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.

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 as 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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

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

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

Please use on these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

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

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthi Venkatesh

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Please discuss. Jean Stair (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the CSD should not have been declined by a non-admin. David.moreno72 08:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (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. Notability is definitely established as many of the !votes here have cited in their rationale. Many of the !votes against keeping the article not adequately address a reason for removal per the deletion policy. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 23:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Cantine

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

fails WP:GNG, no independent sources. No indication what makes him notables, as it is more a romantic version of a "man with a job". The Banner talk 11:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Article does require significant editing to highlight notability but Cantine appears to be more than "man with a job". Examination of current article describes notability: Cantine founded the Arabian Mission which has become the American Mission Hospital of Bahrain. C-Class article seems more appropriate than deletion. Article requires improved organization, elimination of excessive links, clear presentation of notability in Cantine's role in founding American Mission Hospital. Finally article was just created and original editor should have more time to improve.

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Breamk (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing here for any applicable notability, regardless of the information and sources as none of it amounted to convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was one of the founders of a notable institution that helps plenty of people. I see in 1924 they had over thirty thousand people they helped, and over the decades they have grown. Not sure what they do year by year, or their total. Also this article was nominated for deletion 12 hours after it was created. Dream Focus 04:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this article was nominated for deletion 12 hours after it was created. What is the relevance of that? The Banner talk 09:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources about the subject here in the article establish notability. Rather than the timing, the bigger issue is that the nominator fails to understand Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the obligations to identify potential sources, improve the article and preserve the content before considering deletion. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - TheMagnificentist 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that there's enough here for WP:GNG based upon searches, but the article needs a lot of work. I'll work on it so that his notability is clearer.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:CaroleHenson. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just realized that this article was created for Wiki Ed/University of Pennsylvania/Medical Missionaries to Community Partners (Fall 2016), and was created first in the user's sandbox. So, I am going to stop making edits and expanding the article at this time. There is still quite a lot of content that could be added by the user that created the article - which I am assuming (and hoping) can be kept at this point due to the votes and updates to the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2016 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Adam Barnett

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

Non-notable actor. Has only appeared in 1 film (as noted by IMDB). Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor. Article is bloated with content unrelated to subject and includes his website as a source. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a long list of name-dropping does not bring this up to notability. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anas al-Basha

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

Seems to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Meatsgains (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that to be the case, and since it won't be possible to merge it with other articles documenting the events (such as Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016)), it should be deleted. Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: tragic situation, but I don't believe it meets notability requirements for a stand alone article. Coverage seems to relate just to the single event of the person's death. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2016 (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. For now. But WP:NPASR should the RFC on the award conclude that receiving it does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie R. Mitchell

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

No independent coverage. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Much like the deletions of these other scouting organization personel -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - meets WP:ANYBIO per being a recipient of the Bronze Wolf Award--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it populates its own Google search when you type in Leslie Mitchell JOTA. ~~You haven't done your homework.~~ ^[1]^[2]^[3] are independent non=Scouting references.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - also meets WP:ANYBIO .2 per being founder of a major world wide Amateur Radio event. ^[4] --Egel _Reaction? 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO having been awarded the Bronze Wolf Award, and point 2 having created a worldwide annual Scouting event using amateur radio. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kintetsubuffalo. --evrik ^(talk) 16:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get it - this guy was a great scout and awarded their highest honour and a great amateur radio enthusiast, but can you provide references that pass the criteria in WP:BASIC? The references provided by Evet are clubs or blogs for amateur radio and the others in the article are from the scouting movement. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject? The references provided to date fail this test or fail the criteria in WP:RS. You say that he was awarded the Bronze Wolf Award but this is awarded by the scouts so its still a circular reference. That's a bit like expecting every IBM Fellow to have their own article for example - it may be prestigious and difficult to get but its still not really an "external" award and does not imply that the person is notable and merits an article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over the years I have seen serious mention of JOTA in newspapers, but I do not have the time to find them. The amateur radio links can be independent of the subject, if they are published by organisations that do not run JOTA and have no links to running JOTA except that both use radios. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, or Redirect to Jamboree-on-the-Air. Considering this guy's passing went almost unnoticed by the newspapers and the only supporting evidence is from amateur radio/scouts websites, we don't have any strong indications of widescale notability. A Scouts Movement award isn't sufficient proof either. I'm open to seeing evidence of pre-internet news coverage, considering his long life. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kintetsubuffalo, Bronze Wolf awardees are notable.Naraht (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that a few editors here state that Bronze Wolf awardees are notable but saying something doesn't make it so. What we need are references that enable this topic to pass WP:BASIC. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7/2 thus far is a little more than "a few"-unless on your planet, Trump got "a few" more electoral votes than Clinton. I can see where that, plus now three independent sources, would make it difficult to continue making your argument. Have a nice big slice of "saying something doesn't make it so."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness this process isn't a simple count of !votes. So far, nobody has argued against the failure of WP:BASIC. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really should get that checked. Both Egel and btphelps have actually made and bolstered that argument. Also, in English, we say "Thank goodness". Now what those votes should tell you is that your argument in this situation isn't very convincing, and those other editors, to include an admin mind you, can also effectively use Wikipedia policies.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The argument is given above - "Meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO" - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". The Bronze Wolf Award is well-known and significant. It is noticed outside of Scouting. Being an internal award does not prevent it from meeting this criteria. Nevertheless, I would like to see sources that show an individual recipient of the award has been noticed. I think that is clear here. However, some other cases where articles on recipients have come to AfD, it was not clear but the sources might not be in English. I feel sure that this notice of someone receiving the award will be easy to find if the recipient lives in the USA or UK. We may be in danger of having articles on recipients just because they live in some countries, while recipients who live in other countries do not have articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Jamboree on the Air was a notable event and the as the initiator of the event, the article subject is notable. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 04:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tags from Bronze Wolf Award as there are now _THREE_ independent sources, thanks for your legwork, btphelps!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh ... no, there's not "_THREE_ *independent* sources" to use your exclaimatory formatting. Read WP:RS. FYI, there are 7 sources in that article. Only one, the book by Tara Atterberry, could be considered as independent - and the book is a series of books published by Gale Research published every 5 years or so and it mentions the award in passing. The rest are directly associated with the Scouts. If the Bronze Wolf award is a significant national or international award, I expect to find a lot of independent sources - I find nothing that satisfies WP:RS. Perhaps you can help and find some? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hahahaha-thank you for that, I needed a laugh. The Chiangmai Mail is in no way associated with Scouting, and the LDS are a church. Also, in English, we say "exclamatory".~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the appropriate Bronze Wolf Talk page about those sources (hint: they are not independent secondary reliable sources). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boo-yah! http://www.gov.ph/1993/03/08/speech-of-president-ramos-on-the-scout-bronze-wolf-award/ The Government of the Philippines is as independent as you can get. ~~Put it to bed~~.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from posting off-topic here. The correct place for those references is at the Bronze Wolf Talk page and I've responded there. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Off topic? Pull your head out-you're the one who brought it up!~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The heart of the concern about this article (and related ones) is the notability of the Bronze Wolf Award. Since the award was created in 1935, a few million Scouters from dozens of countries around the world have been active in that organization, and of that number, less than 400 have been recognized with this award. Within this world wide community composed of civic organizations, governments, churches, schools, and others, when an individual receives the Bronze Wolf Award, it is indeed noteworthy. While it is a challenge to find strong secondary or tertiary sources, the recipient is notable by the distinction of having received this award for many years of service to their community through their support of Scouting.

Let's not dispute each Bronze Wolf recipient one by one. Take this argument for deletion to the award itself if necessary. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the subject is whether Leslie R. Mitchell meets WP:GNG and the discussion about the award should take place elsewhere. No-one has given any justification for "strong" keep, other than perhaps their bias as members of WikiProject Scouting. Sionk (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my point about IBM fellows above. Without "external" and independent third party verification, your argument is circular. The Bronze Wolf award is awarded by the Scouting organization and the only sources are related to reports on scouting events and therefore the "importance" of the award is inherited from the Scouts and internal to the Scouts. Also, Sionk's point still holds. This AfD is about Mr. Mitchell and the article fails WP:BASIC. We need independent third party sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The Bronze Wolf is a major award by a major international organisation. Secondary sources can be difficult to find, because its recipients tend not to be publicity hounds. I recently wrote an article about a Silver Wolf - and the only source I could find was the local newspaper. Nevertheless, I had no doubt at all that he sailed through WP:GNG with colours flying. (Declaration: onetime Senior Scout, but no connection with Scouting for over 50 years.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the article on P. B. Nevill also fails WP:BASIC (all of the sources are Scouting sources) and it is difficult to see why Mr. Nevill is notable outside of the scouting movement. It may be concluded that the recipients of Wolf awards are automatically notable. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speaking of "off-topic" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, P. B. Nevill was OBE-you are really scrounging, aren't you?~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing:I express no comment on P. B. Nevill, who is not the subject of this AfD. I edited that article only for everyday reasons - i.e. spacing initials per WP:MOS, and adding it to an existing category. Please justify your introduction of P. B. Nevill into this discussion. IMO it's WP:OFFTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is off-topic in the slightest and it is probably closer to the truth that some editors are uncomfortable at the thoughts of any added scrutiny of some of the articles that they've created/editted. You stated that you recently wrote an article about a recipient of a Silver Wolf award and that the *only* source you could find was the local newspaper but that nonetheless you had no doubt *at all* that he sailed through WP:GNG. The implication was that the topic of your recent article was notable due to their being a recipient of the Silver Wolf award (even though you could only find a single source from a local newpaper). It was fully justifiable for any editor to challenge this assertion and I looked up your editing history to find the article (I was curious as to why you did not include a link to the article). Interesting that your recently wrote an article now becomes spacing initials, that your sole purpose of editing the article was to insert a Category of "Recipients of the Silver Wolf Award", and that kintetsubuffalo was the very next editor of the article. If nothing else, it shows the paucity of content for many of the "Wolf" recipient articles and it highlights that the closing admin here will need to make a decision on whether being a recipient of a Wolf award meets the criteria in ANYBIO. If not, other articles will come under increased scrutiny. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting that your recently wrote an article now becomes spacing initials." Different articles, that's why. Please read what I actually wrote in this AfD; please do not put words into my mouth. Narky Blert (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the argument put forward is that Mr. Mitchell is notable *because* he received a Bronze Wolf award. Criteria 1 from WP:ANYBIO states The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. I would argue that the Wolf awards cannot be regarded as well-known there are apparently no independent intellectually-seperate references that state that a Wolf award is a significant award or honour. Other will disagree and state that the award is the highest award that can be given by a notable international organisation. It appears that whoever closes this AfD may well have to consider this argument and make a decision. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are intellectually-separate references, and those have been added to the award article.

