Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Khilkov

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

Astonished how long this rubbish has been around. The only source was a WP:SELFPUB WP:OR blog, probably run by the same User:Khilkoff who created this page in 2008. Moscow wasn't "founded" in 1147, but only first mentioned; we've got no idea who founded it and when. But Mr Selfpub Blog is certain that *his* ancestors founded Moscow, and that Wikipedia should mention this "fact". This whole article is genealogical fancruft WP:COATRACK written by one descendant for WP:SELFPROMO about how he and his family are so awesome because they descended from someone who is awesome. At the very least WP:TNT. (No objection to keeping Category:Khilkov family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Shakhawat

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

Fails to fulfill WP:NPOL and Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putra Adhiguna

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

I am unable to find any independent coverage of this BLP. The 15 sources cited in the article are author listings, biography listings, interviews, articles written by the subject, alumni listings, coverage from events, seminars, conferences, summits and more interviews. It is unclear what makes the subject notable or what their contributions are which could be used to assess whether any SNG is met. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Economics, Technology, Asia, and Indonesia. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Raja Karnan

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

Non-notable businessman, inventor and entrepreneur. The ANI piece is advertorial article, as it is written at the end see this [1]. Non of the sources are reliable. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Tamil Nadu. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi

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

He got the attention in news media when he was allegedly shot by notorious gangster Lawrence Bishnoi gang and he was also a president of state level organisation i.e., Shree Rashtriya Rajput Karni Sena. But we do not create pages for presidents of caste based state organisations like Rajasthan Jat Mahasabha or Rajput Karni Sena of Rajasthan. If you see the sources then in almost all sources it is about “he shot by bishnoi gang”. I think he fails WP:GNG because he got attention only due to single event of being shot by alleged notorious gangster. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Owiredu

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

All the sources fail WP: GNG and the subject of the article does not have the WP:SIGCOV to have a Wikipedia page. The article is ref bombed with press releases with two sentences getting up to 7 references. Ibjaja055 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Engineering, and Ghana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: @Ibjaja055, I disagree with the assertion that the subject does not pass WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The subject has indeed received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Below are some examples:
Robertjamal12 ~🔔 10:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Kato

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

The sources fail WP: GNG or the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. Most of the sources are either promotional and puff piece like this or article about his foundation like [2]. I also spotted PR sources farming here. This source and this source are two promotional pieces published on the same day with same contents but on two different news media. Same goes with this this and this. Same contents but different dates on two different news media. It is also interesting to know that 77 percent of all the sources used (7 out of 9) were published in July, 2024. 57 percent out of the 77% (4 sources) were published in one day. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Allan Children's Foundation - The sources for the article (especially here and here) definitely look like source farming, and I cannot find anything that meets WP:GNG, for his name or "1BigAllan". I removed the promotional content from it but I still don't think it qualifies for a seperate article from Allan Children's Foundation. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Uganda. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allan Children's Foundation: as an ATD. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine McBroom

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

Non-notable attorney, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Every source in the article is either primarily about a client or is a primary source, with the only other source being a local news article about the foundation of a law firm (link). WP:BEFORE search yields the sources used in the article or gossip about an unrelated person with a similar name. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Firecat93 (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohini Mohan Dhar

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

No in-depth coverage of the subject in reference, references given in this article are mostly pdf with just mentions of him, hence I think it fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and West Bengal. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. I have added the references to the talk page of the article and explained a bit about what they are. In addition the editor of this article has a history of trying to add in Family Members. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sigcov in at least three reliable sources.

Noah ^💬 23:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable civil servant/administrator. If he had made significant contributions to the legal field as claimed in the article, it would have been possible to find at least some trace of it somewhere, but I'm not able to do that – and that's the only claim to notability in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM functionary, Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Shah

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

The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Citations are just WP:ROUTINE. Also, this might be a case of article hijacking WP:AHIJACK. The article was originally about cricketer Rishabh Arjun Chandra Shah (born 11 September 1991). In 2021, it was redirected to the List of Durham UCCE & MCCU players. Then, in 2023, the redirection was removed, and the article was recreated as Rishabh Sanjay Shah (born 3 September 1991). Charlie (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This was redirected to List of Durham UCCE & MCCU players, before being WP:AHIJACKed. The article subject post-hijack isn't notable, so the redirect from when it was about a cricketer should be reinstated. AA (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable; neither does the cricketer, and there are other people of the same name who may be more notable than either, so a redlink would be better than a redirect so visitors aren't surprised at landing at a list of student cricketers. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta Beniwal

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

Not elected to any assembly, not have sufficient in depth coverage in news media, being a president of state commission or president of a district level party post doesn't make way for notability hence fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a civil servant [3], but being a chair of meetings isn't quite notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page with no notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician. RangersRus (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Sinclair

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

There doesn't seem to be enough independent, secondary sources that discuss Sinclair in depth. Badbluebus (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Law, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage of this individual in news media, simply being a subject matter expert in court cases isn't quite enough without coverage discussing the individual. Sourcing now is largely to court cases. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds promotional more than anything, not to mention tagged for COI. Not sure what makes her worthy of an article as opposed to others in her occupation. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Colastraw

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

All the sources fail WP:GNG and 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Botswana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, clear failure of MUSICBIO and I cannot find any sources online that lead me to believe that the subject may pass GNG.
Noah ^💬 23:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears PROMO as well. No news sources or any non-primary sourcing used in the article. I don't find anything extra we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awesome name, but sadly this is a WP:RESUME. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMUSIC and article reads like a resume. Sources are either primary or press releases. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Total failure of WP:NMUSICBIO, reads entirely like a promotional article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Reley

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Many references cited in the article are either promotional or lack credibility. Citations 13, 14, and 15 are press releases, which are inherently self-promotional and do not establish notability. Additionally, citations 16 and 17 are from Amazon, a platform unsuitable for verifying the significance of an individual's achievements. The article also appears promotional in tone, emphasizing awards and achievements without adequate independent verification. A neutral point of view is essential on Wikipedia, and the content here violates this principle. Furthermore, a preliminary Google search fails to uncover substantial, independent coverage of Pawan Reley, further undermining claims of notability. Without credible, independent sources to substantiate the subject's achievements and influence, this article fails to demonstrate that the individual meets the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page meet the criteria under both WP:NJUDGE and the WP:GNG. The article is supported by significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that demonstrate the subject’s notability within the legal field. The inclusion of verifiable information about their legal career, achievements and books further supports their notability. As such, the article fulfills the requirements for both notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info I wanted to clarify that I have added references related to the book mentioned in the article, with links to where the book is actually available. It is important to include such book references as they provide verifiable sources for the information. The source from Amazon is valid for verifying the book’s availability, and it helps to substantiate the claims made in the article. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks to recent improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Bharti Sharma

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

The article on Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma lacks verifiable notability, with only two references supporting extensive claims. A quick search reveals no significant independent coverage or landmark achievements, failing Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards for judicial figures. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NJUDGE. GNG does not need to be met. C F A 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He does appear to meet the WP:NJUDGE requirements provided sources exist that support the article text. I have reviewed one of the two sources and it supports some but not all of the clams in the article text. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:NJUDGE to me.Sophisticatedevening]] (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:Honestly the AfDs are a mixed bag - I have weighed in on two of them one as (weak) keep and the other as delete. I would suggest that we should be deciding these AfDs on their merits and not on whatever muck gets raked up on the drama board. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah you're right just thought it was something to consider.Sophisticatedevening (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page meets the criteria under both WP:NJUDGE and the WP:GNG. The article is supported by significant coverage. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viveka Nand Sharan Tripathi

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

The article on Justice Vivek Nand Sharan Tripathicontains a large amount of content but lacks sufficient references to establish notability. There are only one citations provided, and a quick search reveals no significant independent coverage or sources proving his notability, which fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless further sources are found establishing notability. "He went to law school" and "he has been in several notable cases" do not give me much hope on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NJUDGE. GNG does not need to be met. C F A 16:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The content meets WP:NPOL, ensuring neutrality and impartiality. WP:GNG does not need to be met if the subject is relevant within a specific context.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found a few sources but will need help with both assessing them and constructing edits (maybe). [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], there are more. Some are about the same controversial court case so more than one source is advisable. Also, the name seems to more commonly written as Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi. Usually I would just go ahead and write tye edits and insert the refs but I'm having an 'off day' as far as pain is concerned, so I'm hoping someone can help? Knitsey (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pending more content. The article says nothing other than he is a judge and one ref just confirms this. The other ref is gone and was not archived — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that a bad thing to have in mainspace? We have 2.3 million stubs already. One sentence is better than nothing at all, and it is much more likely to be improved in mainspace than as a draft. C F A 14:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chima Amadi

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

The article fails WP:GNG. All the sources are pass mentioned or interviews with run of the mills awards Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable article about a living people who doesn’t meet the general notability criteria. Awards won does not confer WP:ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Thompson (businessman)

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

During initial discussions of the notability of the subject I favored that this article be kept for the time being, pending the emergence of articles in reliable sources on the subject. Since then there has been quite a lot of coverage in reliable sources and a problem has emerged.

