTOR states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Also most of the article is unsourced and IMDb is not reliable per WP:IMDb. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, Theatre, and Sexuality and gender. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my !vote because of what Ssilvers said. I don't think I can properly determine WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article says that he played Barnaby in a national tour of Hello Dolly! and Benjamin in the original US production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, in addition to Tom Thumb in Barnum on Broadway. The problem is that his career peaked in the 70s, so reviews of his performances are probably hard to find online. His Broadway peformances are listed in IBDB (and probably also the National Tour). I don't think we should delete the article just because we are too lazy to find the references at the library. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack a level of sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding a lot of coverage using Newspapers.com. He was profiled extensively in The Dancer Within: Intimate Conversations with Great Dancers by Rose Eichenbaum (available online at Open Library). I'm finding lots of coverage using Newspapers.com. Here are some early finds that are reasonable in-depth: Palm Beach Post 2001, LA Times 1997, Orem Geneva Times 1996, The Desert Sun 2009, and Baltimore Sun 1998. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of his pre-1984 roles can be verified by "Leonard John Crofoot." Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television, vol. 1, Gale, 1984. Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/K1609016072/BIC?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-BIC&xid=e38b4986. Accessed 26 Feb. 2022. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the newly found sources, Keep seems logical. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Of note is that this is essentially a weakish keep result, because WP:NMUSICIAN only states that a subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". However, the guideline does not provide presumed notability for subjects that meet at least one of the criteria. Also of note is that nobody in the discussion has agreed with deletion after two full relisings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice and the Glass Lake

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation has already been carried out previously here. The consensus was that it does meet the WP:NMUSICIAN threshold, even if it only barely. A very quick browse of this article's history or my talk page's history (which I know you have visited) would have revealed that. ~Junedude433 (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a prior AfD before an article move, which concluded keep. Notability is forever. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Clean Up - The musical act achieved some basic stub-level notability as decided in this previous AfD. Back then, I surmised that the article makes the mistake of presenting a personal biography of Ms. Lemke, when it would work better as a history of the musical act called Alice and the Glass Lake. That has not been resolved, but it can be handled as a cleanup process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of clean up etc. on the article. As I understand it, the musical act called Alice and the Glass Lake is just a stage name for Alice Lemke. I think the basic article structure is fine. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she is credited on one song on Revival (Eminem album), which topped a number of charts. I'm not sure if the single credit is enough for WP:NMUSICIAN. Rusalkii (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her other claim to notability would be her credit as the vocalist for the song "Trip the Light" which plays as the theme for the notable Where the Hell is Matt? 2012 video. This would fall under rule 10 for WP:NMUSICIAN, which being used in conjunction with her credit on an Eminem song, I think establishes notability, in terms of raw music credit. ~Junedude433 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan A. Nash

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

Promising young actor but WP:TOOSOON applies especially this article was rejected multiple times in AFC due to the fact that he didn't appear in multiple notable productions. Hence failing WP:NACTOR. The rejected AFC draft can be found here. Chirota (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator: He was one of the prominent actors of Come Away, not in a precise lead role and all other appearances in other films or tv shows are in side roles. Chirota (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree that this fails WP:NACTOR but I think it's likely that this article could pass in the future. The article is well done and I don't think it should just be deleted. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and I don't see one forthcoming with opinions so different on the merits of the sources Star Mississippi 01:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Albert "Tripp" Smith

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople and New Jersey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the level of significant coverage needed to justify a biography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails WP:BIO. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldMiner24: since your vote additional sourcing has been presented. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to vote because I have a family member with a connection to Smith. But I was able to find articles from Bloomberg (1 & 2) and the Wall Street Journal, as well as coverage from the South Bend Tribune, Sky Sports, and the Daily Star (UK). Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at them in turn.

1 This is about fund which is named after him.

2 That is a routine annoucement of the man leaving his job. How is that notable and it is a press-release.

the Wall Street Journal

When you search for General Atlantic, Tripp Smith to Launch Roughly $5 Billion Distressed-Investing Fund about two dozen entries come indicating its comes from a press-release with the same wording in each one. It is all affiliate links.

South Bend Tribune

PR.

Sky Sports That is a press-release.