~~I found this strange obit for him, also an intellectually-separate reference.^[5]~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to appear superior by name-calling and correcting spelling mistakes? Most editors find it has the opposite effect. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?! Did you read it? That is a legal notice published to invite claims to his estate. Sionk (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Uncertain. To test the notability of the recipients of the awards, I found an instance where there was essentially nothing else claimed, and I just listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbert Hartog. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Jamboree-on-the-Air on the basis of a news archive search on Proquest, where his Leslie + Mitchell + Jamboree brings up old feature coverage of him that validates the article, such as like (Scouts tune in all over world: Calling all Scouts!, Bennett, Harold F. The Christian Science Monitor [Boston, Mass] 16 Sep 1965: 17. ).E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because most Keep votes are assuming that the subject is notable due to being a recipient of an award which is mentioned nowhere in WP notability guidelines Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not a particularly strong one. There probably should be a broader discussion and RfC on whether the award itself is qualifying, because as of right now, there is no broad consensus that it is. Furthermore, it is a consensus that likely auto-keeps 350+ articles and growing, or near-auto noms them depending on their quality.

However, what the award does do is lend credence to the individual's actual central claim to notability, which is founding the event and popularizing amateur radio among scouts. Nontheless, to those who are committed to this article, I would strongly recommend improving it in the long term, or you may likely face a second nomination, and one with a bit stronger rationale, especially if the broader consensus is to give greater scrutiny to the articles for people whose notability rests, in small or large part, on receipt of the award. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the sources provided support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just received a letter from his daughter stating "not really aware of any secondary sources of the kind Wikipedia favours as evidence of notability. I do have some newspaper clippings at home, though, which may allow me to add a few more sources to the reference list over the next few days. Unfortunately, Dad was far too modest to celebrate his own achievement, which means that it attracted less notice than it might have done! My mother and I were very touched by the messages from all over the world which we received when he died." which backs up the arguments made by Bduke and Btphelps. BASED ON THIS, I ASK ANY CLOSING ADMIN FOR MORE TIME--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: OK, so this was NAC closed on the basis that the award was notable but that was clearly wrong. I have voided that close. The keep side are arguing without a policy basis that the award is notable but there appears no dispute that the article is not adequately sources and that this fails GNG. Notability through an SNG is supposed to be a convenient short cut for subjects likely to meet the GNG. In this case, this appears not to be the case. Please can we have some further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity-the NAC close was clearly wrong. The award is notable per WP:GNG and the deletes have confirmed this as well. "The keep side are arguing without a policy basis" is a biased assessment-the "keep side" are arguing per points #1 and #2 of WP:ANYBIO, which is clearly policy-based. There is no dispute that the article was not adequately sourced, that situation has changed since the debate began and is being rectified. So, thanks for the reopen, but no thanks for the incorrect summary.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, whether the award is notable is not the same as saying that everyone who received the award is notable. The Army Service Ribbon is notable, but the vast and overwhelming majority of people who receive it are not. (Otherwise someone please go ahead and write my article already.) TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~That comparison is as stupid as it is meaningless to this discussion.~~ "The Army Service Ribbon is awarded to members of the Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for successful completion of initial-entry training". There are 1,015,000 active military in that branch with the thing, over the course of 36 years that will have been an astounding number. I'm sure McDonald's awards a pin when you finish training, too. Whereas the Bronze Wolf Award "is only "given to people that have provided a lifetime (my emphasis) of selfless and voluntary service to the upliftment and service of youth and country."" and "limited (again my emphasis) to "approximately one award for each 2,000,000 members worldwide"" meaning that even at capacity only 14 may be awarded for 28,000,000 Scouts worldwide. So, no, not an apt comparison in any way.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the comparison illustrates is that the notability of an award, and the notability conferred by the award are separate issues. TimothyJosephWood 11:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The key point here seems to be whether receiving a Bronze Wolf award inherently confers notabilty (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) on the recipient. That question is being debated in an RfC at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award, with the outcome not yet apparent. Until that RfC is settled, it seems to me that this AfD can't really be adjudicated. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but this AfD will have run a month tomorrow. The RfC could run another month or more. At the ANI for the NAC close, it was repeated several times that it looked like no other way to close but keep, even reasons aside from the award (just reread it myself). Since we do now have an RfC at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award, this reopen is for formal admin closure, and not meant to be redundant to that RfC. ANYBIO will come into play the African ones, and as Bduke says, a lot of _those_ cases boil down to little being accessible in English and on the net. What surprised me was that three of the African names already had articles and it was just up to me to plug in or remove an initial to find them. This AfD now involves not just ANYBIO but other, larger GNG points he passes. My view is this should run to the end of its present cycle, Thursday January 19, 2017, closed by an uninvolved, respected admin, and let the RfC handle further discussion to that conclusion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely meets the GNG (can't see the CSM article from home). Also meets the BIO SNG due to the award. keepHobit (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The CSM article is behind a paywall. User:E.M.Gregory has kindly posted a summary of the contents of the article which I will paste here. By any measure, the CSM article pushes Mitchell over the line for GNG. This is a long, reported article about the Jamboree-on-the-Air, written back in an era when amateur radio was a very popular hobby. I have just re-read it, in a pdf file linked via Proquest. It broadly covers the radio aspect of that year's jamboree, Scouts in various parts of the planet participating, a Scout troop in which every boy has a radio operator license, the photo is of a Schout troop in Norway listening in on their ham radio set. In the course of all this there is a section on Mitchell as the "originator" of the Jamboree. it included a potted bio of his involvement with radio, his wartime service record, the 1958 jamboree where he originated the program. It does not feature any direct quotes or, indeed, any indication that the journalist spoke with or met him. It is, is, however, the paradigm of a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm reluctant to even dignify this farce with a statement, but I do want my opinion on record here. If Spartaz feels that the close was invalid, he's required (in theory, of course; "no big deal" my ass) to take his objection up at DRV. In practice, however, he's not "required" to do anything; he's an administrator, and therefore, infallible. Compounding the felony of illegitimately "voiding" the "keep" close, is his not-so-thinly veiled vote for deletion in his "relist" statement. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please relax. Those of us who voted keep asked for the invalid close to be reopened, as we're trying to build/come to a consensus as to the notability-granting (or lack thereof) of the Bronze Wolf Award. Spartaz' reopen assessment statement was incorrect (and biased for an admin, as you say), but his reopen itself was at our request. It'll all come out in the wash.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (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 that as per the nomination for deletion, elements of WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E pertain to this article (e.g. "The event (murder) is not significant, and the individual is even less so", "Per nomination above", "... very little press coverage (I ran news archive searches) If there is such a thing as a non-notable, "routine" murder, this was it"). Additionally, another user has stated that the subject is non-notable (" a non-notable murderer"). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Frederick Spears

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

Per WP:CRIME. WP:PROD'ed by User:Champion initially here, but WP:PROD deleted by User:Mathieu109 here without any discussion. The issue here isn't necessarily quality, reliability, verifiability, or frequency of sources, but determining WP:Notability for articles about convicted criminals. Although Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria may be fulfilled, article seems to fit into Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, discounting subject's WP:Notability to be published in the article mainspace. Filing WP:AfD per #8 in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. JustBerry (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This event is viscerally compelling to many people. Why not include something of so much significance?

Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The event (murder) is not significant, and the individual is even less so. At best, he can be including in some list of murderers or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination above. --JustBerry (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources. seems to have received plenty of extensive coverage for being a (Non-significant) murder.BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete guy killed his ex-girlfriend. convicted. very little press coverage (I ran news archive searches) If there is such a thing as a non-notable, "routine" murder, this was it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable murderer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abram Pinkenson

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

Per WP:GNG. While the story is riveting I simply cannot locate any sources mentioning the subject of the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding sources shortly - in the mean time please leave. Trotboy (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC) in the mean time look at the Spanish Wikipedia entry here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Pinkenzon[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No harm in moving the article to a draft. Unfortunately, the Spanish article isn't of much use, since it too includes no sources. The subject may be notable, but after poking around online, if they are, it's probably in non-English sources. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think you may have only been searching using the Latin alphabet. When you search for Абрам Владимирович Пинкензон, a great many sources present themselves, including a medium length and medium-well-sourced :ru: Wikipedia article. I've added the interlanguage links to the article - five wikipedia articles in other languages exist. I will try to check the Russian sources and copy them over to this article in the near future. Fiachra10003 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One also needs to search under the diminutive name "Муся Пинкензон" as this was the name by which he was referred to in most of the Soviet publications as well as many of the modern Russian sources. The Soviets often used diminutives for younger heroes and full names for enemies (e.g. "Brave little Donnie Trump" versus "the class traitor and blasphemer Donald Frederickovich Trump"). Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suspected it was a language issue. Good job to Fiachra10003 for following up on that. I suppose though that I'll note I'm !voting with an admitted bias that, if we are discussing a moderately well sourced article on a topic approaching a century old, the subject is likely notable, because otherwise we wouldn't know it existed in the first place. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 23 December 2016 (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. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Kallee

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

Non-notable person. Despite citing 8 sources that I can access, 6 of those 8 are not independent, and the other 2 are about his father, not him. Article is already nominated for deletion on the German Wikipedia. A Google search does not turn up any obvious sources to add. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. BLP gives an interesting discussion of his work on welding, but notability under WP:Prof has to be judged mostly on citations, which are not yet enough. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I prod-ed this article and was not able to find secondary source coverage that demonstrated notability. agtx 00:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:NACADEMIC, his "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." He is one of the earliest friction stir welding R&D experts, who developed this innovative process and reported about his work in papers at numerous prestigious conferences. The large number of secondary citations of his papers here and there are a clear indication about his notability within the field of welding related R&D. NearEMPTiness (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: NearEMPTiness (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Cite in GS are far below the large number of hundreds expected for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as nothing here at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He managed the government funded phase of the EuroStir® (8.8 Mio €) project on "European industrialisation of friction stir welding," which had been the lergest collaborative project of its kind both regarding budget and number of participating companies. NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that helps. €8.8 million is a small project. agtx 14:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparently difficult, to get a discussion running. In the field of friction stir welding, hundreds of secondary citations are actually very unusual (apart from citations of patents and books) and projects with more than 10 Mio € are unheard of. If this article was deleted, it would confirm my perception that engineers are seen to be less notable than chefs and sportsmen, because the notability criteria are arguably fulfilled, as mentioned above. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." Anyway, the NACADEMIC criteria require "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". If there are no mentions of the subject in articles that are not WP:Trivial mentions, then I do not believe it is demonstrated by independent reliable sources, even if some of the subject's papers have been cited by other papers. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:59, 14 December 2016 (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 Augustana Catholic Church. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irl A. Gladfelter

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

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Searches are only providing passing mentions. There's a paid obituary linked in the article that provides significant coverage, but this is a primary source that does not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep -- The fact that he retired and is now leader emeritus of this denomination should make no difference to his notability. The question is whether having been the head of what is probably a small splinter denomination is enough to make him notable as a bishop. That really depends on the size of the denomination. If it has only a few churches, this would amount to being the minister of a local church, and probably NN. However, the head of a moderate sized denomination will have episcopal oversight over it and may thus be notable. Unfortunately, the article on the denomination gives not indication of its size. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

vote amended in the light of evidence that this is a small (but not negligible) denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Gladfelter left the denomination for Roman Catholicism, I think "leader emeritus" is not the right term, plus he is now dead. That said, per the denomination's website [1] it has a membership in excess of 60,000 in 12 countries. This is way more than the under 18,000 in the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan, yet we have an article on the head of that diocese, over the under 13,000 in the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, the head of which merits an article. Take a look at the article on Stephen T. Lane, whose Episcopal Diocese of Maine has less than 12,000 members. I actually think it is high time we question weather the heads of organizations with less than 12,000 members where the articles are only sourced to organization publications are notable. Yes there are Episcopal bishops who receive widespread coverage in the media, but I think it is high time we question weather that makes every current and past episcopal bishop default notable. However I think Gladfelter is clearly notable and no where near the bottom of the barrel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Augustana Catholic Church, where he is already mentioned in the list of leaders. Although he is discussed in on the websites of the several denominations with which he was involved, the only secondary source I can find is an obit [2] in the The Daily Star-Journal, a WP:RS, but for notability I would expect to be able to find some additional secondary sources for his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Good compromise solution. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm fine with a redirect to Augustana Catholic Church per the notions presented above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 26 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Chable

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, isn't the subject of any independent coverage. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. I don't think his contribution to the Tiesto album is enough to qualify per criterion #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. Ajpolino (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Insufficient sources to build notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2016 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Kazmi

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

The Person mentioned in the article doesn't fulfills WP:BIO. Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion. Sandstein 15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mudgil

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

Raised at WP:BLPN and also tagged with notability concerns, bringing here for further assessment. Sagecandor (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notability found. He is president of just an association engaged in physiotherapy related activity. Can be considered for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. Presidents of national associations in major fields are normally considered notable. The article however needs considerable expansion and better sourcing.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The national physiotherapy association of India seems to be IAP and not this association. Haryana is a state of India. Input by any Indian physiotherapists may be required to crosscheck notability but it looks like self promotion. WP:SPEEDY {{Db-g11}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is relating to a person who is notable because he is voice of thousands of Physiothearapists. He is striving for the Physiothearapist Council in haryana State. His contribution is noteworthy and notable in the History of Haryana in Physiothearapist History, He is the President of a Association of Physiothearapists in Haryana and torch bearer for new generation in Haryana State.117.252.4.106 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete hopeless promotional and being made worse with yet more unsourced promotional content even as this AfD proceeds diff. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep hopeless promotion has been made by a different user.2405:205:3208:8839:F5FD:3843:8948:11F4 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC) 2405:205:3208:8839:F5FD:3843:8948:11F4 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Hopeless promotion is made by someone who doesn't have wiki account. The language shows that person might be he himself or any close relative/ friend. I dint find any notable information on Google news or Google scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person has treated thousands by himself and is a torchbearer for the rights of this industry, His article should be kept on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.90.107 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Mudgil is an eminent person in India. The page may be kept, as he is a notable person.Yogitadagar (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Yogitadagar (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – self promotion, contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Keep votes come from single-purpose accounts intended to stack this discussion. Citobun (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is purely promotional and has no encyclopedia value. Note to closing admin, please see that the keep votes have been made by new / un-registered users and user Drm310 has also pointed the same out. Possible COI in voting. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:33, 3 January 2017 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suds Jain

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

There's no meaningful hopes of actual meaningful improvements especially since it's clear this is only existing as a PR listing hence WP:NOT certainly applies; the sheer fact he's not satisfying WP:POLITICIAN, but then no other sensible notability, it shows there's nothing to suggest this is a policy-based article, regardless of any attention of his job and it shows when the sources simply consist of his own bio, his other bio and a campaign link. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is an extremely low level politician and his activities with the anti-global warming group are not on a level for notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being on a city planning committee nor being an unsuccessful candidate for city council constitutes an WP:NPOL pass, there's no claim of notability as an environmentalist besides the fact that he exists as one, and the referencing is entirely to primary sources (his own campaign website, his own "our staff" profile on the website of his own employer and a raw table of election results) with not even a shred of reliable source coverage shown. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to an article just because he can be nominally verified as existing — but the evidence of notability and sourceability needed for an article to become earned simply isn't being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is that the topic is notable and for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jeff Whittington

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

the last AfD was almost 3 years ago with no consensus. whilst the murder is unfortunate, I don't see how it meets WP:VICTIM or WP:EVENT LibStar (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to sites and trade publications, this murder has been included in various scholarly publications. Books: here, Dissertations/thesis: here, and here. Articles: here, here. Additionally, it is in a university course here. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 05:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all pretty trivial mentions, although they might add up to enough. Specially as they are pretty decent sources. AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Leaning keep~~-- is there any reason to think that a consensus has changed to delete? No reason has been given by the nominator other than that three years has passed (and why does that matter?). Looks like it meets WP:GNG to me, and per Caballero certainly has more than passing coverage in news sources; being the subject of at least some scholarly research makes me pretty confident that the subject is notable. The fact there was play based on the murder does add weight as well. -- Shudde ^talk 09:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per this source [3] (which would have taken the nominator a minute to find on google). Published this year and discussing the crime and it's aftermath. Establishes that there is continuing coverage. -- Shudde ^talk 09:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Shudde's source is part of a series on murdered children run by the stuff website, it combined with the other coverage is enough to push this into WP:GNG territory and show some lasting impact. AIRcorn (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable. J 947 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the persuasive sources brought by User:Caballero1967, I ran a news archives search, coming up not only with coverage of the event, trial, appeals by thee convicted murderers, and so forth, but with additional coverage, including coverage in The Dominion Post (Wellington) that includes, for example, coverage of a play about the event [4] (Stage take on teenager's killing: [2 Edition] CARDY, Tom. Dominion Post [Wellington, New Zealand] 27 Mar 2007). Certainly, this death attained national notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2016 (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 12:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Mapagu