It has become apparent that virtually all the coverage of Thompson in reliable sources is relevant to his murder. The little that is not is trivial in nature (e.g. he was separated from his wife and once was arrested for drunk driving). As a result, the indisputably notable and necessary article on his killing, Killing of Brian Thompson is little more than an expanded version of this article. This article is superfluous, and should be deleted or merged into that article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His activities at UH are sufficient to meet WP:NPERSON. He is not only notable for a single event. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while the coverage/sources have largely emerged only due to the killing, there are notable events and facts about his life that pre-date late 2024, and I think he meets WP:NPERSON as a result. Need to be careful not to let too much of the content/tone of Killing of Brian Thompson spill into here, tho. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for these same reasons. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there is far too much scrapping on any possible report about Thompson that fails BLP (which still applies). The bulk of the biographical details are routine and do not show any notability. Nearly all the criticism about him is mostly about UHC while he happened to be CEO, which doesn't automatically make him responsible for those choices, nor make him notable. We will avoid a lot of BLP problems by including the criticism of UHC within the killing article are related to the motive of the killing. But otherwise BLP1E clearly is met, and we should not have a standalone of him. Masem (t) 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To add the bulk of the sources are after his death. If he was truly notable beyond BLE1E, there would be far more sourcing from before his death, but the only pieces there prevdeath are routine aspects related to his promotions at UHC. This is the type of case that BLP1E as well as BLP CRIME were written to avoid. Masem (t) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have articles for CEOs of major companies, including those who aren't particularly notable except for just leading their companies. UHC is a major and controversial company, and Thompson is notable for his leadership before his murder. See WP:NPERSON. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no explicit notability for CEOs of major corporations. — Masem (t) 00:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would also point out that Thompson was not the CEO of the public entity, United Health Group. He was CEO of the United Healthcare division. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Thompson largely has the same characterization as Mangione I think, since he is largely WP:BLP1E, but that WP:1E is not trivial, and he played an untrivial role in that event (even unwillingly). I think the same principle applies to Thompson as to Mangione, but the difference, as I see it, is that the coverage around Mangione quickly turned him into a folk hero. Thompson has almost faded into obscurity by comparison: it's been the US healthcare system that's been vilified, not this one person. I think that if Mangione is notable enough for this 1E, Thompson should be, but the deletion discussion for Mangione didn't conclusively litigate that, in my opinion (though I was involved). But if Mangione isn't notable for simply the one event, I don't think Thompson would be notable at all. There simply hasn't been much coverage of this person, as @Coretheapple points out. I hope that was enough explanation to not just be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :)guninvalid (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per reasoning of @Coretheapple Sushidude21! (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And @guninvalìd Sushidude21! (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson per nom, as well as the reasonings of Masem and guninvalid. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnAdams1800, and since the Mangione article AfD passed as keep, which was a concern of Coretheapple. Cheers! Johnson524 06:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mangione article's AfD did get closed as Keep, but a deletion review was initiated. There is some weak support from the admins to overturn to no-consensus, though I don't believe that's actually going to happen. guninvalid (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangione has received an avalanche of attention in RS sources, so I am not surprised by the result of the AfD. In the past such criminals (Richard Matt comes to mind) get articles, and efforts to delete them on a 1E basis are unsuccessful. I speak from experience on that. Here we have an article on a victim, and I think 1E looms especially large here, as the amount of attention focused on him has been far less than Mangione, resulting in what is essentially a duplicative article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Matt, he was a principal character in two film adaptations. Though I advocated for deletion of the article the community was opposed. 1E only is meaningful if it is enforced, and it was not in that instance. In this instance, we need to weigh carefully the purpose served by this article and how it replicates another article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson Let's not make this person a hero over many dead people. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a Wikipedia article does not mean he is a "hero". Iostn (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson Jotamide (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it would be pretty questionable in terms of the reputation of this website that the alleged murderer (and his father) has been given a wikipedia article, whilst the victim's one is deleted. I would support all of these articles including the one for Mangione to be merged into a single article however Anvib (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notability stems from coverage of murder. Firecat93 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson. Once again, he will always be synonymous with his murder and was not notable beforehand. Everything else pertaining to his life — his separation and DUI arrest — is trivial. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has become known not only for his death, but for his role in the U.S. health insurance industry; as CEO of his company, he was the person within the company that bore primary responsibility for carrying out its policies, which were remarkable even by the standards of that industry. — The Anome (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It has not been shown that he was the principle decision maker or the one that directed the company to chose its approval/denial processes. His tenure at UHC was marked by these but as he was only in the CEO position since 2021, it's hard to determine how much influence he actually has or was a continuation of ongoing practices. We have no way yet to be able to attribute that all to him personally. — Masem (t) 15:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brian Thompson was the CEO of a very successful and large company and his murder was also very notable and unexpected, so I believe that he should have his own article kept because of this. I also agree with @The Anome above, on why the article should be kept. AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Idek mann (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I started to type out a "merge and redirect" !vote, mainly because I did a search for sources, restricting the dates to before this month, and couldn't find anything substantial. Since we already have an article on the event, merge made sense. However, stepping back for a second, his notability may have increased because of the way he died, but there are nonetheless many sources that are about him specifically now, including high-profile obituaries, and not just the killing. Seems he passes WP:BIO at this point. e.g. NYT, Star Tribune, NYT, Newsweek, WSJ, AP, CNN Business... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that coverage is rote obit aspects particularly when we compare to how the victims of tragic events that fall into BLP1E are covered similarly by the media in a sympathetic manner (eg like victims of school shootings). None of these point to any he did that was notable before he was killed. If one considers all the factors that are unique to his biography that there is not covered to a degree on the killing page, this is a very generic business person profile that would fail GNG normally. That means we can still give a few paragraphs on his bio on the killing page but shouldn't have a full article that is a honeypot for potential BLP violations. Masem (t) 18:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Masem. KOLANO12 3 19:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of WP:N and WP:V with WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This deletion request is frankly quite ridiculous. Brian Thompson is not just known for his murder. There are multiple reliable news sources talking about him other than his death. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not only is he notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, separate from the killing, theres also a massive number of sources, also separate from his killing, that talk about him EarthDude (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Shoot for the Stars and EarthDude 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep well he is a famous person, with this logic then every dead ceo's page should get deleted Emayeah (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the sources provided by Rhododendrites, here are some other reliable sources that focus on and discuss his personal life and career, not just his death/the killing:
The Washington Post

The New York Times

BBC

CNN

NPR

ABC News -- Some1 (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I apologize in advance for the informality, the man is everywhere. I can't escape him. Every source is yammering about him. —theMainLogan (t•c) 22:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a notable figure outside of this murder and has information about the healthcare system by being a CEO. Rager7 (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alvin Kwabena Ansah

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The sources are the usual PRs I expect and obvious paid promotions on the papers covered in a brown envelope. Not even a single source from here or a cursory search is GNG-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Africa, and Ghana. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources are promotional pieces like this. There are also element of source farming from this and this. All the sources cannot establish WP:GNG nor WP:ANYBIO. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolle Verma

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

This article fails WP:BIO, due to insufficient reliable secondary sources about Nicolle Verma. The references are primarily promotional and fail to establish her independent notability under WP:GNG violating WP:NOTPROMO. Nxcrypto Message 15:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Nxcrypto Message 15:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been improved with references and secondary sources from the press and media of reputed TV channels and newspapers.

It is neither promotional nor insufficient now. Intalk (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Intalk It seems like you haven't read WP:NOTINHERITED. Nxcrypto Message 04:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you, notability is not inherited. However there are several references that have been added to the article wherein it is visible that a 17 year old girl is achieving success in her own right by organising world class sports events abroad, involved in philanthropic midday meal schemes for the poor in India. At the age of 17 kids are playing video games and roller blading and not thinking about the poor. Read the articles that are added as source and if you still feel that my article does not pass muster then the decision is yours. I have been editing wiki for last 7 years, I don't indulge in any kind of promotion. Intalk (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject Nicolle Verma is a notable figure in Romania and India both. She has been involved in philanthropic activities herself and several articles in the Indian press are referenced. Also, she organised a kabaddi match in Dubai on her own at a stadium with Bollywood actor Suniel Shetty as the Chief Guest. This person passes muster with WP guidelines on WP:GNG and passes all tests. If 17 year olds who are being covered by the press in a foreign country and their work is being appreciated by the masses, then what would pass WP guidelines?