Daily Star (UK) The daily star is non-RS. Why would you even mention it?

scope_creep^Talk 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that a newspaper, tabloid or not, with 200k circulation may be worth mentioning. In relation to specifically the West Ham stuff there is also this from the Evening Standard as well. Also, the WSJ is not a press release with the exact same wording some of these stories specifically say "the Wall Street Journal reported (ex)" and it was written by one of their journalists (profile here). Also how do you know if Sky Sports is a press release? It looks like a standard wire service writeup to me and I don't see any disclosure. As for Bloomberg, the fund was named "Atlantic Park", so I don't think that the article just says that there is a fund named after him and the article about him leaving was written by a senior reporter at that outlet and in what way does it being about the subject leaving his position make any less notability-lending? GPL93 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. After making full use of the cited sources and unraveling the article into a coherent account of his career, then searching for additional sources to fill out the biography and finding only a page at his school (the major part of which is audio, so I cannot hear it) and no extended articles about him in the financial press, I came here to say that in my estimation he just clears the notability threshhold (there is coverage of multiple points in his career: co-founding and continuing as a top-level executive at GSO as it grew; second of the 3 founders to leave; foundation of Iron Park and its participating in a major joint venture; buying into West Ham and rumors about take-over plans, and I was able to pick and choose among sources to cite at many points, but one of his co-founders has more press) but that there is almost no biographical information available: I had a rough date of birth and a high school, that was it. But then I saw the South Bend Tribune reference listed above. With that, I believe the article meets the bare minimum requirements: multiple reliable sources reporting on his career over several years, and just enough info about the person to make a useful biography. (It would be lovely if some subscription holder would check places like Fortune and the WSJ for a full profile that Google doesn't show to hoi polloi.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The South Bend Tribune reference is PR. A man who give huge gift then reports it using PR agency is not a valid source. It fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a PR agency-written piece, it's a staff writeup by the newspaper. If you'd like to what the actual press release regarding Smith's donation, you can find it here on Notre Dame's website. Note the differences in wording. You have continually misrepresented the referencing both in this AfD and in the article. GPL93 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page does not seem to meet notability requirements. Gusfriend (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think User:Yngvadottir's edits have improved the page enough that it's apparent (to me) the subject meets WP:NB. I will also note that the South Bend Tribune ref is far from PR; that's a respected newspaper. If this were a sponsored content puff piece, it would be labeled as such; per the paper's branded content terms, "Media Company's legally approved label for custom content work is "Story From" which will be included in articles listicles, video, infographics, promotional units, and social media." This is not a sponcon piece. The paper's source for this story also seems to be the University itself, not a PR agency. It's quite common for college town papers to report on big donations like this (Notre Dame is right next to South Bend). Lkb335 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the SBT article heavily based on a press release by the University? Yes, it is, it's not a very good article. Does that disqualify it as a source? I would say no. Lkb335 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is amazing how many people are willing to rationalise something in order to achieve an objective. Lets examine the new references, the loosest definition I've seen in a long while.

Leaving the firm. Independent:Yes Reliable:Yes Significant coverage:No It is routine coverage of him leaving his business. That is routine coverage.
West Ham bought Independent:No Reliable:No Significant coverage:No A search of the term finds that many newspapers use the same exact report indicating it is sourced to a press-release.
Portrait on his site Independent:No Reliable:No Significant coverage:No Puff page.
Notre Dame 15 million gift Independent:Yes Reliable:No Significant coverage:No This is routine coverage. The statement has been made above that because it is independent even though it has been taken a press-release that it is reliable is absurd. The true aspect to prove it is routine, is that if the gift wasn't made the report wouldn't have been made. Any gift of that size in any country would have been reported on. It is not reliable coverage.
Merrill Lynch Takes Hedge Fund Stake Independent:No Reliable:No Significant coverage:No It states its from a press-release.
Founder of Blackstone credit unit to stand down Independent:Yes Reliable:No Significant coverage:No Another press-release and not about Smith. Passing mention
General Atlantic, Tripp Smith to Launch Roughly $5 Billion Distressed-Investing Fund Independent:Yes Reliable:Yes Significant coverage:No Passing mention