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There is slightly more for his main game, Flippy Bottle Extreme, but even that would be unreliably sourced. czar 16:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 16:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sources are creditable (READ THEM) the only fact here is that the Video Game Source list is poorly unreliable as a source to dictate everything from. Kotaku and other places do not waste their time on smaller topics, especially coming from unknown parts of Asia. Move on dude... Xelzeta (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I remember looking at this article when it had just been created and thinking that it did not look like a notable subject, but thought I'd give it a couple of days to improve. Since it hasn't, and I can find no sources that show notability for the person, it might just be too soon for an article. If the game he created is notable - which is slightly more likely but still not quite shown - that would not automatically make the person notable because notability is not inherited. In other words, there must be multiple reliable independent sources about the person and not the game. --bonadea contributions talk 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources mostly discuss the game and quote this person in the context of the game's success. Significant coverage of Mapagu as a discrete biographical topic is lacking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - You People are NOT Updating the Video Game Sources properly: Website - http://insidegamesasia.biz/ is one of the few creditable sources for Asia-English industry related topics. Stop using it as an EXCUSE - I even CHECKED there is a search that pops up related to them, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE UPDATED WITH MORE SOURCES, STOP BEING CLOSE MINDED - https://cse.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq&q=%22insidegamesasia.biz%22 - In relations Derrick Mapagu, there is an article written for him: http://insidegamesasia.biz/game-developer-from-philippines-made-a-big-global-hit-top-1-in-usa-uk-and-16-other-countries/ Xelzeta (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate bolded opinion struck out - each participant should only give one "keep" or "delete" opinion (note that it's usually "keep" and not "oppose", though it is clear what you mean.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the actual content and not on contributors. I understand that you personally feel strongly about this article but please keep your cool in the discussion. If you have other sources that are about the person rather than just the game, and which meet Wikipedia's rules for reliable sources, please add them to the article - the insidegamesasia.biz article is about the game with only a cursory mention of the creator, though. --bonadea contributions talk 09:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability and there certainly aren't enough (or any) independent sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly updated his article and added another source, this one says more about Derrick explaining some of his story like he was active member of the La Salle Computer Society, how long it takes him to make some games, etc etc. You people can review it, I do feel strongly about this since the sources prove this guy exist, what he has done, his games are doing well. Why is this a crime for a wiki-article to acknowledge. This should be here, so whatever else he creates in the future it'll be easier to update as he goes.Xelzeta (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of bashing this topic - and making false claims that there isn't ENOUGH sources, why don't you do your research. Anytime I type his name, I can find another article, your just not looking hard enough to care enough to contribute. Bunch of hypocrites who just want to score points in this ranking system...Xelzeta (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Xelzeta: please stop attacking others for sharing their opinion and please also see: WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS. Just because someone wrote or spoke about a subject does not inherently make it a reliable source. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity, WP distinguishes between "sources" and "reliable sources". Reliable sources have a reputation for editorial credibility, and don't include upstart blogs such as insidegamesasia.biz, which has a broken link for its "about" page. czar 05:39, 13 December 2016 (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. MER-C 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ruiz

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

Promotional article, possible conflict of interest (individual is CEO of "Xelzeta", creating user is "Xelzeta", also created an article on "Xelzeta"—at AfD). Dearth of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) All of its sourcing is unreliable or primary. czar 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - #1 - I Removed the CEO part, there is no more "Promoting". Just because I used the username Xelzeta here doesn't mean it is promoting, I IDOLIZE THEM~! I could say you are promoting or trying to act like Czar the Great with your attitude, but I am not. I wanted the name 1st, Look at my history I created other pages not related to Xelzeta. I Idolize the local developers & actors in the Philippines for trying. They maybe little to be known in the industry but they exist and are making a difference to people out here. Change is GOOD, learn to give people a chance here. #2. sources are creditable the only fact here is that the Video Game Source list is poorly unreliable as a source to dictate everything from. Kotaku and other places do not waste their time on smaller topics, especially coming from unknown parts of Asia. Move on dude... Xelzeta (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable video game developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear business listing whether intended or not because that's what everything here shows, and none of it is acceptable especially when WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 16:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it fails WP:GNG, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 18 December 2016 (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. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Unruh

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

Uruh was a local televion news anchor in Oregon. This is not enough on its own to create notability. Our sourcing on this is mainly a press release from her employer on her leaving. In the previous deletion discussion back in 2008 we have the statement " Clearly can source article from the press release", which is just not true, press releases are not the reliable 3rd party sources needed to pass the general notability guidelines. I actually came upon this page from a link from Miss Oregon USA, and had to do google searches to make sure this was not a different person with the same name. I suspected it was the right person, and did find the one sentance mention from a high school classmate who wrote a memoir about house flipping. I also found that she has since leaving TV run a PR firm with 2 employees. No additional reliable sources and nothing that establishes notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hobit did not say that the press release contributed to GNG. Primary sources may be used to source articles. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not a vote. This needs to be listed under Beauty Pageants to be a fair discussion. There is a similar issue right now with Caitlin Morrall. As I'm only interested in the journalism list, I would prefer that others weigh in. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (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. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Jesi

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

Appears to be translation of it:Bruno Jesi without new information or references/cites. That page is tagged as an orphan and its only references are to a Youtube video and a thesis or dissertation. [5] Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked Mursia is a long time established publishing house, http://www.mursia.com/index.php/it/

the author an historian by profession (a military historian accreditated to the Historical Office of the italian Armed Forces more precisely, with books published by the armed forces own publishing house) and a jew by religion

http://www.giovannicecini.it/

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Cecini

ops ... sorry I know you do not believe in articles published on wikipedia

but

the book is also partially of public domain and if you type "Bruno Jesi" you will have on screen lots of sources, plus assignments and motivations for golden medals are public and published on the web pages of the italian armed forces and parliament

or on the website of the Presidency of the italian Republic

http://www.quirinale.it/elementi/DettaglioOnorificenze.aspx?decorato=13918

or on the Hebrew Archive

http://www.archivioterracini.it/archive/list_t.php?id=251

and if you want you can buy the book https://books.google.it/books/about/I_soldati_ebrei_di_Mussolini.html?id=M6ZtAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y and read it

it costs around 20 british pounds

but I would also suggest you to buy the book "History of the italian jews"

https://books.google.it/books?id=kMb_CAAAQBAJ&pg=PT685&lpg=PT685&dq=bruno+jesi+medaglia+d%27oro&source=bl&ots=rrNc2VJ1Xq&sig=I3i-6bel6gsppJNzSMFlUn5wc-k&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMrIGSqdbQAhVFnBoKHaphCa4Q6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=bruno%20jesi%20medaglia%20d%27oro&f=false

next question ?

regards Cunibertus (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs editing, but he would appear to qualify as WP:SOLDIER based on his being awarded the gold and bronze Medal of Military Valor. Article from 1939: "Young Italian Jewish Army Officer Wins Rare Award for Bravery") [6] Also described here as a Jewish war hero.[7] No doubt additional Italian sources exist. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see lasting notability here; WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep -- here's a 1938 American publication describing how Mussolini was to present the award to the subject of the article: The Jewish Veteran. This seems rather remarkable and I wonder if better sources exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article definitely could be improved, but I believe based on a couple of the sources provided by K.e. Coffman, Wikimandia and Cunibertus that on the face of it there appears to be significant coverage. If this is later shown not to be the case, then the topic can be reconsidered at a later AfD if necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2016 (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. Mkdw ^talk 02:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kinte Fergerson

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a podcaster and arts promoter, which is referenced entirely to primary sources, blogs and podcasts with the exception of a single glancing namecheck of his existence as a soundbite provider in a news article that isn't primarily about him. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which every podcaster is entitled to an article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage, verifying a claim of notability that satisfies WP:CREATIVE, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable internet personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 00:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs certainly fail WP:ENT. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaker Khazaal (author)

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

Issues addressed by Variation 25.2 on first AFD have not been fixed. WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources but they don't make him notable. None of his books are notable. None of the websites ranked him 1st or declared him most influential are notable. Title of the article was changed from Chaker Khazaal to this one to avoid CSD G4. Mar11 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same basis as during first nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete awards are not significant, has not received enough coverage to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2016 (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. Bordering on no consensus. Seems like the question here boils down to whether Deseret News is independent from Mr. Oswald enough to qualify as an "independent" source. If Mr. Oswald was the owner or otherwise in direct influence or control of the newspaper the case would be open and shut, but since they are apparently only connected through the Mormon church (i.e indirectly) it's a lot more questionable. Purplebackpack argues that the source is not independent and the argument is legit, but so are the counterarguments (including an article that is critical of the subject, not something that commonly happens with dependent sources) and they outnumber the delete case. There are some other sources as well but didn't receive much discussion. Accusations of bigotry need a lot more evidence than what was offered here, too. PS: It seems like a similar article with identical considerations was already discussed and kept at AfD and the ruling upheld by deletion review and the closing admin Iridescent when it was appealed on their talk page. For a moment I was thinking it was the same article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Oswald