I vote to KEEP the article. Intalk (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly formatted article with references mainly talking about the relatives of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — random rich girl, not encyclopedic material. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:DandelionAndBurdock
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Verma Family Website	This is her family's official website.	Presumably, per WP:ABOUTSELF	The cited page is about Abhishek Verma, doesn't mention Nicolle once.	✘ No
The Verma Family Youtube	This is her family's official youtube channel	Presumably, per WP:ABOUTSELF	I only watched five seconds, but I'll be generous.	✘ No
LiveUtterPradesh and AajKikHabar.	These two have identical copy, indicating that they they likely just WP:PRSOURCEs and not independent journalism.	~ Presumably accurate information about the shelter.	Mentions Nicolle a few times with a few pictures her looking pretty, but it's all in context of the shelter opening, nothing about her specifically.	✘ No
NKTV, OutlookIndia and RepublicWorld	Same as above, identical copy and obvious churnalism. Should have been noticed by the article creator.	~ I imagine the information about Kabaddi is accurate, even if the language is a bit over the top.	This only mentions Nicolle Verma once, in passing.	✘ No
BusinessStandard	Credit where it's due, this is clearly labled as a press release.	~ Again, I assume the sports information is accurate.	This mentions Abhishek Verma once in passing but doesn't mention Nicolle once.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete as there is zilch independent coverage (see source assesment). Teenagers volunteering at a soup kitchen to bolster their resumé isn't out of the ordinary, if anything I'd say it's probably no less common than rollerblading as hobby. The author may want to refer to WP:42. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor page about a daughter of a billionaire that reads more as WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Subject is not notable, by any measure of notability one could conceive of. Turgidson (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable and sources only mention the subject in passing. Article also fails NPOV. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Noriega

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

Fails to meet notability criteria under WP:AUTHOR, doesn't appear to be many secondary sources on him. jolielover♥talk 09:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. jolielover♥talk 09:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colombia and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find independent sources. There are hints of awards, but I couldn't find any that name him. The link to the Edward R Murrow award lists Vice World News and Noriega is prominent in the video. Yet I don't find sources about him. Lamona (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Gimba

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

Fails WP:GNG. Almost all the sources are press releases and the remaining sources focus on the ceremonial activities of the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Publisher of a non-notable organisation created as a possible promo who doesn’t meet the general notability criteria for biography of living persons. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adama Joseph Adama

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

A non notable article that fails WP:GNG or WP: ANYBIO. The article establishes it's Notability with promotional pieces such as this, this and this [11]. Also, with numerous press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails basic WP:BIO, and is possibly the article author Joseph4real1995 . This mentions his early life and basic career path. But there are no accomplishments. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources does not establish the general notability criteria, and the awards “bagged” does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. The subject fails W:GNG and W:BIO. Atibrarian (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Narlikar

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

Fails WP:NBIO, and WP:NPROF. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation profile in GS[12] seems healthy (top citations 501, 413, 319, 272, 231, with a further 12 >100 citns) meeting my definition of WP:PROF by citations. There are also supposedly 12 books, with the ones listed being published by high-quality academic/general publishers, which are likely to have received sufficient reviews to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
255 JSTOR hits making finding book reviews a chore but here's four to be going along with: The World Trade Organization: A Very Short Introduction JSTOR 4092662; International Trade and Developing Countries: Bargaining Coalitions in the WTO JSTOR 20097936; New Powers: How to Become One and How to Manage Them JSTOR 29777521; Deadlocks in Multilateral Negotiations. Causes and Solutions JSTOR 43122662 Espresso Addict (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough book reviews of enough books (now added to the article) for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. The case for WP:PROF#C1 also appears decent; an h-index of 30 and 17 papers with triple-digit citation counts don't hurt, at least. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I have decided to withdraw my nomination from the current AfD about Amrita Narlikar. After considering the community’s feedback and rethinking my position, I believe this is the best choice. I am grateful for everyone’s time and effort in this discussion and respect the teamwork that makes Wikipedia better. I hope my withdrawal helps simplify the process and leads to a positive outcome. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah L. Turbiville

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

A person only notable for one event. And, per WP:CRIM, she is not well known, and the motivation for her crime does not appear unusual. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Texas. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•I agree that this page is not relevant and should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4E3C:CC10:0:0:0:1F (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Sexuality and gender, England, and Belize. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an event-specific page. The event seems to pass WP:NCRIME guidelines, with in-depth coverage from reliable local and national news sources like CNN and NYT. While the person is not notable, I see no reason why the information about the event can't be kept. Jordano^5³ 07:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible targets include: History of vice in Texas, Crime in Houston, Brothel#United States, Prostitution in the United States#21st century {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the first article listed to be the best, as it has more instances of specific events and incidents than the others. Fitting in this story would likely be easiest there. Jordano^5³ 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim A. Abdullahi

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. These sources are clear PRs and paid pieces hidden under the umbrella of brown envelope journalism. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A well written article with promotional and puff pieces for the sake of Notability and yet nothing is notable about the subject. Indeed, a look at this this and this is a testament of BEJ Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the criteria for politicians as SAs are not inherently notable. Sources does not help to establish the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Basintale

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

Fails all ramifications of WP:NPOL and a cursory search does not help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Africa, and Ghana. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This does not fail WP:NPOL subject is the Deputy Communications Officer of the largest opposition party in Ghana who have currently won elections in Ghana. And he played a critical role in his party getting into power. There are so many third party sources about him and his work. User:Owula kpakpo (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Owula kpakpo being Deputy Communications Officer of the largest opposition party in Ghana who have currently won elections in Ghana. And he played a critical role in his party getting into power does not satisfy the criteria. WP:NPOL clearly stated that Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels are notable. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe strongly that the subject passes WP:GNG. A search on the subject shows that there are several sources on him. Ampimd (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ampimd Yes, there are sources but most of the sources are either interview of how ladies should leave him in peace because he is in a relationship, press releases about his party's election which can be seen here and here. A two independent news media with the same contents, word for word. The rest here, here and here are either interview or press release. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The !keep voters has not provided any source to backup their claim of GNG. The criteria for NPOL isn’t clearly met here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taleb Al-Abdulmohsen

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

POV fork of 2024 Magdeburg car attack/WP:BLP1E. No need for standalone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, and Germany. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual has warranted their own article. Haskeymorrison (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify an own article. That the article is POV, as you wrote, is a reason to improve it, not a reason to delete it. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person is famous enough even with the article on Magdeburg attacks Athoremmes (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person has received a lot of attention from the media and easily meets the notability standards. Theofunny (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep the persons controversial views, ideology, and his role in the Attack make him notable enough for a standalone page. Deleting it would lose important context about his actions and background. Instead, we should focus on improving the article. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not just a "generic" terrorist Braganza (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the previous reasons stated, this individual's actions and ideology are enough to warrant its own page Fishthatflies (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously per WP:GNG. Plenty of good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even before the attack he had a website, was on BBC and had over 40,000 followers on Twitter Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged popularity in social media does not confer sufficient notability for an encyclopaedia article. It's irrelevant. Spideog (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced article!
- Cerium4B • Talk? • 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources is not the issue. The question of notability and BLP1E are the issues. Spideog (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met here. In addition BLP1E isn't met, given that the event is significant, and the person's role is substantial and well documented. Gust Justice (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was a borderline notable public figure prior to the attack and complex enough to warrant a separate page Mason7512 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article terrorist will try it if the article become famous. Great achievement (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe U:Mason7512 is saying that if perpetrators of criminal or terrorist acts get their own Wikipedia articles that may motivate someone to commit criminal or terrorist acts in hopes of getting their own Wikipedia articles. I don't think that argument is one of the ones considered valid for a keep/merge/delete discussion on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think that's gonna happen Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify an own article.Abstrakt (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's sufficient information aside from yesterday's car attack to merit a separate article on the identified suspect. 9March2019 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful article --2A02:3038:201:7EE4:B469:EBE5:1175:5CBB (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The useful information can be merged into the main article. Spideog (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason Luigi Mangione was kept. Sushidude21! (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bafflingly, was probably notable or close to notable before this happened. What a world we live in. If it turns out to be better to cover as one article, we can merge it later, but he is one of the few mass attackers to not actually be BLP1E. He was a well known Saudi dissident and had lots of pre-attack media coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I read the article, and this person had news media coverage before the car attack took place. I'm not sure how BLP1E applies here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough media attention to warrant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind the gap 1 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable sources on this person, there is nothing certain about him, including the name or date of birth.Marcelus (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So BBC and Al Jazeera aren't reliable sources? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, Der Spiegel, Reuters, not reliable ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source evaluation would be nice here. What are the sources that cover him before the Christmas incident? Badbluebus (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 Magdebourg car attack: Better notable, the prepator article can have nonsense since there are probably poor sources, unlikely the car attack article, in addition, having two articles can be too enough, IMO. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are sources pre-attack that focus on him:
BBC News video piece on his website and what he does from 2019, how his website was a "go to resource" for refugees