The whole consists of routine coverage, press-releases and passing mention. None of it is significant meaning WP:SECONDARY. There isn't single profile on the person. It all incidental news. scope_creep^Talk 09:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a wild misrepresentation of referencing. Writing off references about him leaving his firm as if that is something that happens for everyone and calling an article where his name is literally in the title with multiple mentions as "passing mention" is absurd. Also, the same wording rationale is not even close. I guess staff write-ups and legitimate news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters (which are very commonly used in sports coverage) simply do not exist. His buying a stake in the club was clearly a newsworthy event. Call it all incidental news not leading to notability when he is the reason for multiple incidents across multiple years that are covered by reliable sources. Also, what is my or Yngvadottir's, Lkb335's "objective" here? What nefarious reasons are there for keeping an objective article where reliable sourcing has been presented? GPL93 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here have access to the full Wall Street Journal article? Even in the blurb available without signing in, it mentions Smith in the headline and twice in the article body and so "Passing mention" isn't an accurate summary of the source. NemesisAT (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have access through PROQUEST. I agree that it's significant coverage and is non-trivial. Additionally, there are other WSJ articles in which he is in the headline and with nontrivial coverage. See Miriam Gottfried (April 15, 2020). "Fund to Help Companies Facing Distress From the Pandemic; General Atlantic is forming a joint venture with Tripp Smith". The Wall Street Journal. p. B11.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Source analysis by Scope Creep is not convincing and is a misrepresentation of the significance and quality of the sources.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference above about General Atlantic is forming a joint venture with Tripp Smith comes from a press-release. The whole thing is all driven from press-release and PR. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bylined authored article in a major newspaper. Articles with named bylined journalists (in this case journalist Miriam Gottfried) are not "press releases" no matter how much you want to misconstrue them as such. This was not a pre-packaged story but one written by a WSJ staff journalist. 4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 4meter4 the press release argument has now been debunked by multiple editors at this point. It would appear that the nominator also believes that this article was created by a UPE, which I'm not seeing at all given they edit mostly on football-related topics and has given the incredibly plausible explanation that they created the article because Smith became an owner of West Ham United and likely reverted the redirect later on after Smith's alleged attempt to take the club over. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referencing has been improved and article expanded, notability now established. NemesisAT (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I spoke to Miriam directly. It doesn't come from a press-release apparently. So that confirms it. But that is only one secondary reference. Where is the rest of them, that satisfies WP:THREE. The rest of the coverage is routine and PR. scope_creep^Talk 13:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing routine about someone becoming an owner of an EPL club (The Sky Sports staff report & the Financial Times report by journalists with bylines), attempting to take control of said club, or making a $15 million donation (SBT), that's just not stuff "local man" does. Generally speaking when people, even high-ranking executives, leave their position a news outlet like Bloomberg does not have senior reporters write about it or the Financial News have an editor (which was the title the FN article author, Fareed Sahloul, had at the time according to LinkedIn) report on it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most spurious argument and a complete lie. All billionares are followed by newspapers and any billionaire who runs a hedge fund are followed religiously particularly by the financial newspapers, as in this case. Most of the stuff that is reported is routine coverage that every billionare gets. So far on this there is.

Secondary source written by Miriam on a partner deal.
A source that is the $15million contribution. That is routine coverage.
Routine coverage about leaving the job.

That is your argument. None of that constitutes the WP:THREE requirement for three secondary sources which is the usual standard at Afd, except the first one. Secondly don't speak about UPE. You have no experience of it and it makes like a fool when you say things like that. Lastly if it is the case of No Consensus then in 6 months time I will be nominating it again, until I see at least three secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have experience dealing with UPEs and there are editors/admins that can attest to that. I am an editor with several years of history and in good standing so why would you make a personal attack like that? Your general lack of civility and assumption of good faith towards other editors has been unacceptable when it comes to this subject and you've now essentially admitted that you cannot remain impartial. GPL93 (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's calm things down a bit. Multiple editors are using language that is not necessarily appropriate for what should be a fairly routine discussion on an article--impugning someone's motive or character for suggesting deletion or keep is not acceptable in this context. Maybe it would be best if everyone just stepped away from the discussion for a day or two.

Best, Lkb335 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkb335 I agree. At this point, I think it's best to just drop things for now as nothing new is being added to this AfD by either of us and neither of us are going to change our interpretations of the referencing. Thank you for stepping in to diffuse things and thank you everyone for participating in this AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: Sorry GPL93. I shouldn't have said that. scope_creep^Talk 17:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep It's okay, we've all been there in an AfD or two. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just wanted to clarify that there are two secondary sources written by Miriam Gottfried in the WSJ, not one. One is from February 24, 2022 (cited in the article) and the other is the April 15, 2020 article given above. Both of these are independent significant secondary sources, and demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kaul (actor)

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

Only one significant role and a few other roles but they aren't essentially lead. There are some reliable sources cited but are typical churnalism content or interviews. Hence the subject isn't meeting either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG independently. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of playing multiple significant roles to meet NACTOR. Having linked articles is not enough, reliable and independent sources need to be there. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Ab207 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP enough resources in citation for newcomer Actor. --Nang Nandini (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, no just "enough resources." -- Ab207 (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Martin (journalist)

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

Non-notable local journalist - no RS about his career that rises to the level of GNG. Juniperesque (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juniperesque (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Canada, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:NJOURNALIST no significant independent coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 10:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, he's not just a local journalist; he started out that way, but later became a national columnist and a national anchor on a national news channel, which are roles that do satisfy NJOURNALIST. Secondly, this was a more balanced and better-referenced article in the past, which was turned into a primary sourced rewrite of his CTV staff profile only a few months ago by a new editor whose edit history carries hints of "paid public relations consultant" — but I've returned and properly sourced some of the content that got scrubbed last fall. Thirdly, for a person whose career has stretched over 40 years, not all of his best sourcing is necessarily going to Google well, but instead will have to be retrieved from archives, and I've recovered more than enough proper non-CTV sourcing from ProQuest to eliminate the problem. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to Bearcat for fixing the article up. See WP:HEY. The sources now cited in the article appear to establish notability (particularly when combined with possible offline sources), and while I don't have access to all of them I assume that they provide significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prong (band)#Members. Sourced content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 09:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Christopher

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

clearly not notable enough for an own article FMSky (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prong (band), which seems to be the band he is most associated with (although he seems to have played bass for/with quite a few others). I couldn't find a lot of coverage of him. --Michig (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prong (band) not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don’t believe the pge should be deleted. What I do believe is taht the artists should be able to run their own pages. Because there are so many people that can access and write whatever they want. All I believe that there are people who are violent criminals on Wikipedia that shouldn’t have pages. Taht are still acting as violent criminals. I won’t put the name here. But I read about a drummer yesterday that has murdered multiple people. And I read it here. People are so desperate to be featured on a website. We should talk about the good people do for the world. Also like I said many of us have Covid with severe neurological symptoms. And we’re very confused. Plus there are fake webpages made just to slander. That people use to edit these pages as reference. I don’t think they should be taken down. But I definitely think you should stop sharing IP addresses. Anyone else that had a leapfrog can track an IPaddress. And some fans are so obsessed that if you don’t like their band they will hurt you or your family. It’s trying that society is like this. Feel taht at this point in Time there is so little to look forward to. A beacon of light and hope because wall they have. Many people look up to Jason because of his past struggles and his will to do better in life. Same as Courtney love. They aren’t bullies. They are underdogs with hard luck stories. That we want to see survive. Because it gives society hope. And someone to look up to. Thank you for your time in this matter.

Also I was hacked. So personal stuff has been sent out from my private accounts. As I’m sure many have. It’s been daunting on all of us. It’s unfortunate that people thought that during such a hard time on the citizens of the world that mental abuse would be funny or help them in some way. Keep your heads up guys. And cute babydolls. We can do this.

Also Sky quit being rude. We know it’s you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1296:8A00:A946:9563:95CF:E897 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:SIGCOV. Arguing in 2006 that "artists should be able to run their own pages" could have been excused, but in 2022, it's untenable. We are a private charity, not a soapbox, and everybody knows that. I would not oppose a protected redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parakh Madan

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

Lacks sources per WP:GNG to indicate if the roles played are significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the article's expansion post-AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing is relatively abundant to RS. Seems to meet GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Stump

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the sources are "Lost in the Cloud", which appears to be a personal blog. The others are random listicles about "viral" sheet music that only mention Stump/Faerie's Aire in passing and point out how funny and impossible it is, along with YouTube videos of people "attempting" to play it and then meta-commentaries from said listicles on the same. Nothing in this article whatsoever constitutes a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep per WP:ANYBIO #2, given that Stump composed what is likely the most prominent example of satirical sheet music of all time. I wish there was more sourcing, but it's better than the nominator makes out, with the Glendale Focus obit in particular providing SIGCOV. IAR I think it's a notable topic given that seemingly half of American high school music rehearsal rooms have Faerie's Aire on the wall and every music person I know has seen it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)^{Modified 18:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC) to strike "weak"; see below.}[reply]
I found some further coverage here:
- Fee, Christopher R.; Webb, Jeffery B., eds. (2016). "Death Waltz". American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 297–298. ISBN 9781610695688.
I don't think we could justify pages about both Stump and Faerie's Aire, but we have enough for one, and it makes sense to have it located at Stump given that he's the broader topic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Obituaries are not significant coverage. Lots of people get obits, including my dad. That doesn't make them notable. Especially concerning is that I can't find the obit anywhere other than on the blog. Notability does not equal "everyone in high school music class has seen this". The "American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales" coverage doesn't even amount to a full sentence and only name-drops Stump in reference to another composer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paid obituaries don't count; reported obituaries do. This one was written by the publisher of the Glendale Focus, with the only complication being that the publisher knew Stump (being unable to find a copy of the newspaper is immaterial unless you wish to dispute its veracity). If you'd prefer something completely independent, I just found and added this:
- Gordon, Molly (16 July 1993). "Remove cattle from stage". The Berkshire Eagle. p. 7. Retrieved 19 February 2022.
Regarding An Encyclopedia of American Folklore, I think you must've just read the first sentence—there's significantly more coverage of him and Faerie's Aire farther down. Given the new sourcing, I'm dropping "weak" from my !vote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper piece you added appears to be an editorial with a personally invested tone, which does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. It's just one random person, who may not even be a journalist, reminiscing on it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some new voices in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian XXX

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

No coverage outside of industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - industry coverage[36][37] does count[38] and so does a feature in the Village Voice that's already cited in the article[39][40] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Industry coverage does not count towards meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Morbidthoughts, disagree with John Pack Lambert Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for more time for policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, industry fluff does not count towards notability at all, this has been well-established in dozens and dozens of pornography deletion discussions. Second, the Village Voice article no longer seems to exist. There's an XBiz article about the supposed VV profile, and this forum post is allegedly by the author saying it was coming out in VV soon, but it is curious that it cannot be found in any archive or reprint. It's only from 2006, not like we're trying to track down something from the 70s here. Even if located, it would only be a single, possible source. Still short of notability requirements. Zaathras (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaathras, I posted the two archived links above. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails inclusion standards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: hopefully this relist actually helps
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zaathras. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources. Industry blotter does not count towards notability, while an article in Village Voice, albeit in two parts, is insufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connirae Andreas (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ʿAzīz-al-solṭān Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrawan Ghimire (2nd nomination)

[1] "Raj Reddy - A.M. Turing Award Laureate". amturing.acm.org. Retrieved 2022-03-02.

[2] "rrlong". www.rr.cs.cmu.edu. Retrieved 2022-03-02.

[3] ttps://www.pinkvilla.com/tv/news-gossip/jhansi-ki-rani-fame-aamir-rafiq-speaks-portraying-negative-characters-i-am-happy-be-typecast-764861%3famp

[4] ttps://m.timesofindia.com/tv/news/hindi/i-get-inspired-to-do-good-from-my-negative-roles-says-actor-aamir-rafiq/amp_articleshow/83238221.cms

[5] Rashid, Omar (11 May 2016). "Athar Khan of Kashmir secures second place". The Hindu.

[6] Dhawan, Himanshi. "Athar Aamir Khan loses UPSC rank one to Tina Dabi, wins her heart". The Economic Times.

[7] Jameel, Yusuf (10 April 2018). "IAS topper Tina Dabi and runner-up Athar Khan tie knot in Pahalgam". Deccan Chronicle.

[8] "Tina Dabi And Athar Aamir Khan, IAS Topper Couple, Divorced". NDTV.com.

[9] Mir, Ehasn (11 May 2016). "UPSC success story: From militancy-hit Valley, India gets an inspiration". The Indian Express.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]