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

No INDEPENDENT sources (i.e. nothing but LDS.com, Deseret News and other LDS publications, which CANNOT be considered independent as his notability stems from being an LDS official), either in the article or as result of a Google search. p b p 22:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Deseret News is indepdent of Oswald.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...no. The Deseret News is controlled by the LDS church. Oswald draws his notability as an official of the LDS Church. Ergo, not independent. p b p 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We've been though this before, the Deseret News is a reliable source when reporting on LDS-related issues. The nom and only the non has been hell-bent for years trying to discredit the Deseret News but failing to gain a consensus for their point of view. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_212#Deseret_News_as_a_source_for_LDS-related_subjects and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_210#Deseret_News.--Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC) ~~Changing to Neutral based on Deaddebate's assessment of significant coverage, not because of the Deseret News as a reliable source.~~ --Oakshade (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Reverted to "Weak Keep" based on the coverage provided by John Pack Lambert, Deseret News and other sources. --Oakshade (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate, @Oakshade:. Most discussions on this topic, including the second one you've linked to and a number of AfD discussions, have several other editors signing on to the belief that Deseret News isn't independent. Several AfDs have been closed as delete on the basis that a preponderance of editors believed that the Deseret News was not independent. BTW, Oakshade, maybe instead of accusing me alone of being "hellbent", you could actually provide a reason for why the Deseret News is independent. It pledges to promote an LDS way of doing things, and is indirectly controlled by the LDS church. I think that makes it pretty clear it has a POV that skews toward promoting LDS topics that non-LDS sources would not consider notable. p b p 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to make the case that the Deseret News is not considered a reliable source, you need to do so on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for deeper community input. But you've already done that twice and you've failed to gain a consensus for your belief. The community has spoken despite your persistent efforts. You can't just push your own agenda in single Afd that's outside of community consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Oakshade, but those two discussions do not indicate a community consensus for your position (and I might add that, while I participated in those discussions; neither was STARTED by me). At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_210#Deseret_News, a majority of people who weighed in in the discussion doubted the notability of Deseret News. As for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_212#Deseret_News_as_a_source_for_LDS-related_subjects; THREE people said Deseret News was independent; that's NOT a set-in-stone consensus that forbids future discussion. BTW, I'm still waiting for an actual reason as to why Deseret News is independent; all I've gotten is "a few people say it is". You've said nothing insofaras refuting my above point about the Deseret News being controlled by the church and pushing the church's point-of-view. p b p 00:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you failed to gain consensus for your position that the Deseret News is not a reliable source for LDS-related topics. (Two can play at the boldface game.) That's where you need to make your case for your position and you've not succeed at that. --Oakshade (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need a RS consensus to nominate this article or any other for deletion. Saying I do is overly bureaucratic. Consensus as to whether this particular article is notable or not can be determined right here. And I've repeated several times here and elsewhere why Deseret News is NOT independent (indirectly controlled by LDS church, committed to pushing a point of view consistent with LDS doctrine), and you have yet to give any actual reasons why it is. Probably because there are none. All you've done is say, "PBP shut up, you don't have consensus at some other rando page". And that's neither necessary nor a good argument. If consensus for Deseret News being independent was so clear and evident you've have laid out the rationale here instead of beating me over the head. (I might add actual reasons for the Deseret News being independent are missing from half of the "Deseret News is independent" statements in the two discussions you're so dang wedded to). p b p 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is weather the DeseretNews is independent of Wiliam D. OSwalld. which it clearly is. Oswald never did have any controlling imput into the Deseret News. PBP's arguments are a special kind of bigotry designed to limit the inclusion of Latter-day Saint related articles in Wikipedia by defining out of existence as reliable sources much of the LDS related media. To doubt that the Deseret News is a "notable source" shows down right ignorance of the American newspaper landscape. The Deseret News is a highly significant newspaper that in the last 10 years has been at the cutting edge of several major news developments. The failure to grasp this on the part of some editors, and the downright hostility shown it by PBP, shows major biases on the part of some Wikipedia editors against understanding anything except their own narrow navel-gazing focus on the costs, ignoring 99% of the world population by their reliance on sources that reflect only the concerns of those who live in California, Oregon, Washington, and from Virginia to Massachusetts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare us the rant about Kellerism. And "Oswald never did have any controlling imput into the Deseret News" isn't how you define independence. If you work for a company, and get your notability from working for that company, the company rag (which Deseret News basically is) can't be used to assert your notability (it can be used to cite facts, but it can't be the only source in the article), whether or not you write the company rag. Nobody would dispute this if the relationship was between a business and a publication, or between a musical group and a publication. But it's "bigotry" if the relationship is between a religious group and a publication? Not on, sorry, JPL. Deseret News isn't independent, I'm not alone in believing that, and neither I nor anybody else (and there are others, as Oakshade's discussions and previous AfDs note) are bigoted for believing that. We just want Wikipedia articles to be independently sourced, and you can't do that with the Deseret News. p b p 15:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of Deseret News' independence, neutrality, etc. the article still doesn't have any citation or reference to a Deseret News article of him. Here is a list of the Deseret News articles mentioning him. Somebody please review the list and determine if any of these articles themselves are notable. Until one of these articles are referenced within the William D. Oswald article, then the William D. Oswald article is still poorly sourced.

I've added some cleanup hatnotes to the article as well. - Deaddebate (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about passing notability guidelines regardless of what a user thinks of a certain source. Maybe I jumped the gun in taking at face value comments above regarding the significant coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Even if Deseret News is not wholely independent, he has received enough coverage for WP:GNG in my opinion. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added multiple sources. These I think clearly show that the Deseret News is indepdent of Oswald, this article [8] is not a very positive article on him, although maybe not as negative as it could be. Clearly there are more sources on him than have been admitted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more sourcing on his role as an RDA attorney. One problem is that his biggest role in this seems to have been back in 1969 or so, which is before any easily available newspaper sources are dated. Howerver the 1991 source seems to indicate him as a major player in this matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asserting that Deseret News is not independent smacks of anti-Mormon bigotry. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from accusing other people of bigotry, @Jclemens:. It's not bigotry, it's common sense. If this was the same situation but with a corporation instead of a religion, I doubt you'd be complaining about exclusion of biased sources. p b p 02:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please properly distinguish between statements aimed at attitudes and those aimed at editors. I am not accusing anyone of actually being a bigot, merely pointing out that the accusations leveled against the Deseret News, solely on the basis of ownership, are not defensible. William D. Oswald is not, to the best of my knowledge, an owner or employee of the Deseret News. News outlets are allowed to select their own topics and cover topics of interest to their owners and readership, including that of co-religionists, without being per se non-independent. Assuming otherwise ABFs against an external organization. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deseret News is owned by a holding company in turn controlled by the LDS Church. Wouldn't that make any official (including Oswald) an "owner" in some respect? As for ABFing, I think you cast the net of what's independent far too wide, particularly since you're including a publication pledged to promote Mormon doctrine. p b p 15:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mormon Church, or its individual holding companies, are not the subject of this deletion discussion. One particular LDS individual is. His status as a religious leader does not grant him control over the Deseret News, much like a stockholder is not entitled to free inventory from a company in which they have some small interest. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see those two things as particularly analogous. p b p 01:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret is a WP:RS on facts; even on facts about Mormons. Just as, say, Coverage in Deseret supports notability because it is a major regional daily; however because it is owned by a holding company controlled by the Church, it is usual to support notability with coverage from additional WP:RSes. Which this article has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, note that his activities can also be sourced to [The Salt Lake Tribune], [House Panel Tables Bill Restricting Power of Redevelopment Agencies: [NW Edition], Gorrell, Mike; Tribune Staff Writer. The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 27 Jan 1991: 10B. ].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2016 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dinerman

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

I still confirm my PROD and, curiously, there was apparently a back and forth removal and adding of the PROD, but there's regardless still nothing here for actual notability and WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. JeremyL. (talk) 1:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — racingfan78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Article creator. Mkdw ^talk 17:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~This page is notable in the field of work presented. Keep Passes WP:GNG. Javier. (talk) 1:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Mkdw ^talk 17:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's a very young racetrack announcer. And that's pretty much it. If that's what it takes to pass WP:GNG, then GNG needs a massive overhaul. --Calton | Talk 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bordering on WP:TOOSOON, but I think notability is established by current sources. 1292simon (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beinbrink

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

Non-notable actor. Has been tagged for more references since 2010. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly no actual significance as an actor since they boldly and explicitly show background characters as "Cop", "Man", etc. That's clear enough, no need to overwork it. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 26 December 2016 (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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T. Arif Ali

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

arif ali is a real person but not a notable personality Muhammed Anwar Baqavi (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2016 (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/2016 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - From what I can see in English, I agree that he doesn't seem notable. There may be more in Hindi or Malayalam (I think JIH Kerala website is not a reliable source here). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No proper sources mentioned and fails notability parameters. 59.177.72.166 (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 11:05, 26 December 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bana Alabed