The Jerusalem Post piece from 2019 on him as a refugee activist

2019 FAZ piece

2017 piece on him from the New Arab

He was covered before this. With the attack it makes this more complicated. Probably a few more, but a lot of it is in German and there's 50+ more articles that quote him, and it's mixed in with breaking news from today so it's hard to sort out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add these to the talk page to be worked on? Theofunny (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of BLP1E. Some have argued here that he was notable or nearly notable before this event but no article here reflected this alleged prior notability and any article about him would have been nominated for deletion before, as suggested by the complete prior lack of interest in creating one. Spideog (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"as suggested by the complete prior lack of interest in creating one", don't think that's true. We don't have articles on plenty of notable people. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This character only became notable for one act. My point was that prior lack of interest in creating an article underlines his prior lack of notability. Spideog (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of BLP1E, point 3 explains "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.". Event is significant, role was substantial and well documented. --ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this article is about the alleged perpetrator of an attack that happened in Germany in 2024. As we have enough media attention to warrant article, person is almost a notable public figure and because this article of said person will be useful and relevant for later purposes it would be better if we keep this article especially since we have continued to keep the article of Luigi Mangione who happens to be a similar case (as mentioned by an editor). General Phoenix (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not meet WP:BLP1E because neither of points 1 and 3 in that are met: news items about him existed before the event, and he (allegedly) had the main role.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What was he doing before the attack? He wasn’t widely known and had no significant impact. His fame will be short-lived. While unfortunate, it doesn’t warrant a standalone article. Valorthal77 (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I feel like this always happens with these sorts of tragedies, with the perpetrator getting their own article. The info here can easily be merged into the article it is a WP:FORK from. See 2016 Berlin truck attack#Anis Amri, Halle synagogue shooting#Perpetrator, Christchurch mosque shootings#Perpetrator for examples on how very similar articles handle this.Yeoutie (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the information in this article is already in the attack's article.675930s (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons mentioned above: The person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify [his] own article.. waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage had existed prior to attack, so WP:BLP1E should not apply. S5A-0043^Talk 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not a case of 1E, the subject has had coverage amongst many RSes even before the incident. EmperorOtherstuff (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability arguments of nearly everyone else. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 13:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. I think it's clear that this not a BLP1E issue because he had coverage prior to the attack. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage prior to the attack was inadequate to confer notability. Most activists are not notable even when their activity attracts occasional media notice; that is part of the game. Getting one's name in the newspapers is not enough to establish notability in an encyclopaedia (see WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be", etc., etc.). That is normal. Some activists do go on to establish notability, but this motorist had not done so before his Christmas outing. Following major news events, many Wikipedia editors, especially those comparatively new to the project, those less familiar with policies and their import, and those who do not distinguish properly between newspaper notability and encyclopaedia notability, become overexcited. For now, at least, the subject's details can be covered in the main article. Spideog (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Abdulmohsen was very unusual, being a Saudi ex-Muslim who campaigned against Islam. From this BBC item, he was "a very unusual citizen". There is the argument in Wikipedia that something can be inherently notable. By the way: I'm usually a deletionist. --A bit iffy (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments in favor of it above. Merge arguments suggested by 4 so far are not convincing.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WHY do you claim they are "not convincing"? A driveby assertion is not an argument. Spideog (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike most mass killers, Al-Abdulmohsen had already become newsworthy five years before the attack. The attack may be the most notable thing he has done with his life, but it's not the only thing.Mikalra (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, newspaper "notability" is not encyclopaedia notability. This mistake is common throughout this discussion. He wasn't even impressively notable in the newspapers: he just appeared in them rarely, in a minor way. Even by media standards, he was a very minor figure. Spideog (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is notable for the attack only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs)
Delete as the subject fails the basic notability guideline at WP:GNG. WP:GNG says a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that 'sources' should be secondary sources. However, most, if not all of the sources used for this subject are only supported by recent news media articles, which, per WP:PRIMARYNEWS are primary sources if they are any of the following: eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, human interest stories, interviews and reports of interviews, Investigative reports, or editorials, opinions, and op-eds - which most of them are. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was actually pretty well known for being an anti-Islam activist before he killed 5 people. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per WP:BLP1E into the attack article. Most of this is just about the attack and his motivation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; I would normally be opposed to articles like this being created so soon after the event, but he seems to be a complex individual with more information constantly emerging and the article covers a lot of points really well already. We can always review again whether or not the article meets notability guidelines in a few weeks/months. Buttons0603 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Magdeburg car attack article. All the sources, except one, are primarily related to news about the attack and are dated after it occurred. While the remaining source predates the attack, it is a primary source that has been promoted after the attack by additional "updates". This person is not separately notable, and as the prime suspect is not otherwise notable. Guidelines WP:BLPCRIME applies and Wikipedia should not have a separate article about the alleged perpetrator before he has been convicted. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale has been offered. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3 "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." ProudWatermelon (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with the article isn't WP:BLP1E though, it is that the article fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources it uses are primary, and GNG is very specific that sources should be secondary. WP:PRIMARYNEWS says recent news media articles, which most of the sources in the article are, are primary sources if they are eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, human interest stories, interviews and reports of interviews, investigative reports, or editorials, opinions, and op-eds. I don't think many of the sources used escape this test.

As this rules out the use of most of the cited sources to establish notability, we can categorically say it fails the GNG notability test, so must go. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2024 Magdeburg car attack. I don't think this man would have been notable before the terrorist attack, and it is due to the terrorist attack that he is notable. Pretty much all sources regarding this man are in relation to the terrorist attack. For these reasons, I believe that this article should be merged into the article on the terrorist attack. IJA (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this article is about the alleged perpetrator of the attack, he played an important role in the incident. So, it is only natural that there is a separate article about him, because people who are directly involved in such a major incident, especially when there is clear evidence, should indeed be recorded. Ariankntl (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its important for people to remember this moment, so the victim will not be forgotten. Donpolloinohio (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing and insufficient grounds. This is not a vote! Valorthal77 (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think...we are at a consensus. 47.157.126.174 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP1E, person is only known for this attack. The keep votes are symptomatic of the bias within Wikipedia. If this had been a white terrorist massacring a bunch of brown people, all those voting keep would be voting delete e.g. Brenton Tarrant. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taleb was notable for his activism prior to this attack. Firecat93 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, and his activity was limited to some posts on X. Valorthal77 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources cover for WP:GNG. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is notable per GNG. There aren't any reasons to remove or merge that article. Karol739 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a strange nomination. Individual is clearly notable (including for his work, which received coverage in RS prior to attack). Firecat93 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Honestly fine with either, but I strongly oppose deleting. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are substantial enough details available on the main article regarding his motive, background, etc, then not to mention the WP:RS updates in subsequent days ahead.

TheRevisionary (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was not notable before the event, but there was some coverage of his activities, notably on New Arab, BBC, Jerusalem Post, The World, Der Spiegel, Business Insider, in addition to this article in Arabic were he was accused of being responsible for a Omani lesbian's suicide. This certainly does not make him a WP:BLP1E case. In aggregate, he should be considered notable.--Ideophagous (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above
Waleed (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per a number of above arguments. Relinus (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. Skitash (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Removing the article about the Christchurch perpetrator reflects sensitivity to the victims and the Muslim community affected. However, maintaining this Assault Perpetrator article ignores this principle. Is the suffering of the victims in Magdeburg considered less important than the Christchurch case? This difference not only reflects inconsistency, but can also be considered discriminatory.

Phantasmcoa (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with notability, not sensitivity. Perpetrators of genocide like Hitler, 9/11 terrorists, and war criminals like Assad all have Wikipedia pages. Firecat93 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't meet WP:BLP1E due to notability prior to the attack. Puhala,ny (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was notable even before the attack. Keivan.f^Talk 20:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable. TheBritinator (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable. Mmnashrullah (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob David

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

WP:NOTE, subject of article only has two sources discussing his life Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, searching the subject on Google only brings up two major sources regarding his biography, and searching his name in Farsi doesn't seem to bring other results as well. I previously requested a deletion for the article based on this criteria. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Iran, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:ANYBIO, the reference in Iranica is sufficient to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. I also found this from the Assyrian Cultural Foundation. More appears easily found using the Google search "Jacob David Assyrian Chicago" sans quotation marks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet further print resources are available, per this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of a person being notable enough for a Wikipedia article, does it matter more the quality of the sources, or the quantity available to write on them? If it's just the above I'm sure I or another editor can work to enhance the article with more information, but I'm gonna keep the deletion discussion open. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's borderline based on the sources, which are pretty thin unless, as Pbritti notes, there are print sources not currently accessible, but I see a bare GNG pass with the Encyclopedia Iranica biography and this article at the Assyrian Cultural Foundation. (It's not an ANYBIO pass, since Encyclopedia Iranica isn't a national directory of biography, but it is SIGCOV and thus contributes to GNG.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon van Buitenen

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

Previously draftified as not ready for mainspace. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits a unilateral move back to draft space, though it is still not ready. However, I feel this fails WP:BIO, and that it will be impossible to assert and to verify notability. It is a pleasant resumé, but not a Wikipedia article. It is also WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Astronomy, and Netherlands. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Article makes no claim of significance. But a full consensus here will make it easier to delete another time if it comes to that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently there is coverage only from self-published sources and thus not notable.--C messier (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG pretty clearly, could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruse Wane

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

Insufficient reliable and independent sources to establish Notability. The article also fails the 12 criteria of WP:Music. I would have send it to draft but I discovered that four or five drafts have been abandoned before under different names. Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Caribbean, and Jamaica. Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is properly written and sourced. It is sourced with numerous independent references. Why has it been cited for deletion over the thousands of articles on wikipedia that are no where even as close to being as properly sourced with independent references as this one. People Being Malicious just for the sake of being Malicious needs to be stopped. Edward Myer (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a reason earlier drafts of this article were rejected. Bruse Wayne is a serial collaborator who has indeed been mentioned in reliable sources, but almost always in conjunction with the main artists who utilized him as a one-time guest. He has some interviews asking his opinion on rap history because he's been around for a long time, but those do not illustrate his individual notability as a recording artist. I can find no reliable reviews for his solo works. The article also says that he is a member of Mantronix, but if so he joined decades after their glory days, he is not mentioned at their article, and a search indicates that he again only appeared as a guest on one song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Deriannt (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable discography, charting or label activity. Known more for his connection to notable rappers than his own work, the puffery in the article notwithstanding. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page should not be deleted. Earlier drafts were deleted because of editing mistakes. This article is conise and accurate. The subjects notability has been shown via numerous independent references, and sourcing. The subject has worked with and released music with Kurtis Mantronik who is a considered and Icon in Hip Hop and Pop Music. That alone make the subject notable. The article should not be deleted. The impact of his own musical works has also been established in the article. Do read again. Edward Myer (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Myer WP:BLUDGEON. Copypaste spam also removed. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pasming Based

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

Fails notability by a long margin. Jay Cubby 15:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jay Cubby 15:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Indonesian internet celebrity, i just got confused on the writing format. Clearly pass WP:GNG because he has a profile written by Kumparan and Tempo. De Shiree (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And clearly the subject has 320 thousand followers on his TikTok which clearly show that he is notable enough. De Shiree (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of followers doesn't mean anything in a Wikipedia context, and 320,000 is actually not many at all, cf. List of most-followed TikTok accounts. Geschichte (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBIO. Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. References are just pasted. for references from tempo just only trivial sources. Only invited to collaborate by famous artists. Kumparan is not a reliable source in Indonesia. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:RS Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 06:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Spain

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

Non-notable news anchor. Only obituaries and no viable career coverage, while a real estate agent dominates name searches. Article was created by blocked editor whose objective was to promote Jacksonville TV personalities on Wikipedia. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG (WP:NBIO / WP:JOURNALIST) criteria. Lacks WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While an understandable catch now, he just died and the community he belongs to seems grateful for the Wikipedia article. He was an TV personality for decades; deleting the article now just seems like really poor timing. I would at least wait a bit and see what comes of it. I know Wikipedia doesn't have to do this, but from what I read he died suddenly and tragically. It's been up for 13 years; it won't hurt for it to stay up for a little longer.

If marked for deletion, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSET-TV#Notable_former_on-air_staff would need to be updated, and we should consider marking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Walls for deletion, as he seems to fall in the same category as Spain. I am wondering if it may be notable to add a section on the WSET-TV article about Mark Spain, as from what I researched the community went all out in purple, including notable institutions such as Liberty University. Spbooker (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wittekind, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont

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

Article subject does not meet GNG and is mostly a genealogical entry. WP:NOTGENEOLOGY . D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is not just genealogy, but now I've violated Godwin's law. Sorry Mike Godwin. Bearian (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is mainly about his father who is significantly more notable. Wittekind is only referred to 2 times in it - page 265 and 266. Once to mention Himmler was his godfather and sent him presents. And once to say he succeeded his father as "head of the house". This doesn't seem like it meets the bar for WP:SIGCOV to me. D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to weak keep, even if only by fact, that he was Himmler's godson and head of this nobles family. Another reason is (which, strictly speaking, has no impact on the enwiki), that there are articles about him in 12 other wiki projects. I would really like to see this article on our wiki not delited, given these weak arguments.--Noel baran (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being Himmler's child isn't enough for notability so I don't see why being his godson would be either.

Being the head of a formerly noble family is just genealogy at this point, he is 2 generations removed from the abolition of the monarchy in Germany.

The point about the other language wikis is irrelevant as you point out (WP:OTHERLANGS) D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if OTHERLANGS was a valid argument, most (all?) of the other language articles on him are just direct machine translations of the en.wp page, that's not evidence of his being independently notable in those projects. JoelleJay (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Noel baran — Cosmic6811 T/C 19:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
)))) Noel baran (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The notability bar would have to be lowered considerably if being Himmler's godson and head of a now-obscure aristocratic family in these modern times qualifies. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, there's certainly a few mentions of him, but fairly obscure. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and in the hope that a German obituary might be published providing more details of his army career and cultural and forestry work. Plus, the house of which he was head once ruled one of Germany's principalities so it was more than just an average aristocratic family. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability requires IRS SIGCOV in multiple sources, which has not been demonstrated here. Passing mentions do not count, even in aggregate, and the argument that "being Himmler's godson" or "being head of a defunct noble family" is a claim to notability is in direct contravention of NOTINHERITED. JoelleJay (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from what's already in the article, there's an additional source from Histioires Royales in France (here). Also, the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, which he was awarded, is the only federal decoration of Germany and very prestigious. Since there's coverage in reliable sources and a federal-level award, I'm a solid "keep". --16:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gym Samba (talk • contribs)
I disagree that the award alone is significant enough to warrant this article. Over 262k people have received an Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. HistoiresRoyales seems more like a royalist fanblog rather than a reliable news source and would be pretty weak if the article's references are hinged on that. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Histoires Royales is a non-expert blog, it cannot be used as a source. And the award is certainly not enough to meet ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D1551D3N7: Why would they be hinged on that single source rather than the ones already in the article? I pointed out the source I linked is an additional source, not that it's the only source.

As for the award, it meets WP:ANYBIO #1, which says, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." There's nothing in the description of that criteria that weighs how often the award it presented. It's well known, and significant, as it's the highest level of honor in Germany.--Gym Samba (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many degrees of the order and he received one of the lower degrees. For a similar example, not everyone who is an Officer of the Order of the British Empire is notable enough by virtue of their reward to get a Wikipedia article. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact Wittekind received this award is so significant why is the only reference available an article from 2001 in a small regional newspaper? I can't even find out what class of honour it was.

There's an essay (not a policy) here Wikipedia:Notability_(awards_and_honors) that mentions the problems with the interpretation of awards significance for notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Notability is borderline re GNG with an obit at local/regional newspaper Waldeckische Landeszeitung with several paragraphs of biographical information and the Hesse government's article on the death of the Prince where Boris Rhein praises him as "a defining character who shaped not only the region, but the entire country" and to a lesser extent: an article about his 80th birthday met Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and one sentence of Prince Wittekind stepping down as chair of the Foundation of the Princely House of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Worst case scenario redirect to Josias,_Hereditary_Prince_of_Waldeck_and_Pyrmont#Family. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to the above German-language coverage and meriting a statement from the head of government of a German state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusjreillythefirst (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broden Kelly

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

Article fails to demonstrate relevant reliable sources or meeting of WP:GNG as to why Broden Kelly is notable in his own right as opposed to being a member of Aunty Donna. At present the vast majority of the article is a repetition of information on the article for Aunty Donna itself, which highlights the lack of notability as an individual.

The limited information sourced about him himself outside of Aunty Donna looks to be extended comments from a pair of podcast appearances, those he has an employment relationship with (such as a football club) or from his own personal social media accounts, which fail to demonstrate the requirements of reliable, third-party sources to meet notability.

Article should be Redirected to the Aunty Donna page until such a time notability in his own right can be demonstrated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Australia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darel Chase (bishop)

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

A non-notable clergy person. Sources that mention Chase are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (his personal website, a blog from a bishop in his church, his church's official website x2 x3 x4, x5, his church's international communion website, and corporate documents on the KY secretary of state's site); and an apparent WP:SPS WordPress blog. Several sources do not even mention Chase at all ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]); these are contributing to WP:SYNTH to draw connections about the subject not present in the sources. I found nothing qualifying in a WP:BEFORE search. Finally, let me address WP:BISHOPS since I am guessing it will come up. While AfD participants have debated the applicability of BISHOPS (and I have generally accepted it as a quasi-guideline since WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES align with it, even though it's not a P&G), this bishop does not even qualify under BISHOPS. The church he leads is a micro-denomination that is not part of the Anglican Communion or recognized by any of its member churches. Moreover, Chase is the pastor of an individual congregation, and bishops in this category are per CLERGYOUTCOMES not typically found notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh man, that's an interesting character. I'm seeing a remarkably marginal case for notability here, but not enough for me to !vote one way or the other. Dclemens1971, do you mind pinging me at my talk page if I don't get back to this by next weekend? I would like to contribute to this discussion, but it looks like too deep a rabbit hole for this workweek. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti I will try to remember! Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an interesting character, I'd say. He does definitely have a marginal case of notability, so I'll vote for it to be kept. And, isn't it a bit biased to call it a micro-denomination? It is a Christian denomination nonetheless, regardless of its size. It is also quite clear that he is not within the Anglican Communion. Is this a publishing house for authorized religions, or an encyclopedia? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's completely unbiased and reasonable to call it a "micro-denomination". It's own website parish directory lists just four churches. While another part of its website claims 43 churches (scroll down), there's no validation of this. Chase's own diocese appears to have just three churches. Two other dioceses (Diocese of St. Ignatius Loyola Diocese of the North-East appear to have just one church each, and a fourth (Diocese of Pelican Bay) has no website with information. And WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, to the extent they are relied upon, specify "Anglican Communion" -- while I might prefer a different dividing line, I didn't make that up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTFB, and WP:SIGCOV. You can't just call yourself a bishop. You have to be ordained in apostolic succession. WP:BISHOP is a guideline that only creates a presumption of existence that, like WP:NPOL, sources must exist somewhere, for bishops of major denominations. BISHOP doesn't necessarily assume notability; it just says how to set naming conventions. There is a different outcome guideline here: WP:CLERGY:
People listed as bishops in Pentecostal denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage. Clerics who hold the title bishop but only serve an individual parish or congregation are typically considered the same as local pastors or parish priests.
The subject was, after lawsuits, left with a single congregation and fails significant coverage; all but two of the sources are not independent of the subject: one is about how secular and canon courts returned church property and doesn't even mention him by name and the other is a brief corporate listing. That is far below significant coverage, almost a velleity of verification. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a little more time to come to a clearer consensus. Some excellent points are being made though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I'm sensitive to TheLionHasSeen's argument, this is a remarkably small denomination that's one of the hundreds that have a bishop-to-laity ratio smaller than my school's teacher-to-student ratio. As such, I'm not seeing a case for presumed notability. Recent coverage of a local scandal by Dreher notwithstanding, there is not particularized SIGCOV here that contributes to GNG. If there's something I'm not privy to that suggests notability might be established soon, I would not be opposed to an AtD like draftification. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Vishwakarma