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

Literally none of this amounts to actual independent notability and substance and the listed links are simply news stories about her Tweets and simply nothing beyond it, as it is, the information itself is labeled as questionable because nothing is certainly sure and thus, let alone that, there's still nothing for a convincing article. Shall I say WP:NOT policy also applies here. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clearly this made-up. Making tweets or receiving books do not add up to notability. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. There is no objective evidence of her existence. Purely a Twitter account and some photos and videos which could easily have been faked (especially if the BBC were involved in the deception). There are no reliable sources to confirm that "Bana Alabed" and her "mother" are not actors being used in a propaganda project to smear the Syrian government and its allies and to sanitise the terrorists in east Aleppo.Silicondale (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. News stories are about her, include some information about her past tweets. Her twitter account was deleted, so this is not a page about someone with a twitter account. She amounts to a journalist, and possibly killed in war- that is notoriety enough to warrant an entry, and probably inclusion in the List of journalists killed during the Syrian Civil War page under citizen journalists/media activists missing.Benitoite (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Even though her account is back up and appearing safe I'm against deletion.Benitoite (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)˜˜˜˜[reply]
Do not delete. See this article from The Telegraph. She has been in the public eye since September and now her account deletion is getting major press coverage. Hang googles (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Referred over here from google news, heavily covered. Coattail effect (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is no evidence even for the objective existence of this girl in Aleppo. The photos are most likely those of a child actor, and the location of Aleppo cannot even be confirmed. The tweets are clearly NOT those of a 7-year-old Syrian child with limited grasp of the English language, and are couched in terms which are politically loaded way beyond the understanding of a child. https://barbaramckenzie.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/bana-of-aleppo-the-story-so-far-update/ Silicondale (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC News said "In a patchy video call with the BBC, Bana glances off-camera to her mother, who helps her with the more difficult answers." and "Solar power and patchy internet signal make communication difficult, with small windows of reliable access"
  Her mother is an English teacher and some of the tweets may be translations. Many of the tweets are signed "- Bana" or "- Fatemah" (her mother) and some are not signed. Which tweets signed "- Bana" are politically loaded? Hang googles (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Politically loaded? The tweet from Bana which asks for World War 3 rather than Aleppo holocaust. How does a 7yr old with very limited knowledge of English and no experience of Twitter hashtags write a tweet like that? Since BBC are possibly implicated in the faking of this entire story, their news item cannot be taken as reliable. There is no objective evidence of the existence of either Bana or her mother Fatemah in east Aleppo. Since most of east Aleppo including the area where Bana and her mother supposedly lived has now been liberated, why have they not reappeared, alive and well, in west Aleppo, where many thousands of east Aleppo civilians have now found refuge and the medical and food aid that they so desperately need? Silicondale (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is clearly a hoax and as such should be speedily deleted before it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. This article is using Wikipedia for blatantly one-sided political propaganda purposes. An indication of its hoax nature is the mention of the tooth fairy debunked in the tweet from a Syrian - this concept is alien to Syrian culture and clearly included by a non-Syrian (European) hoaxer. Tooth_fairy Silicondale (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't think this person/event has "enduring notability" per the WP:NOTNEWS section of the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy. I think in ten years time this will not be regarded as notable within the whole scope of the Syrian civil war. Note that WP:SIGCOV says "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". Also I think "news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" of WP:NOTNEWS applies, so this should be covered within a general article about Syrian civil war media coverage, not an article about a person or individual twitter account. This article seems to me to be a negative example of WP:RECENTISM. Rwendland (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to a single, sourced sentence at List of hoaxes, or to a new article Internet hoaxes in the Syrian Civil War, which cal also include A Gay Girl In Damascus, because this now appears to be a HOAX intended enlist sympathy for the rebels in Aleppo. Today's New York Times compares this to A Gay Girl In Damascus and quotes many skeptical experts who sympathize with the rebels, the article is persuasive, while pointing out that it is at present not possible to absolutely establish that the whole thing is doesn't exist because Aleppo is being blown to smithereens. (who need all the help God can give them because Heaven knows the world isn't). Political and humanitarian sympathies notwithstanding, Wikipedia is letting itself be used here. While I do hear the Delete arguments, it has gotten so much coverage that I think moving both hoaxes to Internet hoaxes in the Syrian Civil War is a better solution. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to a single, sourced sentence at List of hoaxes as above, although don't think there are enough hoaxes specific to this war that an article about them is needed. In the small chance this article is somehow kept, it needs to be fundamentally rewritten to cover this as a hoax, rather than the current version which mostly presents it as fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The account run by multiple people is lacking in notability and does not as yet warrant its own article. Lilyfa (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where in the New York Times article does it call the account a hoax? It's highlighting doubts but it does not confirm it as a hoax. I was always aware that there were doubts in it's authenticity. I started the page as "Bana Alabed is a Syrian girl who supposedly tweets from Aleppo with the help of her mother."
This is not just part of a recent news event. The account has gotten plenty of international press coverage before that New York Times article was published. This will be a notable hoax if that turns out to be the case. Please check out some of these articles and reconsider.
September - Already getting coverage in The Telegraph, after being created on September 24.

October - BBC, The Guardian, New York Times, NBC
November - Times of Israel, Washington Post, TIME, Sky News, National Post, Japan Times
December - Middle East Eye, International Business Times, Reuters, New Yorker, The Mercury, CNN
It should be edited to reflect current developments not deleted. Could more experienced editors help me fix the issues in the article? Thank you. Hang googles (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and redirect this to media coverage of the Syrian Civil War. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse redirect to media coverage of the Syrian Civil War.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too If content constituted as hoax article, redirected is better. SA 13 Bro 13:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse redirect. Regardless of if this is a hoax or not, per WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOTNEWS "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event". Rwendland (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - BIO1E says "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" and condition #2 (If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.) isn't met since her account is still active. Also what is the "event"? Each of the sources I listed above are about her/her account. Hang googles (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they say the truth is the first victim in war, surely true in this case. I don't know the truth behind this twitter handle; but if that is a 7 year old Syrian girl, then I was born yesterday (and I have a very nice bridge to sell you......) See Ibrahim Qashoush for another extremely questionable story (see Talk:Ibrahim Qashoush) Huldra (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid reason to delete, see WP:Verifiability. There's clearly an account on Twitter that is supposed to be for a girl named "Bana Alabed". The article already expresses doubt in its authenticity. Hang googles (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a growing consensus for deletion. Who has the authority to do this - and when will it be done? Silicondale (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Silicondale this discussion will be reviewed, and probably closed, 7 days after the date on which it began.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer a redirect without deletion. If not now it's very likely that this girl/account will warrant an article in the near future. Sources after December 8 include WBUR, ATTN, and CNN. Hang googles (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The tweets today in this Twitter thread, starting with a CNN "interview" make it crystal clear that the entire Bana Alabed story is a propaganda creation. It is forensically debunked by a number of people. In my opinion, deletion of this article is the only option.Silicondale (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing--or at least a thing. The NYT article linked above indeed reports on doubts, but that's what they are: reports on doubts. There is no proof that this is a hoax, and until it is proven that it is a hoax, this is a BLP of a seven-year old girl in Syria. Whether she was prepped by her mom is immaterial. Whether this article needs to stay or be redirected is also immaterial to me right now. But calling this article a hoax is, as far as I'm concerned, a BLP violation: when in doubt, err on the side of caution. I will also note that at least one of the editors here (Silicondale) has a blatant POV, as proven in this and other related edits. And for the record: it is entirely possible for a seven-year old child to speak a foreign language esp. if her mother is an English teacher. I got a seven-year old at home who would be just as capable of writing similar messages in her father's original language, so let's not start OR-ing here (Huldra, I'm looking at you). Of course, that seven-year old doesn't live in a war zone. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So is it a problem to have a POV? - especially if with every day that passes it is becoming more likely to be proved true? The NYT is not exactly a neutral source, now, is it? So if even the NYT admits to doubts, would you not accept that in reality Bana Alabed's veracity is subject to more than mere doubt? With the full liberation of Aleppo the truth should be established very soon. I am not saying that the article itself is a hoax - but that in my opinion all the evidence (necessarily circumstantial) points to the entire Bana Alabed story being a propaganda hoax, a stunt, in which Wikipedia risks being made an unwitting tool. And very similar arguments apply to the White Helmets. It is fact that they are NOT the Syrian Civil Defence, an entirely different organisation, internationally recognised, founded in 1972. It is also fact that with the liberation of Aleppo, when there is REAL work for them to do, they appear to have vanished without trace. They clearly never were a civil defence organisation, but purely a western-funded propaganda outfit closely allied with Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists. Silicondale (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the problem in your case is that your POV easily crept into your edits. You can have your opinion, that's fine, but that should not interfere with article construction based on reliable sources. Your persistent insertion of editorial commentary in Syrian Civil Defense is evidence of that as well. You don't like the title? Propose a different one--but you cannot insert such comments in article space in Wikipedia's tone. And while the NYT reports doubts, they do not say "hoax", and as long as sources like that don't, you shouldn't either. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Drmies: If you look at the videos accompanying the twitter account, it is clear the girl hardly speaks English at all. (Or she is very good at hiding her knowledge of English in those videos....). I have been following the Syria-conflict from the start, (I once took, e.g. the interior photos of Hammam Yalbugha, now sadly destroyed) and there have been a ton of hoaxes.....from all sides. (Do you recall all the fuzz about A Gay Girl In Damascus?) I've seen Western officials (including HRW) use pictures from Gaza....saying they are from Aleppo... Or this tweet, allegedly a girl in Syria...but actually from the Lebanese Hiba Tawaji's music video... here
  That Silicondale has a blatant POV; sure, but is it less than Hang googles? One smart guy said something like this w.r.t Syrian conflict: "Believe nothing of what you read online, a tiny fraction of what you read in the papers, and only half of what you see with your own eyes." Or something like that. And that sounds about right to me. Having said that, I'm not worried if this is kept, (no more than I'm worried about Ibrahim Qashoush or A Gay Girl In Damascus is kept. What is important is the content...) But that this girl is tweeting herself (oh, and got "spontaneously" hundreds of thousands of followers virtually overnight??) Sorry, I don't buy that. Call it WP:OR, if you like; I call it common sense. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huldra, I've not looked at Hang googles (yet). My concern is the BLP, and as long as reliable sources report on the tweets and as long as it is not at all certain that this is not real, I have to assume that it is real (and even if the mother does all the work, it's still a BLP as far as I'm concerned). You don't have to tell me that there's tons of misinformation around--I'm well aware of that, as I think you know. But we can discuss this civilly and with the use of reliable sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, yeah, well, that is the problem. Ever since I came back from my first trip to the Middle East, (15 years ago), I have found that what Western WP:RS today writes about the Middle East is nowhere even close to how I have experienced it. Just an example: there are a couple of (Shia) Mosques in Damascus, which brings a lot of Iranian pilgrims, (e.g. Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque). Now, the average Iranian females back then dress a lot different from the average Syrian female (Iranian: typically, in all black "Abayas". Syrian: much like Western female, but with a head scarf. Or with long, colourful dresses.) But absolutely whenever a Western WP:RS had an article about Syria, it would be accompanied with a picture, taken in front of one of those pilgrimage sites in Damascus. And all the women you would see would be ......Iranian...., illustrating "Syria".

So yeah, I know, I know, about Wikipedias WP:RS .... I just don't believe in it very much, when it comes to present day sources... (!). (Sorry, but I have hardly ever seen any even a half–truthful article about the ME in, say, The New York Times) ........which is why I nearly only deal with pre –1948 history......

And I agree that WP:BLP is extremely important, but I don't think it would be violated if this article is deleted, surely? Huldra (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe in RS anymore, you can't believe much. As far as I'm concerned things have to be 20 years in the past before they can be written up, but that's just me. The BLP here is a concern because calling this a "hoax" is a violation, and tantamount to slandering (until the opposite is proven)--deletion is not a violation, nor is calm and civil discussion. Thanks Huldra, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when it comes to the ME, I really don't. Seriously. I simply cannot understand, that papers like The New York Times, that writes with so much insights wrt the Western/US world, can write as much imbecile garbage as it does about the ME. I recall around 2003, an opinion poll among Egyptians showed that (IIRC) some 60-70 % of Egyptians believed that "The Jews" and "the US" were behind 9/11...horrible numbers, but then you don't really count Egypt as a country with a free press, do you......However, at the same time, opinion polls in the US showed the same number of Americans believing that Iraq was behind the 9/11!! <facepalm>

And I am absolutely outraged that the West, including almost all of the media, support the Syrian opposition no matter what, as long as they fight Assad. Assad is a brutal dictator, sure, but among this opposition are people who have sworn to kill anyone who isnt a Sunni...it is absolutely madness...

One of the few in the West who hasnt lost his mind, here, is actually Robert Fisk, read this, e.g..

Btw, the first follower on Twitter of #alabedbana was a journalist from the Al Jazeera (owned by a Qatari Royal; those famous fighters for freedom and democracy</sarcasm>) Yeah, right. ...looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc, Huldra (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. We need reliable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.99.2 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See this Bellingcat article for an analysis of her posts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by The Washington Post. Hang googles (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed fomr redirect above) ongoing coverage makes it appear that.although coached or staged by her mother with the possible help of others, this is a real child in aleppo. getting massive coverage. Should be possible to improve article for accuracy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important piece of hoax propaganda, should be kept and expanded. We have a lot of sources about this hoax. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability and existence given by bellingcat, NYT, and WaPo Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 20:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We keep articles about notable hoaxes,and this particular one is famous. There's enough commentary on it to justif an article. There is however a question about the article title, whether it should be Bana Alabed or Bana Alabed (internet character) or Bana Alabed hoax. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG. Not "hoax", please. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may or may not be a hoax, but is notable nevertheless.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not Bana is a staged propaganda campaign or "real," there can be no doubt this account has had a significant and notable effect on public opinion about the situation in Aleppo. —ForestMars
Keep Notable for her comments from Aleppo and for a hoax she has managed to get on a bus! BBC news.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real & Notable (too many references available). I also think, regarding Rwendland's comment, "not notable in ten years time" isn't a real Wikipedia rule. Kavas (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ten years view-back is my rule of thumb for the WP:NOTNEWS policy "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. ... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I think this topic is best suited to a mention or section in Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War at the moment. We really have no idea yet if Bana Alabed at 7-years old will have any enduring notability. Rwendland (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a hoax, she has been seen getting off the evacuation bus from eastern Aleppo and interviewed by journalists [9]. Yes the article needs to be cleaned up and sorted and she is notable as being a primacy source of information from a civilian and child point of view inside the besieged city. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 13:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its already part of the history of this war. --Midrashah (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Micaela Hierro Dori

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

I do not see any elements of notability here: she has been head of a number of apparently non-notable youth groups, and runs a blog. . There is no corresponding article in the Spanish WP. No significant publications DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 19 December 2016 (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 after 3 relistings--a good example of why multiple relistings can sometimes be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.K. Sivagnanam

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

Non-notable social activist and politician. He is not even the chief of the organisation. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found this while patrolling & have helped a bit with the article, initial blurb looked like nothing but a quick Google search turned up a trove of links in both Indian & international media, as well as multiple references via Google books, for this individual, going back decades. I listed several on the article's Talk page & there are plenty more. JamesG5 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only the leaders of organisations are notable.Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable activist. Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything with a coverage of the person...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I linked multiple articles and a Google book source on the Talk page, and the link at the top of this page https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22U.K.+Sivagnanam%22&num=50 produces several more. JamesG5 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, not convinced. I went through the Google link James posted. There are several repeats of the same article quoting the subject about a meeting with Fidel Castro twenty years ago, and several other cites quoting the subject. As is well established, quotes from a subject cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In order to meet the GNG, as we all know, the subject needs to receive significant coverage that is about the subject. Nothing of the sort's been provided. Ravenswing 10:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; I agree with Ravenswing entirely Spiderone 18:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete - WP:POLITICIAN stresses on significant coverage in reliable sources for an independent article. Unfortunately coverage here is minimal. Other than "broken brick wall" and "meeting fidel castro" articles, I couldn't find articles on work done by this person. Even the book simply points out the incident of breaking the wall. Thus the article fails WP:GNG. vivek7de--tAlK 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the latter comments about coverage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Carter (judge)

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Most coverage is in obituaries and provincial biographical summaries. Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. Being second at something is not in itself notable, and her biography does not indicate she was involved in any high profile court decisions. As well, being "a magistrate in Saskatchewan" does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, which requires province-wide jurisdiction. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are moving too quickly here. She was ultimately appointed to the Saskatchewan Queen's Bench. Her notability is in part recognized through a specific entry in the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan. Plus, one is speaking about a female judicial appointment in 1960 of a 1947 female law graduate. These events are in themselves significant, in my submission, at least in terms of Canadian judicial history. See the comparable Wikipedia page for Tillie Taylor, appointed at approximately the same time and to the same city. Please give this a few more days to develop.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails bot BASIC and ANYBIO. 2001:569:70DD:7500:4901:3BFE:7A95:9836 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some clarification here. Are you suggesting that a Canadian Superior Court Judge is not notable, particularly if such person is one of the first female appointees in such category? Please see how she is viewed in the doctoral dissertation cited (not mine). Dreadarthur (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she may be reasonably viewed as "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", as recognized in academic scholarship, at a minimum, and in accordance with the Wikipedia criteria for notability, but would appreciate substantive arguments to the contrary. The dissertation includes news references. Dreadarthur (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent, I believe that deleting this article should be referenced to how it differs from Tillie Taylor. Both Mary Carter and Tillie Taylor are regarded as of similar judicial prominence. Deleting one should call into question the deletion of the other. Yet both women are pivotal to Saskatchewan judicial history, both in terms of social justice issues and in terms of the commencement of gender balance concerns. Dreadarthur (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, in terms of her "basic" notability, it would appear that she "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", if you peruse the doctoral study, where she is significantly referenced and discussed. Dreadarthur (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadarthur (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1st female superior court judge in her province who could hear any trial. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article states she was the second, not the first. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My error. No opinion therefore. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have included examples of two of her reported judgements, as a Saskatchewan Superior Court Judge. I don't know how many you need, before notability is established. Since most of us are not appointed to the Superior Court of anything, I would think that her status as a Superior Court judge would establish notability, though I have supplemented that by two of potentially a number of judgements. I can't find anything specifically addressing notability, according to Wikipedia, in relation to judicial appointments. I hope that what is here is now adequate. Dreadarthur (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources already showing in the footnotes, including an entry in Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan, an obituary in a major newspaper, and extensive references in a doctoral dissertation available in full online, Pernelle Jakobsen, Bench-Breakers? Women Judges in Prairie Canada 1916-1980, see for example pg. 142. These are multiple published sources of presumed reliability dealing extensively with the article subject, the essence of GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree, seems to pass GNG, for reasons notes about.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what's already mentioned, her involvement in efforts to reform divorce and separation law is discussed in this scholarly work. Also an Ottawa Journal profile from 1967 [10] provides more coverage from outside Saskatchewan. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from evidence so far JarrahTree 00:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. United States federal district judges are generally considered notable (we actually imported articles on all of the current ones in an automated manner). Although Canada doesn't have the same kind of split federal/state judicial system that the U.S. has, my understanding is that a full-time superior court judge is analogous to a U.S. federal district judge in terms of prestige and importance (appointed at the federal level, guaranteed tenure). That should be enough agtx 00:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per a review of sources presently in the article, the subject meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per uncontested sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ahdoot

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

The sources here show that Ahdoot exists, although when they draw on the white pages this is very problematicly not showing why anyone cares. Beyond this, they show he is a comedian, but the coverage is short passing mentions often in promotional style. It does not rise to the level of coverage to pass general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a filmography to hopefully establish the notability of his acting career. NathanielTheBold (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's better sources. The Foward, SFGate, Jewish Journal 1, 2, The Linfield Review, The Island Now, Great Neck Record, The Daily Campus, John Hopkins Magazine, Hollywood Reporter Hang googles (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2016 (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. Mkdw ^talk 06:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Pendergrass

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

Not a particularly notable subject. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable.SeniorStar (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any truly reliable sources to show that Pendergrass has gained any note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:35, 18 December 2016 (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. Cerebellum (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Shira Teitel

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

does not meet standard of notability Horsewhipser (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure comment - I originally closed as Speedy Keep due to the noms rationale (I believed it was more or less WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE) however I was asked by an admin to reopen so am reopening and relisting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer rationale: The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard. A handful of promotional articles appearing around the same time, and tied directly to a book release, in my opinion, straddles the line of notability, but does not cross it. All other sources, such as author pages on Al Jazeera or Popular Science are clearly self-published. Horsewhipser (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of level of coverage needed to pass general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to generate discussion on article's notability regarding the following points from Notability (People):

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

- Does not meet this standard, no sources supporting.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

- Does not meet this standard, no sources supporting

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

- Although this person has written a book, it is not the subject of an independent or notable work, nor is it used as support or citation anywhere.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

- Does not meet this standard, no sources supporting.

Horsewhipser (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horsewhipser you created your account especially for the purpose of nominating the page for deletion? Just curious. Avaya1 (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya1 I have contributed without an account for two years but you cannot nominate a page for deletion without one. Now that it exists I will continue editing from this account.Horsewhipser (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has a secondary source profile written about her in Australia's oldest newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald.[11]. She has a secondary source biographical interview in Popular Science,[12] and an article written about her in Cosmos Magazine.[13] She has a book published by Bloomsbury Publishing,[14] reviewed in major newspapers. She is one of the main hosts on Discovery Channel's DNews. She fulfils the criteria for notability for an article and has clear secondary source biographic coverage in notable sources (Sydney Morning Herald, Popular Science, Cosmos Magazine). Avaya1 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya1 Thank you for responding. The timing of these three biographical sources are appear to be based on publicist effort, not general notability. Book releases are often timed with article releases like this, and the lack of notable coverage beyond the publication of her book is suspect. Additionally, the "Discovery Channel's DNews", which is a YouTube channel, does not appear to be notable enough for even its own page, although that is open for future draft and debate. In my opinion, this is a non-notable author being promoted by their publisher, which is not appropriate for a stand-alone page. I would Suggest merging with "Discovery Channel's DNews" perhaps, but that page does not (yet) exist. Horsewhipser (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source articles, although they involve or are about her book, were not published at the same time, but are spread over a year. And the fact she has such interviews and profiles written in notable secondary sources, makes her more notable in terms of secondary sources than many other journalists who have pages on wikipedia. So does having a book published by Bloombury, which is the reason she got such secondary source coverage. Avaya1 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having one book published does not appear to meet the standard of notability. Additionally, the dates of the three articles are January 13th, 2016, July 7th, 2016, and July 9th, 2016. The first comes the day after the publication of the book, according to Amazon.com [15]. The next two are only two days apart. She may have several secondary sources, but as mentioned before, they show signs of book-related publicity rather than general notability. If there were alternative independent sources of coverage, that would help the notability argument. Additionally, I cannot find pages for anyone at her level of notability at the Discovery Channel, such as the other host in the source provided, which would lead me to believe it is a non-notable role. Horsewhipser (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's been one of the main hosts of DNews in the past (last year she was one of their most regular presenters). And your argument about the timing of secondary sources is pure WP:OR. There is coverage in notable secondary sources and that's that. Avaya1 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well and good, but why would a host of something that is not itself notable, be notable? And I struggle to see the significance of a single book being notable as well. Simply put, this person may have secondary sources, but altogether does not meet the Wikipedia standard, as detailed in WP:BIO. Horsewhipser (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [16], [17], [18], [19]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The Amy_Shira_Teitel article clearly meets General notability guideline and WP:PEOPLE with reliable sources by Wikipedia standards finding her significantly interesting to write about over time. Also, the number of times that she is quoted in the media over 5 years makes it clear that her book published in 2016 is not a flash in the pan (one time lucky break) but that their is a general interest in her writing. Additionally, comment about the media coverage of her book being promoted by a publicist is a red herring. The media picks and chooses which people to profile as books are released. This selection process works hand in hand with Wikipedia policy to let these secondary sources fact check and gauge whether a topic is of significant interest to have a standalone Wikipedia article. The bottomline is that the media has written about and quoted Amy Shira Teitel with depth and frequency to show that she is "worthy of notice" and "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found more sources and some reviews of her work, which I added directly to the article. Passes GNG and NAUTHOR with reviews of her work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2016 (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 and redirect to Chaiwala#The Chaiwala from Islamabad, Pakistan. Rounding to redirect. Furthermore, the current text is a WP:COPYVIO of this (not to mention WP:G11). The only place it's recoverable to seems to be the same place that got it CSD'ed the first time around. slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Khan (model)

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E: Single event, low-profile individual, event has no lasting significance. GSS (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person is now being reported very often by the local media which makes him notable. --Saqib (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saqib (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Saqib: Even if the subject is being reported by local media single event is still exists and per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." – GSS (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of only one event. The media coverage of this individual has grown larger so an article is justified. Many major newspapers gave a significant attention to this model. As per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, if someone "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." and also "has a large fan base." the subject ma y justify an article and in my opinion, this individual has. After making his runway debut, Arshad Khan has made his first appearance in a music video as well. --Saqib (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Well the subject has appeard only in one music video so far and its WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article and the notability of the musician/artist of the music video is also in question. I don't see anything to support large fan base and we can not rely on social media fan following. GSS (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In worst case, I suggest to redirect this to Chaiwala#The_Chaiwala_from_Islamabad.2C_Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chaiwala#The Chaiwala from Islamabad, Pakistan. sami ^talk 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely promotional as it stands. Deb (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GSS-1987: This guy keep making news. Recently, named amongst the sexiest asian mans of 2016 by Eastern Eye. --Saqib (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Do you think it's enough for a stand alone article and passes WP:ENTERTAINER. I still belive it's WP:TOOSOON for an article on Wikipedia. GSS (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this entry should be labeled as TOOSOON, but for sure, he'll managed to get get one soon. Dawn (newspaper) reported the model has started working on upcoming film Kabeer. --Saqib (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Maybe in future when he play a significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions as per WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't think it currently meets WP:ENTERTAINER and I don't see any reliable sources that currently could get the article up to the required notability. I agree with GSS that it may also be too soon. Current coverage is because of a single instance of a photo going viral (though it is a verrrryy nice photo ) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing is not of a significant enough nature to verify notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Boyle

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

Non-notable bio. Full of advertisement and POV. No citation. I can find in google news search either. Mar11 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this person is as significant as the article claims, there would be some sources out there. There aren't. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are awards mentioned on the page - all but one accolade currently unsourced, but that hints to me that if good research is done, that might be verifiable. Sources like this good for that: [20]. Also some other nice coverage online, first a full-length feature in the BBC [21], and some more minor coverage uncovered in a few minutes of google searching: [22], [23], [24], etc. Yvarta (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The few minor awards might just make him notable, but the article has the feel of ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not good enough and it very clear is all about promoting the subject. We require sources to be about the subject - tangential mentions in the context of something else are not useful as notability is not inherited.

BBC This is not a "profile" about Simon Boyle. The article is about Unilever's Innovation Centre and the subject happened to be the one giving the journalist a tour.
bighospitality.co.uk Passing mention about an award of doubtful notability.
Telegraphy restaurant review - A passing mention. In any case, restaurant reviews are not useful.
Bigissue.com Passing mention in the context of a charity and the article seems to have been sourced to a press release by the charity itself
Timeout.com blog Sorry, but this is a blog and not useful for notability.
Guardian blog Similar to above. Although Guardian is a reliable source, the blogs are not so much secondary coverage as opinion of the posters. This post seems to be sourced to primary sources.

Overall, I guess this is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it meets the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO. I see Boyle as notable for two main accomplishments: the People's Choice Award and being on the editorial board of a notable magazine. Icebob99 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Remsen

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

As the article itself says (!) she only held minor roles in films; not covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources in any depth. In short, fails Wikipedia:Notability. GRuban (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "know only as a bit part actress" means "no significant roles" which means does not meet the notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She had appeared as Pamela in 65 episodes of Tribes. A major role as one of the leading actors in Appointment with Fear. A significant part as Taffi Fisher in Dreams of Gold: The Mel Fisher Story, one of the leading actors in Smart Alec as Samantha. She was one of the main actors in Ghoulies II, playing the part of Nicole. She had a decent part in Two Moon Junction as Carolee. She was also a significant cast member in Pumpkinhead playing the part of Maggie. She also had some good roles in various television series like Family Ties and Doogie Howser, M.D., etc. No problem giving a Keep vote here but I have to say that it doesn't come as any surprise that this attracted an AFD nomination. The article is a shabby mess! Karl Twist (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I would like more than to save this article, but can you find anything more in Wikipedia:Reliable sources than a list of roles? A news article about her? Even some interviews? Honestly, I looked, and all I could find was a podcast interview on some guy's blog, hardly the most reliable or notable of sources. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor roles that go no further than 1995. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter when her roles finished or she stopped working. She worked for 14 years from 1981 to 1995. She had more than a good handful of significant roles. The article page has had no thought or organization in it's creation that's all. Karl Twist (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it's still a work in progress. From this here to this. I'm far from finished. Karl Twist (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I would request the closing admin let you finish... however, for now, it looks like you're just adding lists of roles, either very minor roles, or moderate roles in very minor films (most of the "one of the group of teenagers killed by the slasher" type). --GRuban (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, while some of the roles I have added are minor or moderate, some of the others are major roles and she has been female lead at least two films as well as major supporting actress in three others. Three of the horror films have significant cult following and value. Already as a recognized actress in the 80's horror genre (Pale in comparison to 60's and 70's horror IMO, but each to their own), her characters are recognized and remembered. This is why she is included on the bonus-features for the "Ghoulies / Ghoulies II" Blu-ray Review. When this article was nominated for deletion, it consisted of nothing more than a C&P of IMDB listing and just 2 lines of intro about he. All of that was written in a messy misleading way. It resembled something the dog or cat had thrown up on the kitchen floor. Karl Twist (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination, or, if I can't do that since others have opined to delete, then Keep. Karl Twist's work needs to be rewarded; this is now a very thorough article. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2016 (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/Kyatham Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Chant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Chant

[1] ttp://www.arrl.org/news/jamboree-on-the-air-jota-founder-les-mitchell-g3bhk-sk

[2] ttps://www.amateurradio.com.au/news/father-jota-silent-key

[3] ttp://www.wia.org.au/members/broadcast/2014_wianews/display.php?file_id=wianews-2014-10-12

[4] The CQ Amateur Radio Hall of Fame

[5] ttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11613012.LESLIE_RAYMOND_VIET_MITCHELL__Deceased_/?ref=erec

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]