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

No reliable sources are available on google, I also tried searching in Regional languages but got nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine and India. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The highlighted individual meet WP:GNG under WP:SNG. A former director of the Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine ([21]) qualify under WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC (#8) criteria. In addition, a search in Google Scholar reveal several scientific articles that have been credited to or published in collaboration with the same individual ([22], [23], [24] and [25]). The article however, require improvement and addition of sources. QEnigma (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As a former director of IIIM he does not automatically qualify. The staff is about 68 PhD/Dr, with a modest budget of about $0.5M (it goes further in India). Just as a Dean at a university is not automatic, he is not -- but it is a partial notability. In terms of publications his h-factor of 62 is strong, but it is a high citation field. (The 20th person in drug discovery has an h-factor of 118, and it is more an exponential than linear relationship.) The two together just about persuade me that he passes WP:NPROF, the criteria the nom used are not really appropriate. For certain the page needs work.
Delete: I can't find coverage that can clarify his notoriety.. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Blade

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

Nominated on behalf of a non-autoconfirmed user claiming to be the article subject:

Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability BladeTerry (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263157720

I am the subject of this article, Terry Blade.
— Edit summary of Special:Diff/1263146142

I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263156892

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources here to merit an article per WP:GNG. The context of this AFD attempt is that I created a sockpuppet case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roberteditor, tying together a bunch of IPs and some socks that have been editing the Terry Blade bio and related pages. Two hours and change later, User:BladeTerry registered the username to delete the bio. My guess is that the history of socking is what BladeTerry wants deleted. Binksternet (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the best quality article for sure, and some of the cited sources are better than others. But based on WP:BLP, Blade seems to meet the criteria of having multiple reliable independent sources. Him not wanting an article isn't a criteria for BLP. guninvalid (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced the wrong part of BLP, my bad, but my argument still stands. Whether he likes it or not, this guy is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and should be treated as one. If there are specific allegations or specific sections of the article that are undercited, those can be removed. But blanket removing the article in whole is inexcusable. guninvalid (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a ton of problems, and Binksternet fixed many of them some time back with me trying to assist. The real question is simply "does he pass WP:GNG?" and I have to say yes, he does, although barely, as demonstrated by the sources, and the claim of winning the American Songwriting contest. If the subject of the article can be verified as the editor who wants it deleted, I would probably be ok deleting it because it isn't a slam dunk on notability, and we have a long history of respecting the subject's wishes with borderline notability cases. 14.1.92.185 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (aka: Dennis Brown, trying to take a wikibreak logged out but reading my talk page....)[reply]
Keep. The article could be improved, but agree with the consensus that subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC No.1 and No. 9. Beyond what's cited in the article, this Earmilk article about the subject is one of the first listed on Google. Dug further and see the subject in a past issue of New Music Weekly, listed on page 33 under the "Country Up & Coming" chart, which is evidence he might also be notable per No. 11 of WP:NMUSIC. Rainydaywindows (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmin Chaudhry

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

This article fails to meet the WP:ENT or WP:BIO. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references are either trivial mentions or lack the depth required to establish notability. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first three sources in Bengali [currently notes 1; 2 & 4] are apparently addressing her career directly, though... -Mushy Yank. 23:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Yes, I agree. The first two Bengali sources were significant, but they were just one-time mentions, not sustained coverage. even if you search "জেজমিন" "যায় যায় দিন" or "জেজমিন" "যুগান্তর" will result zero. Daily Fulki, on the other hand, isn't an established or notable publication in Bangladesh, making its coverage less reliable for notability assessment. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 08:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Today, I found an older AfD from 2011 with a result of delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazmin. Due to the mentioning surname, it wasn’t automatically linked to this discussion. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 10:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That was 13 years ago, though. -Mushy Yank. 12:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the 2 reliable sources and a half in Bengali, may I suggest a merge into Pornography in Bangladesh mentioning in a section People that she was the first Bangladeshi-born pornographic actress and whatever material other users judge suitable for a merge? -Mushy Yank. 12:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a solution, maybe. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 08:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Given there was a prior AFD on this article subject, Soft Deletion isnot an option. Is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per discussion. Mehedi Abedin 20:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, News media, and Entertainment. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was passed through the WP:AFC process[26] and WP:G4 presumably doesn't apply. This doesn't mean a guaranteed keep, but it does mean that the nomination should be closed as Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT#3 (unless Zenomonoz can update their nom with an proper rationale ref WP:DEL-REASON before someone gets to it) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - struck. Pinging AFC reviewer Grahaml35 for comment. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Snowman304 for comment, who rejected Avaldcast's initial draft for this article. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please reiterate what the problem with the article is again?

Notability and source reliability (original issue) was addressed after it went article creation process and was approved.

Is the issue that it was deleted, improved and then re-approved? Avaldcast (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avaldcast, it's quite hard for editors to evaluate the article when you were inserting reliable sources that do not even mention Patrick Bet-David. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two AfD, non-notable business person with passing mentions in sources. Being a podcaster isn't notable in 2024. I'd SALT at this point, three times in AfD is more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Patrick Bet-David played a notable role in the 2024 presidential election discourse by hosting significant figures such as Donald Trump on his podcast tour. His platform, Valuetainment, served as a space for Trump to engage with his base and discuss campaign messaging, drawing millions of views and contributing to public conversations about the election. Bet-David’s interviews with Trump and other political figures have been widely covered in reliable sources like Vanity Fair and The Spectator, highlighting his influence in political media. This demonstrates that Bet-David is a public figure of notability, with substantial impact on contemporary political dialogue. Avaldcast (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Avaldcast. ChopinAficionado (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please see my comments in the last AfD for source evaluation. Nothing has changed none of this new coverage is specifically about David, but only mentions him in passing, and the majority of sourcing is from self-published sources like podcasts which are not indicative of notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was approved when new articles from reputable sources were published since he interviewed President Trump and Crown Prince of Iran and other politicians and notable guests. Avaldcast (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for pinging me, Hydronium Hydroxide. I approved this article and moved to it to mainspace because of the sources that were added to the aricle with the the Vanity Fair one added very in depth coverage. With the other sources of CNBC and RealClearPolitics I felt that it passed WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a brief look over some of the sources added by avaldcast, and they did not verify much of the content added to the article. See: Talk:Patrick Bet-David#Editing by Avaldcast. I've done tidy up, but might be helpful if other users considering this AfD could briefly check others before they decide. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please just delete lol you have a personal issue with this person. Avaldcast (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in RealClearPolitics, ABC News, and Vanity Fair among others. Fernweh0 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fernweh0, brief mentions in RCP and ABC do not establish notability. Bet-David is not the focus of those articles. I just removed the ABC one because it didn't confirm the sentence it was cited against. The RCP source is simply a transcript of a Fox News interview, not reporting from RCP. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can his interview on Fox News establish notability? I don't fully understand the notability rules. Fernweh0 (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fernweh0: interviews are generally considered to be not independent because the subject is talking about themselves. So the interview on Fox News would not contribute to notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analyst would be helpful at this point. User:NebulaDrift, I assume you didn't mean it when you asked for the article to be deleted. AFD discussions are a give and take between editors who hold different opinions, getting to a consensus is part of the process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think its a keep because of the sources already mentioned above because as per my experience experts often say that even if its one article in a reliable source it should be good. NatalieTT (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I really don't know why this is even at AFD. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cited sources are nearly all from contributing writers not staff writers and many of these sources are listed at WP:RSP as being marginally reliable. For instance, the WP:SPECTATOR article is written by someone who is not even listed on the masthead. Many of the other sources are interviews with Bet-David or in some cases written by Bet-David himself, which do not contribute to his notability because they are not independent sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Take a look at the RCP source for example. It's not even secondary source reporting from RCP. It's just a transcript of a Fox News interview? Zenomonoz (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being a transcript of an interview from another source, the author of the RCP source is not even listed as a staff writer on the RCP website (not sure what exactly he even wrote though, did he transcribe the interview himself?). TipsyElephant (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Regardless of how any of us may feel about the article itself or the subject, his notoriety makes him more than worthy of having a Wikipedia page. Frankly there are people in his field with far less subscribers and views and name recognition who've had profiles here for quite some time and without any arguments. If there are issues with the quality of the article, they can and should be addressed, but deleting the article would be foolish. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny Rose 11: would you mind linking to reliable sources that you believe demonstrate notability? Having subscribers and views and name recognition does not equal notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you people taken a look at Wikipedia lately? The "hawk tuah" girl has a Wikipedia page. Everybody with subscribers and views has a Wikipedia page. You people need to get a reality check. 118.149.67.235 (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda

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

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of significant coverage. This is far below what we demand for a BLP, especially an Attorney. This is also just a coat rack for an issue that is best suited for a focused article. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's a recognized child genital cutting expert, at least for endosex male minors. He has written, probably a lot, in academic journals on matters of law and children's rights surrounding the highly controversial topic of non-therapeutic endosex male child circumcision (partially or full surgical removal of the penile foreskin, which is about one-third of the "motile skin system" of the penis). Also, he has contributed to, and signed, two large international child genital cutting experts statements (in 2024 and 2019), published in the American Journal of Bioethics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2019.1643945 Chrono1084 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You get a few hits in GScholar, would that be enough to pass academic notability? Not sure what the citation factor for this person is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/NBIO, unlikely to ever pass that threshold. Unclear if he would meet NACADEMIC in regard to the scientific subjects related to his focus. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just found him as an author of a paper on legal aspects of circumcision / MGM - one of relatively few on its topic ('Circumcision of healthy boys - Criminal assault?'), article could definitely stand to be improved and expanded esp. lede but plenty of material to prove notability Al. M. G. 2004 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG/NBIO and NACADEMIC. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the two American Journal of Bioethics articles mentioned and three others: a 2003 New York Times, a 2006 Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States and a 2013 National Post. Is that enough to keep the article? At least for now (my computer has some problem)? There now seems to be enough academic/scientific articles but I'll try to find some more news/media content. Also, probably don't take into account RomanianObserver41's opinion? This newly created user and another created one, ConeflowerDave, have recently deleted useful information, particularly the two American Journal of Bioethics articles, on another child genital cutting expert: bioethicist Brian Earp. They seem likely part of a relatively long list of, now blocked, accounts used by at least one person to make it difficult to update and improve child genital cutting-related articles. Maybe I should request to investigate them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax/Archive Chrono1084 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again in the hope that it will generate commentary/analysis of recently added sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kade

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

non-notable musician, sourced entirely to blackhat SEO and the same "source". GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Rwanda. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There's reporting on him from The New Times and so I added it in and he seems like a notable musician in Rwanda. He has a good career as a musician being both a solo artist and being reported by The New Times is very remarkable. Vikingsam (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The New Times is giving me pause; it feels like the coverage in Indian or Nigerian media, where it seems everyone is a superstar, but no one else bothers to report on their accomplishments. Way too many hits in the one newspaper for this to be a coincidence... Feels like a PROMO. I'm happy to be proven incorrect, but that's the impression I'm getting. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I already !voted keep above) I think this hinges on if The New Times is a reliable source. I honestly don't know. Here's what I can ascertain:

It's the first listed newspapers on BBC for Rwanda newspapers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14093244
The Wikipedia article and the BBC note it's proximity to government
Of course, plenty reliable sources are proximate to government, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, although I would suggest The New Times is not a reliable source for Rwandan politics.
The Wikipedia WP:RSPSS noticeboard is silent on The New Times. A search of the archive reveals nothing.

So my question is: does anyone have any evidence, any reason to assume it's a bad source? Vikingsam (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici

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

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gscholar brings up two papers this person wrote, but I'm not sure that's enough for an academic notability pass. I don't see any reviews of this person's other books either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have added further information and references - satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. You added references that the subject wrote, but none of it is about the subject himself. There is no evidence that he is widely regarded or cited by peers, originated a new concept, authored a body of work that itself is notable, or created a work that has been regarded as significant. cyberdog958^Talk 15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The several archived reviews of the biography of Fleming in the article show that that book is notable. I picked one other book at random to search at the British Newspaper Archive and immediately found this review. I won't bother looking for more, since this author clearly meets the GNG, but I suspect many more sources exist. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV. I only see two reliable AND independent sources that review his work here and there. I'm looking for one more. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several reviews on JSTOR; eg Fleming book in BMJ JSTOR 25394369, Science Progress JSTOR 43415178; Nobel winners in Books Abroad JSTOR 40114429; German scene in International Affairs JSTOR 2608910. Togther with others found elsewhere appears sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. (@Bearian:) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden McNeil

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

I can't actually see a reason that McNeil is notable himself. Yes, there are a load of sources mentioning the unpleasant comments that he comes out with, but he simply seems to be someone who has tagged along with other unpleasant characters, and has been noted as such by reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conspiracy theories, and Discrimination. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says in the Wikipedia guidelines if there's reliable sources about an individual, that's what determined notability. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another in a long line of far-right nobodies who is only recognized for having a beef with another far-right personality. Does not satisfy WP:N, definitely does not satisfy WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's been very little discussion of specific sources, so I've gone ahead and started by making a source assessment table based on sources in the article:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Kansas City Star	This is a WP:INDEPENDENT WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	This is a reliable WP:NEWSORG	The source is principally about the article subject.	✔ Yes
The Manhattan Mercury	This is an independent daily mainstream newspaper doing its own reporting.	This is a 140-year-old well-established daily newspaper; WP:NEWSORG.	This source is directly covering the article subject in a substantial way, with the whole source principally focused on the article subject.	✔ Yes
Anti-defamation league	Moot as not SIGCOV	Moot as not SIGCOV	He gets name-dropped once, but that's about all the coverage he gets.	✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 1	Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.	why not?	deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM.	✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 2	Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.	Why not?	deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM.	✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 1	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	This coverage is principally about McNeil.	✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 2	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	McNeil is not so much as mentioned by name once.	✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 3	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	There's plenty of coverage of McNeil and Dickerman as a sort of group, but little of McNeil alone. In any case, going to be moot as WP:N notes that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, and we already have a contributing SPLC source above.	? Unknown
The Kansas City Star 2	Independent WP:NEWSORG	A WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	Seems to give substantial coverage to McNeil and his activities.	✔ Yes
The Daily Dot's "God" blog	Sure?	While WP:DAILYDOT is MREL, but looking more broadly at the God blog archives this looks like an opinionated blog that's just hosted on the platfom.	Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions.	✘ No
BroBible	Sure?	~ I can't find anything in the WP:RSN archives or at WP:NPPSG, but this feel a lot like a WP:DEXERTO-level source	Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions.	~ Partial
Inside Higher Ed	Why not?	WP:NEWSORG	We've got two paragraphs about McNeil that pass the WP:100WT for independent prose, albeit barely.	✔ Yes
The Kansas City Star 3	Independent WP:NEWSORG	WP:NEWSORG	WP:NEWSORG doing their own report principally about the subject and his activities.	✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 4	This is the same url as source 6	This is the same url as source 6	This is the same url as source 6	✔ Yes
MEL Magazine	Sure?	~ RSN archives treat this as a mixed reliability source.	Three paragraphs about McNeil and his activities, passes the WP:100WT.	~ Partial
Mother Jones	Why not?	Per WP:MOTHERJONES, source is WP:GREL.	Five paragraphs are given in the article to coverage of McNeil; this is clearly SIGCOV.	✔ Yes
Vice	Why not?	~ The community doesn't have consensus regarding VICE's reliability.	Seems to provide significant secondary coverage of McNeil and his making allegations against Fuentes.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

What this reveals is that, based on solely sources in the article, McNeil has received WP:SIGCOV from at least the following sources:

The Kansas City Star: 1, 2, 3
The Manhattan Mercury: 1
Southern Poverty Law Center: 1, maybe 2
Mother Jones: 1.

This alone would easily pass WP:SIGCOV and, as there appears to be multiple events covered among these sources, this doesn't look like a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E case. The additional sources that one can google regarding the McNeil-KSU football affair really do drive home that not all of his coverage is about Nick Fuentes or storming the U.S. capitol:

McNeil-KSU football affair additional sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sports Illustrated The Manhattan Mercury Yahoo! News The Sporting News AP 1 and 2 ESPN KC Star USA Today

As such, I think we have an individual here who easily passes WP:GNG, for whom no suitable merge target exists, and I think nom's contention that this is only someone who is covered in the context of Fuentes is plainly incorrect. In light of the breadth of coverage and the deep sourcing, there is nothing reasonable to do here but to keep.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks to Red-tailed hawk for assessing the sources. Looks like GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More about the controversial things said and the fallout than about the individual, from the sources. "Streamer says things, ruffles feathers, than fades away" seems to be the extent of what we have. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. Reliable sources like ADL, the Kansas city star, the Manhatten Mercury, Southern poverty law center all cover this individual. This goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. According with Wikipedia's guidelines, Notability isn't determined on what a certain individual is notable for, but if reliable sources cover him. However if it was the opposite, well they cover his falling out with Fuentes, His views, His association with Nick Fuentes, him being held accountable by Kansas State University for an offensive joke, him getting a girlfriend, etc. I don't even know why this is a discussion. His Wikipedia page has been up for about two years with barely anyone saying anything because it's common sense this goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable, this person wasn't notable before that happened. I'd be looking for extensive coverage of them before the event, which we don't seem to have. I've done things as a student and was held accountable, that's not really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b you've might've done bad things as a student, but news sources didn't cover it. Again, Wikipedia's notability policy are if reliable sources cover something, not "this isn't something I think is news worthy or topic worthy". As for "there needs to be extensive coverage of him before the Kansas University incident", why? Why does it matter what the first news source about him said? If multiple reliable sources cover him and different incidents involving him afterwards, that goes with Wikipedia's notability policy. But here, here's a news story covering him before the Kansas University incident. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nicholas-fuentes-america-first-infighting also I saw ESPN cover Jaden McNeil too, multiple reliable sources cover this guy, I'm struggling to understand why this is a discussion. Wikipedia's guidelines is clear as day. Wikipedia's guidelines say nothing about if you think something's news worthy, but if news outlets consider it news worthy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That incident, for what it's worth, has been turned into a academic case study. It's not just that a kid said something inflammatory, it's that the incident was nationally covered and continued to receive attention in academics even after it was out of the news (in addition to the case study, described in a Ph.D. thesis). I think that reducing this to " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable is a gross oversimplification here that misses just how big this was—and also ignores coverage in the context of other events as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given above and on the talk page already. Two newspapers from his area discussing him, and Mother Jones and the SPLC discussing him in the context of someone else, and for an edgy remark he made, do not make him worthy of an entire article. Swinub★ 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swinub as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, ESPN, Yahoo News, USA today, sports illustrated and other huge mainstream sources cover thie guy. It's not just two news papers. And he's not only mentioned in the context of Nick Fuentes and an edgy tweet he made in 2020, as pointed out by me in multiple examples earlier. And as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, he easily passes WP:GNG HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more. Swinub★ 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more... no, that is patently false. SPLC covers this individual applying for and receiving Paycheck Protection Program funds, and Mother Jones doesn't so much as mention that inflammatory Tweet, but does provide significant coverage of this individual. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From what I'm reading above, the firing is notable, I'm not sure the individual is. Could perhaps create an article about the incident itself. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b there's numerous reliable sources that cover different incidents regarding Jaden McNeil DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of significant coverage. Look, lots of people, but especially the bad, are famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most of us agree it should stay DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments seem evenly divided between Delete and Keep. The existence of RS coverage is not in doubt but some editors argue that it isn't SIGCOV enough to establish notability. Editors are warned not to BLUDGEON this discussion and contest every opinion they disagree with.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think we're done here. Looks like the opposers have given up HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Swinub★ 22:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sw 36914 You got called out for lying in this AfD discussion. And keep trying to get me banned by saying I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, without any proof. What makes you think that's gonna work? @Liz I think we're done here. 100% of the people are not going to agree to keep the page, but an administrator gave reasons why the page should stay and showed examples on how it goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. 100% are not going to agree, but if most people do, we should end the discussion. Being here forever is pointless. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misread his reply and noticed my error a day later, as I'm not paying too close attention to this page. I apologize for the mistake, but it was not intentional. As for us "being done here," we're not; let other people give their input. You've given yours already. Swinub★ 04:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done here HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HumansRightsIsCool, this might be a surprise if you haven't participated in many AFDs before but the participants can't declare that a discussion is over and should be closed. An AFD discussion is closed when a closer sees that a consensus has been reached or decides, after several relistings, that no consensus is possible. In situations like this discussion, this is likely to happen if a few more editors participate in this discussion and offer their arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been days since a new editor sent a message here. Lots of editors were showing up, but it stopped once everyone kinda realized this discussion is pointless. administrators like Red-tailed hawk gave examples on how McNeil's page goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, considering how multiple reliable sources cover different incidents involving Jaden McNeil. Swinub is never going to agree the page should stay, no matter how many examples you give of this Wikipedia article going with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Are we supposed to stay here for 3 years? Someone get a AdF closer to decide the fate of the article, not everyone's gonna agree. No matter what. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz explained how this works, demanding someone come in and give you satisfaction is not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdF? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

think he meant Afd - articles for deletion 2603:8080:600:87B:D2F5:7B10:A18C:526E (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Respectfully, I do have to take issue with the relisting comment. The opposition to the notability here, as articulated by Swinub and Oaktree b, is that the sort of stuff that he has been covered for does not make him worth an article—not that WP:SIGCOV isn't met. It's essentially a set of (attempted) WP:IAR deletion !votes. And neither The Hand That Feeds You nor Black Kite have attempted to do a source-by-source analysis, and neither of them has made a substantial comment about notability after the source assessment table was dropped.

That is in marked contrast to my keep !vote, which identified specific sources and described how each of them specifically contribute towards meeting the WP:GNG. If individuals don't believe that this person meets the WP:GNG, they are free to argue so. But I would very much like to see what they think is wrong about the source assessment table, and I'm quite saddened that nobody has articulated that here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm feeling involved here so I'll just bow out of this AFD discussion and let another closer handle this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamna Pathak

AfDs for this article:

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

Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see [27], [28], [29]. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast: as the nominator indicates she is best known for that role and coverage attesting of that exists. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast. Not opposed to Delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The actress has worked in multiple notable TV shows, a primary Google search results indicate significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28 Thanks for your comment, for a better understanding i appreciate you to please present those RS here? Happy editing. Taabii (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few sources and updated the article, I will try to improve to the article in my free time.

Zuck28 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott Most of the sources are Interviews, kindly check it. — Taabii (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are quite poor and not independent of the subject with claims and interviews. Subject fails the criteria for WP:NACTOR who did not have significant roles in "multiple" notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are reliable, and the subject is well-researched with verifiable claims.

𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion on the sources added. Keep !votes, kindly comment based on our P&Gs and after giving a detailed analysis of the sources based on those P&Gs with a clear rationale why the article should be kept, not mere statements saying the sources are good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast: Has only one notable role, so it's more appropriate to redirect, fails WP:NACTOR. I'm also open to deletion, as most sources are interviews (decent coverage, yet do not establish notability).--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No valid secondary sources to prove WP:GNG. TitCrisse (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything but interviews for this lady. No independent coverage. She has acted in one TV show, and what looks like an extra(?) in a film. I have done a search (searches from the UK aren't always good these days), I would be happy to re-evaluate my vote if idependent sources can be found. At the moment, this article doesn't demonstrate it complies with WP:GNG.Knitsey (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shugavybz

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

Yet another article on a musician who has done literally nothing notable to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources from here and a cursory search suggests nothing useful. They're either interviews with the subject, or routine coverages that are entirely dependent on the subject. This is, as usual, a properly written article from the author on a non-notable musician to pretend notability. Also, the TurnTable Certification System of Nigeria is dubious in its entirety. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are either puff pieces that are meant to confer notability on him or interviews. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has written more than one major hit record, automatically meets WP:COMPOSER, just like a scriptwriter or director who has directed multiple award-winning movies. Even if he doesn't pass GNG, but passes WP:FILMS, he automatically establishes notability. Likewise he passes WP:ANYBIO, with a special recognition from The Recording Academy as a composer. One last thing, I would say the coverage for example [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], add up to a GNG pass, with an extensive list of production and songwriting credits from "No Girlfriend No Problem", "Away", "One Side", "Yawa No Dey End", "My Baby", and many more.--Afí-afeti (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Afí-afeti your comment makes it sound like you are arguing for a Keep but you neglected to actually declare this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my comment.--Afí-afeti (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Manna

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

Most sources have one or a handful of passing or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject (A History of Rajasthan, A History of Mewar, Battle of Haldighati, Jhālā rājavaṃsa, Mewar Saga, Mewar & the Mughal Emperors, and Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior.
In addition to having trivial mentions, some sources are also considered of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ, such as Tod's Annals of Rajasthan
One source is WP:SELFPUBLISH: Sacred Mysteries from vanity publisher by Notion Press.
Chiefs and Leading Families in Rajputana has no mention of Jhala Man Singh/Man Singh Jhala/Jhala Bida/Jhala Manna/Jhala Sardar or any other configuration of his names.
Another "source" is a poem.
The final source is an e-commerce site.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not seeing notability, sources are as explained above, not much for showing notability. I still don't find any sources we can sue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person. Mentioned in many sources. He played a significant role in the Battle of Haldighati. Lordo'Web (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're now at a split opinion, so worth relisting in an attempt to garner further clarity on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article without notability. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. After the source analysis in the nomination statement, any editors arguing to Keep have to counter this assessment of the sources or present ones they believe are reliable. Just saying they exist is not enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions