Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

Note: this page is purely an aggregation page of transclusions and not in the same format as other Deletion Sorting pages. "Generic biographies" should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People, which is transcluded directly below.

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|Deletion sorting|~~~~}} 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.

Purge page cache

watch

People

Chris Bores

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable YouTuber who doesn't meet WP:GNG. A7 may even apply. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages need to add more sources. Xegma(talk) 17:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dawes

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Purely lacks notability per WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more sources. Xegma(talk) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bae Youn-kyu

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Appearing on non notable films doesn't show notability because it can't draw WP:SIGCOV from sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and South Korea. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it to draft... Aidillia (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Aidillia to draftify rather than delete. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 16:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Latif Fathy

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Syria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moza Sultan Al Kaabi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, as almost all sources only mention her death in a car accident. And the page was created three days after her death. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar D'Mello

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I searched for sources but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Ulman

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

Not yet ready for mainspace as it doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. May have been covered in his native language which I also checked, yet couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV also in English language. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Israel. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadreza Mousavi

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McDonald (academic)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. He worked for some important organizations in non-major roles. I see no sign of any influential scientific publication of his on a reputable journal, or any terminal degree for that matter. This looks more like a resume of a postgraduate student than anything else. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Religion, and United Kingdom. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can find evidence of cites or reviews. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
His publication is released in December, and so these are forthcoming JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creation of page was due to unusual and niche academic field of minority religions in prison, which is the topic of his first publication due for release in 2024. His terminal degree was completed at Birkbeck Dept. Of Psychosocial Studies but I can’t find a citation for this so I didn’t include. On the ‘non major roles point’ - understood, but he held the role ‘Head of Policy’ for HMPPS in 2023 which feels notable? Apols if I’ve made it sound like an advert JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for making this page. If I can make the case a bit more: is a nascent academic but in a niche and unusual field of writing about Norse paganism in prison which distinguishes his contribution and his first publication is a book chapter with Bloomsbury coming out in December.

He sits on various policy and governance boards for national organisations including charities (Traveller movement) and the Magistrate’s association. I know he sits on several more including the Uni of Sheffield but can’t cite this.

I don’t want it to read like an advert, just an encyclopaedia entry for a niche academic who works at the intersections of religion and penology. JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Tay

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

Notwithstanding serious BLP concerns, the subject simply isn't notable enough to have his own article. A Singaporean Chris Chan, if you will... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apostate Prophet

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

None of the given sources are reliable (YouTube, Reddit, etc.), so nothing to contribute to WP:GNG in any way. A quick WP:BEFORE only gives an interview to Jewish News Syndicate (primary, doesn't count for notability) and a report on one of his presentations by edhat.com. I am not sure whether that last source is reliable, but it doesn't seem to be enough for GNG either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Germany, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is just no reliable sources even close to providing notability for this subject. No evidence of GNG whatsoever. Thismess (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pini Althaus

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

Promo piece on a non-notable businessperson. The sources look plentiful but are a mix of passing (or no) mentions, the subject commenting on something, and primary sources, none of which contributes anything towards notability. The one possible exception is the Swagger piece, but it's borderline at best, and in any case alone nowhere near enough. BEFORE search finds nothing better. This was draftified but moved back, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Australia, and United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM business exec. I was one of those with substantially greater experience. WP:RESUME and WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming consensus moves in the direction of draftification I find that acceptable. But it cannot stay in main space in the state it is in. So my alternate !vote is draftify. I note the creating editor feels them to be notable. They should have the chance to prove it in the relative peace and quiet of Draft space if they wish. I'm sure (0.95 probability) that the nominator would agree with that.

@Edvardd: I don't want to open a discussion between us unless we use your or my talk page, but you may wish to consider modifying your opinion to send this back to Draft. There are technical reasons under WP:DRAFTIFY which mean such a move requires consensus after its sudden move back to Main Space. I doubt anyone will resist draftification, but I have been incorrect before. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the article should be kept because the subject is a notable figure in the field of rare earth mineral extraction and mining. He has been quoted or mentioned in over a dozen articles on Mining.com alone, in addition to other reputable industry publications. You can find relevant examples through this search: Google Search for Pini Althaus on mining.com.

Furthermore, he has been featured and interviewed by well-known media outlets, including:

Forbes, Newsmax, Fox, Fox Video Interview, The Wall Street Journal, another WSJ, Financial Times

These sources highlight his expertise and significant presence in the industry, which clearly establishes his notability. For these reasons, I am in favor of keeping the article. Edvardd (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely my point, he has been "quoted or mentioned" and "interviewed", none of which contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rather than perform a full source analysis, I have visited all the current references and those suggested above. I see primary sources, churnalism of PR pieces, interviews with the subject (we do not care what he says, only what is reported about him), and press releases and not one single reference the verify notability. I could not reach anything behind a paywall. WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia, and these references are wholly insufficient to verify the subject's notability. They do show that he exists. Many are covering the corporation, or the market, but not the subject 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in spite of how over-done the article is. There are sources that consider him an expert and has received much coverage on the complicated topic of rare earths and metals mining. he has plenty of national coverage and mentions as an expert .Its clear that Althaus has also played a significant role in shaping U.S. policy on rare earth minerals, advising both the Trump and Biden administrations and contributing to key legislation such as the RARE Act and the Permanent Magnet Act. His expertise has been featured in all major media outlets covering rare earths and precious metals mining like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Yahoo and Forbes.

Given his profound impact on the industry and his media presence, I say keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saliham (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here's my Bastard Helper From Hell analysis:

https://www.covecapital.com.au/team/pini-althaus/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Bio from a company he works for.
We can't use LinkedIn (no editorial oversight, connexion to subject).
We can't use https://www.swaggermagazine.com/entrepreneurship/meet-usa-rare-earth-ceo-pini-althaus/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We mistrust role/absent bylines because they're frequently used to launder advertorials.)
We can't use https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/340772-14 (too sparse). We couldn't even use it for USA Rare Earth were it the subject. Company profiles just have no information to cite, or if they do it's written by one of the company's PR flacks.
https://www.mining.com/usa-rare-earth-takes-80-stake-in-round-top-project-in-texas/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Quote, no discussion of Althaus.
https://www.mining.com/round-top-to-establish-us-rare-earths-supply-chain/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Every mention of Althaus is in relation to something he says or a paraphrase of same.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/7/16/rare-earth-processing-plant-opens-in-colorado is useless for notability (too sparse). Again, every mention is a direct quote or a paraphrase of his words.
https://www.miningmagazine.com/surface/news/1415058/usa-rare-earth-eyes-pfs-round is useless for notability (too sparse). Quote, no discussion.
https://eepower.com/news/usa-rare-earth-acquires-ndfeb-permanent-magnet-manufacturing-equipment/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Quotes, no discussion. (This source would also be useless for notability for USA Rare Earths as M&A news (routine coverage).)
https://www.kosu.org/business/2022-06-09/oklahoma-officials-announce-a-100-million-high-tech-factory-is-coming-to-stillwater is a non-sequitur.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1402747/000101490909000018/exhibit99pressrelease.htm is useless for notability (gov't document).
We can't use https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/104529/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this?
We can't use https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/kaz-critical-minerals-advances-and-expands-drilling-program-in-east-kazakhstan-52b2c195 (No editorial oversight/connexion to subject). Story is attributed to Globe Newswire, who only ever publishes companies' press releases. Note that MarkletWatch explicitly disclaims the article in the header, which is a red flag even before seeing the attribution.
https://kz.kursiv.media/en/2024-07-24/american-company-searching-for-rare-earth-metals-in-kazakhstan-reports-hopeful-results/ is useless for notability (too sparse). A tonne of direct quotes, no discussion of Althaus.
https://en.inform.kz/news/kazakhstan-to-ramp-up-rare-earth-metals-production-ea794b/ is a non-sequitur.
https://global-reia.org/reia-news/reemag-joins-the-global-rare-earth-industry-association/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Press release announcing a company Althaus heads joining a trade group.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/04/05/the-energy-transition-will-need-more-rare-earth-elements-can-we-secure-them-sustainably/ is a non-sequitur.
https://challengergold.com/corporate/directors-and-management/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Writeup by an organisation he's a part of.
https://resourcesreview.com.au/projects/challenger-gold-unlocks-significant-potential-at-hualilan-project/ is a non-sequitur.
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/CHALLENGER-GOLD-LIMITED-13430353/news/Challenger-Exploration-Announces-the-Appointment-of-Pini-Althaus-as-Non-Executive-Director-42928286/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Press release from his company.
https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20230329/pdf/45n49jlm02grm1.pdf is useless for notability (wrong subject/connexion to subject). The only thing keeping this from being a non-sequitur is Althaus' name in the footer on every single page of the PDF. Same applies to https://www.investi.com.au/api/announcements/cel/12fb69a7-8bc.pdf
https://stockhead.com.au/resources/argentina-a-growing-force-in-copper-supply/ is a non-sequitur.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6257189346001 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview.
https://app.glueup.com/event/u-s-delegation-to-the-future-minerals-forum-2024-90421/ is useless for notability (too sparse). As a note, you cannot use announcements of upcoming events to cite that someone has actually attended that event; any number of things could cause a no-show (checking into rehab, brown M&Ms in the candy bowl, a plane crash, committing pater familicide).
https://ussaudi.org/cove-capitals-strategic-investments-supplying-critical-minerals-for-saudi-arabias-vision-2030-goals/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview.

Nothing here is remotely usable as a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tappin

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the talkpage of this article there are lot of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS ^💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.

The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.

Apart from those, I also see WP:SIGCOV in this, a South China Morning Post article.

I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Soto

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this previously unreferenced article about an artist, and added two references. I cannot see significant coverage of him, however, and do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. His own website is down. Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV and sections are unsourced. Xegma(talk) 17:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This largely unsourced, semi-promotional article on an artist does not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. He is a prolific artist, and probably a great teacher, but he is not Wiki-notable per WP criteria. It seems to be either an autobiography or edited by SPAs and IP-hoppers very close to the artist as the majority of the article claims are unsourced and a BEFORE search does not reveal sources that back up the content. Netherzone (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milind Godbole

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

Non-notable CEO of a company, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV,sources are just passing mentions of the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eulogio Tibay

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

Stub bio of an inventor sourced only to a patent. I don’t find any in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, just Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GNews, GSearch and GBook searches didn't turn up any reliable references. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Flame

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has been created and deleted twice before. Orange sticker (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamilu Ja'afaru

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

As far as I can tell, this is a minor government official. The only sources with significant coverage I could find online were written by the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried to see if I can find sources but I couldn’t find something substantial. Subject does not meet the general notability criteria or any subject-specific notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans 10:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Wilson (born 1861)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per WP:ATD to Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mir Ali Imam Al Mamun

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

The cited sources are: (1) an anonymously self-published local history page which says its source is the Bengali Wikipedia article [1] (which in its present form supports little of the promotional content here), so it is WP:CIRCULAR in addition to all of its other problems; and (2) a user-generated "royalty" website described by other editors at RSN as "cruft", a "fan site", and "clearly unreliable".

Online and offline searches in English and Bengali found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. This retired Lt. Col. does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The article serves as nothing but an attractive nuisance for those who add unsourced content. Worldbruce (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Worldbruce (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an interesting read but completely unsourced and unverifiable. I tried to find a single RS but failed.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Gosh

AfDs for this article:

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

The article on Omar Gosh should be considered for deletion as it appears to fall short of Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies of living persons. While Omar Gosh is recognized as a YouTube personality, the article lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that provide in-depth analysis beyond passing mentions. The content primarily relies on self-published or primary sources, which do not adequately establish the subject's notability as required by Wikipedia's guidelines. Given the insufficient evidence of widespread recognition or influence, the article does not meet the criteria for a standalone entry and should be considered for deletion. Mjbmr (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, United States of America, and Florida. Mjbmr (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the last AfD had three sources listed as significant, but they seem to be local in nature and more like human interest stories than anything extensive, I don't consider them terribly helpful. I can't find anything since these were published, so I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Arthur Dodwell

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a British man who was a senior police officer in India, and done what I can to improve the article. Sourcing is very poor, however - two brief mentions and a family announcement of his death. I think this passing mention of a Ted Dodwell is probably also him, but it doesn't give any further information to add to the article. I don't think he is notable under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, India, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with verification issues and generally entries. No significant coverage on the subject and I cannot find the subject to be notable who was worthy of notice to warrant a page on. Fails WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HG2 Filmworks (director)

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

The bunch of sources just made it look like they are significant if they weren’t checked on. Also what made it up to 45 source was the musical videos published on mere blogs mentioning him as the director and nothing more like he has contributed on a notable project was being discussed on the blogs. Which already fails WP:GNG. Was in surprise how the article was created by a different person from draft & move by another different person who is already blocked of a sock. But that’s by the way as the main subject is to be focused on. Gabriel (……?) 16:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Nigeria, and United States of America. Gabriel (……?) 16:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Canady

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

Article about a non-notable business executive. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Sources are routine announcements and press releases. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Gurley

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

The article on Dawson Gurley should be considered for deletion as it appears to lack notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. The subject, while known as a YouTube personality, does not meet the criteria for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial analysis beyond trivial mentions. Much of the content is based on self-published sources or primary sources, which do not establish the depth of notability required for a standalone Wikipedia article. Without significant coverage from independent, reputable sources, the article does not meet the standards for inclusion and should be deleted. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, Arizona, and Internet. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This is decent [2]. The rest are about an impersonator of his that was banned from an arena [3], [4]. Having an "impostor" pretend to be you with coverage in the Washington Post and Huff Post implies you are notable? I'd argue yes. I mean, there are no Oaktree_b impersonators, but this person seems to have several mentions of them in RS, so he's famously famous. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning if you're famous enough to have people imitate/pretend to be you in order to get stuff, I'd say you're notable enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Nelson

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasdeep Singh Gill

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

Falls under WP:BLP1E, as the subject is notable for only one event. Also, all four sources appear to be part of a press release, as they were all published on the same date, 2 September 2024, mostly by news desks with similar content. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable for only one event as suggested by almost all of the third party reliable sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is not notable and the sources are about his appointment. The subject has not made a significant impact or achievement worthy of notice to be warranted a page on. Fails WP:NBIO and per nom WP:BLP1E. RangersRus (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Anson

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

Redirect to The Amityville Horror. I did WP:BEFORE and there are a lot of reviews of The Amityville Horror and notices about his death. I wasn't able to find anything else about him outside of those two events. I checked Archive.org and Google but nothing was jumping out at me. Since I nominated this article if anyone finds some sources please ping me so I can add them to the article and I'll withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect. He's not independently notable. As far as I've seen, coverage is always about the book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Jay Anson published only two books, one of them started a major horror phenomenon. As for his own notability, he had an obituary in The New York Times (link), was the subject of a 1978 profile in the NYT (link), is the focus of this 1979 profile in Writers Digest (link), has entries in books such as Hooked on Horror by Anthony J. Fonseca, and is listed in the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia as one of the authors who helped start the emergence of a new type of horror in the late 20th century (link can be found through Wikipedia Library). And I'm still finding new articles through my research (note: it's easy to miss these articles about Anson b/c they were published in the late 1970s and early '80s). Add in the large number of reviews in a number of publications for Anson's two books and he easily meets WP:Author. Yes, the article needs major work but the proof of notability is there.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found additional obituaries of Anson in the LA Times, The Times of London, and the Washington Post. I've also found a 1978 article in People magazine that goes into details of Anson's life while covering the lawsuits and questions over the book, a "Milestones" mention of Anson's death in Time magazine on 3/24/1980, a short obituary in Starburst Magazine, and the same in The American Annual: 1981. Finally and most significantly, he has a detailed entry in The Contemporary Authors New Revision Series (volume 29, 1990, page 19). I know User:Dr_vulpes said to ping if citations were found, but since the citations are unavailable without the correct subscriptions I'd be happy to add them to the article in the coming days if needed.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet yeah, I was able to find the obituaries which were pretty well done and in-depth. Glad you found the People magazine article! I guess Archive.org doesn't have it or I might have missed it. Just ping me when you've got them in there or if I can access them just point me at them and I'll go ahead and load them in. Then I'll pull the nom. Always makes me glad when people can find sources, it's really frustrating knowing that there's stuff out there that I can't easily access. Thanks @SouthernNights! Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

César Grajales (political commentator)

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

A lot of paid coverage; I don't think there is any in-depth coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG. StrongDeterrence (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Politics, Colombia, Florida, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, else Delete seems to be created by a WP:SPA and should go through the AfC process before being created. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dorr

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions and snippets. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Chao

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Taiwan. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ting Tsung Chao (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Albert Chao (traditional Chinese: 趙元德; simplified Chinese: 赵元德) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dorell Anthony

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

Contested PROD, article about a non-notable actor and filmmaker. Don't it satisfies criteria for WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG, possible WP:COI. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much of anything for coverage, one article confirming the person joined Days of our Lives [5], but that's not enough for build an article or to prove notability. What's used now in the article isn't helpful, imdb and a local newspaper. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:CREATIVE with at least one very notable production to which his contribution was essential. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is the one good article but in a local paper. He did apparently write and produce a series (Pride: The Series), but that article has even fewer references so I suspect it won't be deemed notable. Even checking the fan sites and IMDB there isn't much (if any) engagement. Other than that he has had what seem to be minor roles in various soap operas and not terribly visible TV series. Lamona (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Neves (poker player)

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

Non-notable person, lacking WP:SIGCOV outside specialist poker websites. Does not appear to have won any notable, major tournaments. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Funaro (poker player)

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

Non-notable person, lacking WP:SIGCOV outside specialist poker websites. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Park (poker player)

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

Non-notable person, no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverages added. Need to add more sources. Xegma(talk) 17:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added + revised. PsychoticIncall (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William Lascelles

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This was despite a previous AfD which resulted in no additional sourcing being located. Roughly half of the article focuses on talking about his family. The previous AfD had discussion of WP:ANYBIO, which despite incorrect statements to the contrary, makes clear that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." ANYBIO does not eliminate the secondary source test. The lack of reliable secondary sources is also an issue per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping previous participants Sandstein, Necrothesp, Mztourist. AusLondonder (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still fails WP:GNG. All refs just confirm his existence and that of his family members. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons expressed in my first AfD nomination: "His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability. Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability. The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest." Sandstein 06:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To largely repeat my comment in the previous AfD: The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1, as we have rarely deleted anyone who was knighted for obvious reasons (in fact, we have only ever deleted one person knighted in modern times). Knighthoods are very high honours: they are not given out in cereal packets and they are given to people who are already notable (which is why they're knighted). This deletionism is frankly getting silly. How can a person who receives such a high honour from a non-tinpot country possibly not be considered to be notable per WP:COMMONSENSE? Added to which, the previous AfD was only two months ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply does not meet GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources in the article (and all but one that I could find) are primary sources, so this ends up being original research. In addition, these sources aren't "thoughtful" - they just state that so-and-so held such-and-such post. I didn't find anything substantial in those sources, they are basically "name checks". After searching I found one mention of him in a [6] book about WWI, but that was the only secondary source I could find, and it was only one sentence. Lamona (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV and not quite high enough offices or honors to be automatically notable for WP:NPOL. Even random strangers who I encountered on social media think that I’m a royalist, and I usually support retention of articles about royals, but this person doesn’t quite make it. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Haslam (game designer)

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

Nothing notable about this individual (at least according to this article) Theknine2 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SimCity 2000#Development, which has the most information out of his associated works. Couldn't find so much as an interview. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've only found Kotaku briefly mentioning the individual, but no sources that would demonstrate that the person meets the WP:GNG criteria. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Auti

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

The sources are of mixed quality, a few don't even mention the subject, and the ones that do only mention his existence, frequently in a list. Little of the actual content even matches the claimed source, and it may be promotional given the username of the creator (speedy deletion tags were already removed once). Searching myself, I see little-to-nothing that could establish notability, and the article is so poorly written that there's nothing here that could be kept in a longshot attempt to build an article. The creator had already been told of the myriad issues at AFC. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not sure why my CSD nomination got removed. This page was previously deleted. And also, the talk page is a mess. Limmidy (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be speedily deleted. It was the article creator who removed the speedy deletion template. --bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Xegma(talk) 19:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there adding some reliable sources in this page. Can you check it. I think it should be ok to keep page Wp.ramesh wiki (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to draftify. Note that the article creator moved the article to draftapace, removed the AfD notice, and c&p recreates the article without the afd template. --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not a vote (since my opinion can be inferred from the initial entry), none of the sources added provide even a spec of notability, and they're mostly YouTube videos. Frankly, this is in WP:SALT territory. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wp.Ramesh Auti. Might be a candidate for G5 speedy deletion as well.--bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there adding some reliable sources in this page. Can you check it. I think it should be ok to keep page. Wp.ramesh wiki (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the new sources is reliable, independent, or in any way useful as a source. Here's an overview of the sources in the current version of the article:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Bonadea
https://nettv4u.com/celebrity/bhojpuri/editor/ramesh-auti	blatant promotion	nettv4u.com is generally unreliable, see WP:ICTFSOURCES	very brief	✘ No
http://www.bhojpurifilmiduniya.com/2016/07/ek-rajai-teen-lugai.html	?	Claims to be a blog, clearly a content scraper	No information about Auti, just mentions his name in a cast list	✘ No
https://www.marathifilmdata.com/chitrapat/katibandha/	?	? A database of Marathi films, no information about publisher	No information about Auti, just mentions his name in a staff list	✘ No
https://siraj7.rssing.com/chan-29175398/all_p17.html	?	Self-published source (blog)	Auti's name is mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPCNQTNAc8Y	A film uploaded to Youtube, used as a source for the fact that Auti worked on it	The film itself	No information about Auti	✘ No
https://cityliveindia.com/city/dhanbad/Article?CL=Harshita-Ojha-will-be-seen-soon-in-a-short-film-Sachet-959055	Press release	Promotion piece	Auti is not even mentioned!	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xLrlKU60rQ	A film uploaded to Youtube, used as a source for the fact that Auti worked on it	The film itself	No information about Auti	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7ksqg94Me0	A film uploaded to Youtube, used as a source for the fact that Auti worked on it	The film itself	No information about Auti	✘ No
https://www.magzmumbai.com/web-series-hidden-on-ping-pong-ott-platform-from-16th-july/	Press release	Promotional blurb	No mention of Auti	✘ No
https://glamgold.com/ping-pong-otts-web-series-hidden-poster-launched/	Churnalism based on the same press release as the previous source	Promotional piece	No mention of Auti in this version either	✘ 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}}.

Exactly zero reliable sources, and none of them has any information about Auti whatsoever. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bonadea's source analysis; no sign of notability of any flavour. (No objection to speedying, if preferred.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wp.ramesh wiki is now indefinitely blocked for persistent disruptive editing. ----Kinu ^t/_c 18:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Ahmed

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:BIO Loewstisch (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xegma(talk) 13:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the page. I've added multiple additional sources from reputable media sources to reach basic criteria of notability. Is there any additional feedback you can provide on why you think this should be deleted?

I believe this flag for deletion should be removed as the page meets the WP:BIO standards. Ahmed has been "subject to significant press coverage and has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." His contributions to the large fitness wearable sector are notable, given that he created novel wearable technology and founded an accompanying wearable company that has become the most valuable standalone wearables company. He also makes notable comments about the industry frequency (including some of his controversial comments on Amazon/Alexa, which the wiki page cites). The world's most followed person (Cristiano Ronaldo) wears the his technology, as well as Virat Kohli (the most followed Indian individual on Instagram). This page on Ahmed will help provide the Wikipedia viewers context on Ahmed. Thanks for considering. Wghgljsj (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bolding my perspective per the above in line with AfD process. Thanks. Wghgljsj (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many reliable sources and significant coverage of the subject have been added since the nomination, so it should now be kept. --美しい歌 (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Rahm (scientist)

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

The article doesn't show notability. fails GNG. ANTCrowd439 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and United States of America. ANTCrowd439 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only RS source I find talking about her is from CBS42 Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her bestseller is self-published, and I cannot find any significant reviews that verify the claim that it is a best seller. Fails notability as an academic and author, and some of the claims are peacock. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article doesn't include any reliable secondary sources. Four of the references are for International Science Nutrition Society, of which the subject is the founder. Potential RS sources I found include an article from May 5, 2024 about one of her books in the Idaho Statesman (via Newspapers.com - also published in other newspapers around the country) and a passing mention for sponsoring a documentary that won award at NYC film festival. There may be potential for an article but for now does not pass WP:GNG. Also needs to be written in WP:NPOV. Nnev66 (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Idaho Statesman article I mentioned above is about the subject's book Be Your Own Inspiration in the Cure the Causes series and is written by an author from BookTrib.com, which appears to be a site that helps promote books so that source wouldn't count towards notability. Nnev66 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Please see that there are zero reliable sources about this person, and thus rates a very rare speedy from me. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Smail

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

Articles for the New York Times makes no mention of the subject, most of the other sources are merely passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed New York Times article, added further sources to add to proof of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV (The Times, BBC Radio 4) AscanioB (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

further mentions from Tatler and The Standard have been included. AscanioB (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not found enough info about him for a biographical article. He is named in articles about his works, and in some of those the main emphasis is on his wife's story. We need at least two sources that are about him, not simply naming him. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
added his 2013 interview with Gramophone and parts of his biography from Universal Edition AscanioB (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Spitale

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

Fails WP:BLP1E for only being known for winning a poker contest, which is the only content in this article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 06:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable person, lacking WP:SIGCOV outside specialist poker websites. Also tagging other articles/unlikely redirects created by the same user, for the same reason. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should now be less confusing and also with more logical highlight on the fact that the tournament in itself should render notability as it's the second largest tourny at the World Series of Poker. Maybe it could be recreated with the tournament as the main article with the winner (Spitale) being just a subsection. PsychoticIncall (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the latter, especially considering WP:BLP1E, so probably merging. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 15:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:REFBOMB doesn't help matters and this draft doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. A recurring character in a film doesn't sometimes show notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: at least 2 significant roles in notable productions so that deletion is not necessary in my opinion. Trimming of references is a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What roles? It is absolutely not close to meeting WP:NACTOR since there isn't any significant coverage about this person. If you really think trimming is the problem, then do it, because I see non notability and less clean up issue. We are arguing about meeting our general notability guidelines and how the content matches with the sources. Additionally, having two significant roles isn't the problem because it's less of WP:NACTOR, which is a ~~an essay~~ guide to help us in knowing how possible can a person be notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an essay it's a policy guideline as it states at top of the page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable person, yes it's need to cleanup references. Xegma(talk) 17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Eid

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Music, and Egypt. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some articles about him. One at Billboard, 01/9/2024 - From The Rolling Stones to ‘RIVO’: Amir Eid on the Intersection Between Acting and Music - By Mayya Al Ogail, and then there's Cairo Scene, Jul 18, 2024 - Cairokee Lead Singer Amir Eid Releases First Chapter of Solo EP ‘Roxi’ and Ahram Online , Saturday 3 Aug 2024 - Cairokee Amir Eid debut solo EP Roxi featured in Times Square billboard to mention a few. I'm satisfied it meets the requirements. in saying that, the page needs a whole lot of work. I can see why it attracted a deletion nomination. It seems it was hastily put together. If people put work into it, it will turn out to be a worthwhile article. Karl Twist (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you cited, from Billboard, appears to be an interview. The second is from n unreliable source, Cairo Scene, and it's a music release announcement, which we often count as PR. Source 3 is good. All I can see in the article is about the band, and if possible, should be merged and redirected to the band's article Cairokee. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott (video game developer)

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

The sources provided are WP:PASSINGMENTION quick google search reveals no info about him entirely which make this article fails WP:NBIO Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he is not like giving interviews. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zean Leonardi

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

fails WP:SPORTCRIT the source provided is a database. The only source that pop up in google news is the this by Times of Malta Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Malta. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant news coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to add more references but couldn't find any. I feel a little heartbroken about this, and wish for this article to stay up, but honestly I don't know what I can do to add more references. If you could pls edit the page with more references to help. I just want to make the Maltese people more recognizable in Wikipedia.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GabrylMT^{(Talk to Gabryl)} 14:45, 1 September 2024 (CEST)

If there aren't any more references out there then it's safe to say that Leonardi isn't notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also another thing that makes me MORE heartbroken about this situation is that an article like Dexter Xuereb is allowed and mine is NOT. WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY ARTICLE!?. Just wanted to make footballers more recognizable :(
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GabrylMT^{(Talk to Gabryl)} 14:52, 1 September 2024 (CEST)
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Please ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maximum sections are unsourced. Xegma(talk) 17:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shearman

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

Proposed deletion tag removed on the basis of "several sources" being present. This consists of two primary sources from the British government, an entry in the unreliable Who's Who, the subjects Twitter page and a brief mention of his appointments in a list of British diplomats. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Uganda, and Belgium. AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 of the 3 provided sources are primary. Could not find significant third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of the CVO, a high honour which has generally been considered notable per WP:ANYBIO. They're not handed out in cereal packets. A handful are awarded every year. Confirmation that he was appointed CVO in 2003. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO provides a "likely" indication of notability provided sufficient in-depth secondary sources are available. As made clear, with regards to WP:ANYBIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not exempt a subject from the sourcing test. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also taking a look at your own chart, of the last five AfDs, just one had a clear "keep" result. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is? As far as I'm concerned it's clear WP:COMMONSENSE that anyone considered notable enough by the British Government to receive a high honour (one to two hundred every year in a country of 67 million) should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. They're not selected at random. They're selected because they're already notable. That's the point of ANYBIO #1, to catch people who are clearly notable but not widely covered in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The government honouring a government official is hardly a compelling indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. He's not a historic figure. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (my mistake in this instance), the government didn't. The Royal Victorian Order is in the gift of the sovereign, not the government. The vast majority of government officials do not receive high honours; only a small minority. So yes, it's still a good indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. I'm sure you're very well aware that that's not really the case. The media generally has little interest in diplomats. Once again, that's largely the point of ANYBIO #1. It balances out people who are notable in real if not especially sexy jobs against media obsession with pop cultural figures. If clauses like this didn't exist then Wikipedia would become ever more focused on pop culture and even less on being a proper encyclopaedia. It's heading in that direction now, sadly, and nominations like this just speed up the rot. He's not a historic figure is a meaningless statement, especially given he's still alive. What does that mean? I assume it simply means you don't think he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean he's not a historic figure for whom it is difficult to locate sources. It is quite common for British diplomats to receive honours. I don't think it gives them all a free pass from WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only a small minority of diplomats receive high honours (i.e. CBE and above), especially in the modern day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to have a look at some British ambassadors to see whether this is accurate. Surprise, surprise, it wasn't. Menna Rawlings, ambassador to France, DCMG CVO. Karen Pierce, ambassador to the US, DCMG. Nigel Casey, ambassador to Russia, CMG MVO. Julia Longbottom, ambassador to Japan, CMG. Jill Gallard, ambassador to Germany, CMG CVO. Martin Harris, ambassador to Ukraine, OBE CMG. Alex Ellis, ambassador to Spain, KCMG. Notice a peculiar pattern here? A walled garden of articles, some with zero secondary sources (completely unacceptable for a BLP), of British diplomats awarded honours by their employer. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Sherriff

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable and must meet WP:BASIC, namely having received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The subject lacks such coverage. Two sources are currently present, one which is a primary source and another which is a very brief and routine piece about her appointment. AusLondonder (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Belgium, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. A search for sources in Google news yields just 1 hit. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination, lacks notability and WP:RS citations and media coverage. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Richard Jones (British diplomat)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus, but should have closed as delete given AfD is not a simple headcount, with strength of argument supposed to account for something. Two editors favoured deleting, and two favoured keeping (including the creator, who cited the unreliable Who's Who as a keep rationale). Source analysis in previous AfD established Jones lacks significant coverage specifically about him in multiple published secondary sources and therefore fails WP:BASIC. The current article has not been improved since last AfD and instead still consists of three sources which do not contribute to notability. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and do not get a free pass from notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this which doesn't look too bad but I don't really know how it works for ambassadors. There may be more but I am unsure what exactly counts for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this. Still not done searching but there isn't nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are good as well. This is also a bit helpful but not as much. I was able to find this from just Switzerland and I didn't even try to search for the other places. Again, not very experienced with ambassadors, but I think this is GNG now, especially with the the Le Temps source which is the Romandy's newspaper of record. So keep.

@CFA Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks good to me. Thanks for finding those. Keep. C F A 💬 17:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank only Switzerland's inexplicably well digitized press. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source above is good, but I couldn't find anything else. Ambassadors have to meet WP:NBASIC like everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if more coverage exists ~~but I'm inclined to delete unless some is found.~~ C F A 💬 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the coverage found provides enough coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 13:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair King-Smith

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All three sources are primary and do not contribute to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Albania, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. An article can't be based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

David Van Bik

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

A (very interesting) article about a Bible translator that unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The two main sources for the article are both WP:SPS and thus prima facie unreliable. One is a collection of remembrances by Van Bik's friend; the other is a self-published (Xulon Press) book by a close friend of Van Bik and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else of use. Don't see a valid redirect target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bible, Christianity, and Myanmar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a bit of a stretch, but per ANYBIO #2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, I'm seeing him referenced briefly in the academic missiological literature as a translator:
"This was followed by David Van Bik and Robert G. Johnson’s translation of the Old Testament, published by United Bible Society through BSI in 1978" in Haokip, D.L. (2020). "Bible Translation in Kuki-Chin of Indo-Myanmar and Bangladesh: A Historical Analysis." In: Behera, M. (eds) Tribal Studies in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9026-6_7

"More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward." in Mang, P. Z. (2023). Chin Diaspora Christianity in the United States. Theology Today, 80(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405736231172682 Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems like a stretch... there are a lot of people who work as Bible translators in the world's many languages, and I don't know that these brief references constitute a "widely recognized contribution." The second reference claims him to be "well known" but the rest of the sourcing doesn't validate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking a cursory look at the article, the source formatting is impressive and I initially believed that the subject was undoubtedly noteworthy. But looking at a sources a bit more reveals how narrow and superficial they are. The article's sources all come from just one book. Looking just at the PDF of the book reveals some serious problems (besides the fact that it is written in, yes, Comic Sans). First of all, the book seems to be self-published, which immediately excludes it as a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. The article also takes some of the exaggerated claims in the book as fact when it should not. Looking at [7] it looks like a WP:BLOG. It goes without saying that the article is sort of a mess, and its sources are no different. The subject fails the widespread, independent secondary sources usually required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sources all come from just one book is not a correct statement. The majority of the sources do, including quoting separate chapter authors so it seems more diverse than it is, but not all sources come from that book. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--> Correction: yes, I meant to say most sources, rather than all. GuardianH (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: [8], [9] are some of the better sources. He's mentioned quite a few times in Baptist media in Gbooks. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, that "On the Road Back to Mandalay" source you link is discussed in my nomination; it's a WP:SPS from a close friend of Van Bik and thus neither reliable nor independent. The Theology Today source is a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION. (This is the only sentence that mentions him: "More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward.") The Wisconsin Baptist source appears to a similarly trivial mention. I still don't think we have WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Mehta

AfDs for this article:

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

As prophesied, this page is immediately back after soft deletion. This biography of an Indian civil servant fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. There is no WP:SIGCOV of the individual in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sourcing is limited to WP:ROUTINE coverage and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that refer to him in the context of his former role while covering other subjects. (For example, the awards he is purported to have received were granted to the Jammu and Kashmir government and accepted by Mehta on its behalf.) There is no other WP:SIGCOV in sources considered reliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there are two questions here:Notability and Coverage.

I don't WP:NPOL is the standard here. He is a civil servant, neither a person who was voted into the position not a Judge. However, his position in the Order of precedence in India is above certain individuals that would qualify. I think in terms of notability, the closest equivalent would be people who are Secretary of State for a given US State, such as those in where Wikipedia has quite a few. (Yes, I know the Americans are (US State) Cabinet positions, but this seems to be close to the same and equally doesn't seem covered by WP:NPOL.
Coverage There isn't any doubt that he holds the position, the question is whether the first two references which show that he *had* the position are enough to show general notability. So at this point, and I'll hopefully come back after others have commented, I'm a Week Keep.

Delete: Chief secretary and other non-notable positions, simply a high civil servant, but nothing to distinguish them from the other thousands like them... The award doesn't appear notable. I'd also SALT. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the description of " top-most executive official and senior-most civil servant " at Chief secretary (India), I don't think "simply a high civil servant" applies.Naraht (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the description makes him sound even less important than a highly placed functionary. Even less notability attached to the positions held then, thank you for the correction. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Most sources on the page are poor, unreliable and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I cannot find subject's work as IPS, Chief secretary and as politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is neither a politician nor in Indian police service. Please refer to the sources again as they are reputed and well established publications. The subject is also part of several other pages on wikipedia. The Pavan putra (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Khoury Sleman

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bishops of major denominations have generally been considered to be notable. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Catholic Bishop, but better sourcing is certainly desirable. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As WP:OUTCOMES states: "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else." So even though clergy are considered notable, there still have to be sources for all of the info in the article. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact he is a bishop is wholly verifiable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is questioning whether he is a bishop. The question is whether there are sources that support any more than that one fact. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That fact is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove all of the unverified information in the article, we are left with one line: "On 14 March 2015 Elias Slaiman resigned his office as Maronite Eparch of Latakia." The rest is unverified. The one source gives dates, such as the date he was ordained, but says nothing about the pope assigning him to Latakia, nothing about anything in the second paragraph. Following WP:BLP all of that must be removed unless sources can be found. I've marked those paragraphs accordingly. Lamona (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Knox

AfDs for this article:

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

This DJ/TV host fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. All sources are primary-source official bios or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in other coverage. No WP:SIGCOV appears to be available. (NB: It is listed as a second nomination, but the first nomination's article was likely about a different Jay Knox.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very easy call. Not notable in any way and clearly fails WP:GNG criterion. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Akinloye

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

Fails WP:GNG or any SNG, the sources are not speaking for the subject in question. Largely lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Leaning weak keep, because there are sources that point to significant coverage about him. I am just that not sure if there is consensus (doesn't seem like it on archived RS feed) that conclude tribuneonlineng.com or guardian.ng to be generally unreliable. Those two plus a couple of paragraphs on thenationonlineng.net, make up reason to pass WP:SIGCOV and GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very much not notable, from the "30 under 30 list" to the typical puffy articles from Nigerian media, this individual isn't suitable for wikipedia. I'm not finding any suitable sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Awatramani

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NPERSON. The article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news and lacks significant independent sources that demonstrate sustained coverage or impact. Furthermore, the subject's primary notability appears to be tied to associations with celebrities, rather than achievements that would warrant a standalone article. Also the article has been deleted before. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 10:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources with significant coverage of the subject; BBC Marathi and the South China Morning Post are particularly promising. Clearly passes WP:GNG, GNG requires significant coverage of the subject, and these two coverages are not trival at all. And if I talke about the earlier AfD, it was just soft deleted means that was a PROD. GrabUp - Talk 11:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add a few more points. First of all, this AfD does not fulfill WP:AFDHOWTO, as the nominator did not notify the author. Secondly, I want to counter the nominator’s claim that ‘the article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news.’ My response to this is, that a person related to finance or business will naturally not receive news coverage from entertainment sources, similarly this person will not get coverage from finance-related articles. It is perfectly normal for someone to receive coverage within their relevant niche. The important factor is whether the sources meet the criteria of WP:SIGCOV, which I believe is clearly satisfied in this case. GrabUp - Talk 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for forgetting to notify the author, it slipped my mind. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 12:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M S Hassan: You again forgot to add '(2nd nomination)' while linking to the discussion on the author's talk page, You linked to the first AfD of this article. I recommend using WP:TWINKLE to nominate any articles in the future, as it will automate everything. GrabUp - Talk 12:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree, why it's kept for deletion, without any valid reason. @M S Hassan kindly confirm before any deletion. Muffeda (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Orhan Awatramani is a notable public figure with significant media coverage in reputable sources. He has a strong social media presence and cultural influence, particularly within certain communities. The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, supported by reliable, independent sources. Vakanada Putin (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC) - blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : it's an notable person. Muffeda (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muffeda: What made you come here? Your first edit was to vote here! Did someone ask you to vote? New editors typically don’t vote in AfD unless they are specifically told to. GrabUp - Talk 05:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC) - blocked sock[reply]

Comment: (note to Admin) The article author Vakanada Putin and Muffeda are both blocked for sockpuppetry. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some participation from non-sockpuppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's obviously some sort of nonsense going on here, but the subject is clearly notable. Even ignoring all publications that could possibly be construed as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, there is still enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG (see GrabUp's comment above). The refbombing and blatant promotion needs to be cleaned up, though. C F A 💬 03:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The BBC and the South China Post seal the notability deal, the coverage from Indian media is helpful, but these show critical notice outside of their local area, which is more than enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suborno Isaac Bari

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

An article on the same person was previously deleted (twice) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soborno Isaac Bari (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soborno Isaac Bari. It is now four years later and he has been admitted to college but he has still not reached the level of adult notability for his achievements in math or physics. (See WP:PRODIGY.) CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thank you for including the previous AFD nominations in your statement. Since the subject has already been to AFD before, Soft Deletion is not an option here. However, I think the sources have improved a lot since those 2020 AFDs so a source review would be helpful rather than just rubber-stamping the closure of the previous AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree with the advice in the essay linked in the nomination. If we're going to write about kids, we need to be careful. Relevant to the present case are the admonishments, Students are not notable prodigies for their performance as students, no matter how advanced they are in their work, and Prodigious children who demonstrate skill in mathematics or science are expected to have published works on a par with their notable adult academic peers. Another pertinent concern is the general idea of not having a whole article about a person only known for one thing. Only one event has been covered with any degree of reliability, namely his admission into NYU, and that's being very generous to the silly season reporting. On the whole, I'm just not seeing a notability case that is strong enough to outweigh the concerns here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [11]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, ProudWatermelon, are you ignoring my advice or making a joke? Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess rewriting the same argument as more value, sure ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Sigh" was just unnecessarily rude and provocative ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Raj

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

Apart from the obvious undisclosed paid editing by Pinknetwork123, a fairly new account with 20 edits, comes up with a 20000 bytes draft. It was quickly accepted by a reviewer who I believe did not properly evaluate it. At this point, the article was majorly based on primary sources. Interviews, commentaries, and his opinion pieces do not contribute towards GNG. I believe the rest are paid PR articles and there is no significant coverage of Prateek Raj in independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, Social science, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.

1. Edits are not at all paid. Sorry if they appear to be. Have edited Wikipedia in the past, but usually do without logging in.

2. Subject’s recently published paper got significant media coverage (mentioned in references), which triggered me, an acquaintance, to create the article including all of his previous media coverages.

3. Subject gained salience on D&I issues since activism on hate speech and LGBT issues.

4. Has significant social media following.

5. Have used credible third party sources for all information, from websites and reputed media houses that pass Wiki’s credibility check

6. I defer judgement to editor consensus, thanks. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw everyone’s attention to Wikietiquette Article for Deletion, WP:AFDEQ, especially on the fourth point “Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.” I would recommend editors to be unbalanced and take a constructive approach here, given that it concerns a living person.

First, the claim that the article has "obvious undisclosed paid editing" is not correct, as I have already explained before. Additionally, the assertion that he gives “interviews on paid promotional sources” is baseless. Which interviews specifically are paid? Those with The Times of India on hate speech, NDTV, Bloomberg, or discussions on caste and income in The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Telegraph, New Indian Express, or the op-eds on LGBT rights? Just a simple Google search shows that subject has several engagements. And his bio is openly available across academic space to help people create his profile.

It may be reasonable to debate the subject’s notability, it is inappropriate to dismiss their legitimate work as “paid” without evidence. I encourage editors to adhere to Wikietiquette WP:AFDEQ to remain impartial and decide constructively in this discussion. Thank you. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinknetwork123: What unsourced negative comments do you think have been made here? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Jlwoodwa for your comment. The comments made here on 1. “obvious” undisclosed paid editing 2. “paid PR articles” and 3. interviews on “paid promotional” sources, make unsourced negative claims about the subject and his work, which affects their reputation in this public space. This is not in line with Wikietiquette policy.

The article cites several reputed and credible secondary sources from the Indian media specifically covering the subject and his work. After this discussion, I agree there are some primary sources which can be removed, and the article can be modified to Wiki standards. The article has been put twice by two different editors in the mainspace.

I understand that editors can put any article to AfD, but I agree with Wikietiquette that AfD should not become a place for making unsubstantiated claims about the work of a living person. I’d welcome a more measured tone when dealing with living persons. Thank you! Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much a promotional article [12], so the statement stands. Others are items this person published under their own name, and are a primary source. No articles strictly about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a lot of the sources aren't at par with what I'd expect when looking for WP:BLPRS, I do believe there are atleast three reliable sources that satisfy the bar for notability:
- [13] is a article in The Hindu talks in detail about a paper the individual coauthored.
- [14] is another article in The Hindu that talks about a study he lead.
- [15] is another article in The Telegraph (India) that talks about research that he lead.
- [16] is another article in Indian Express that also talks about his research.

I think the fact that the findings in his research are being covered by newspapers of record and the fact that he holds the position of a assistant professor at IIM Bangalore would sufficiently qualify him to meet WP:NACADEMIC#7. Sohom (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. Many are passing mentions coming from a report released by the Indian Institute of Management. The Hindu article has no byline and the impact of the report is nowhere to be seen. The second Hindu article is authored by a freelance journalist and a study/ report done with 2 others. 3 has some interview bytes and 4 only mentions his name once.

The position of Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore doesn't carry much weight when evaluating for WP:NACADEMIC. I believe the extensive coverage about the latest report is only because it is related to Karnataka's govt, which i beleive only makes it as routine coverage.

I fail to see Prateek Raj's reports creating substantial impact in terms of citations or otherwise. AFAICS, they fail to meet all eight criterias listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira To clear one thing up, I did not imply that the position "Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore" carries much weight. What I implied was that given the fact that he is a professor, we should use the WP:NACADEMIC criteria to evaluate him instead of the more stringent WP:GNG criteria. Sohom (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both of you for your comments. The academic is known for 3 separate issues, reported in reputed and prominent media houses of India. I will highlight only media mentions that cover exclusively or prominently him.

1. for his recent paper on Dalit economy, where he has been interviewed in the Hindu, the Telegraph, the Indian Express, the New Indian Express, the Times of India. All these interviews are referenced in the article, like, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/dalit-business-owners-experience-income-gap-of-16-when-compared-to-other-disadvantaged-groups-finds-study/article68505789.ece

2. for his work on hate speech. He has a full interview with The Times India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/podcasts/the-times-of-india-podcast/how-hate-can-hurt-indias-economic-dreams/videoshow/102992737.cms. He also has a detailed interview with Indian Express and NDTV, and well as a full interview on history of media markets in Bloomberg.

3. for his advocacy of LGBT rights. His October 2023 OpEd in the Indian Express merits him a notable place in LGBT Academics category, which is underpopulated, and needs more biographies https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/sc-marriage-equality-judgment-8992557/.

Thanks to this review process, which is helpful as it helps identify what is noteworthy about the subject. The constructive way forward may be to trim the article with only the most noteworthy information. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources on the page are quite poor with some written by the subject himself and some others with passing mention and interviews on paid promotional sources. Some sources are also unreliable. The subject has not had a significant noteworthy impact through his profession and outside the profession nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Page also reads as resume. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some more opinions here. But, Pinknetwork123 know that interviews don't help establish notability. Their content can be used to verify article content but having the subject talk about themself and their work doesn't help demonstrate that the subject themself is notable (as Wikipedia judges notability).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz! Your input helped me assess the sources better. With AfC and AfD processes, the article has significantly improved with mostly credible secondary sources that meet WP:NACADEMIC#7 in my view (thanks for highlighting Sohom!). I focused on Wikipedia:BLPRS-compliant sources that aren't based on press releases, particularly relevant in the Indian context (Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA). Here are a few: The Telegraph, The Hindu, and Indian Express highlight the author’s work on caste; Economic Times and Mint cover his work on regional inequality. The one-to-one Times of India interview is as a notable hate speech activist, and his October 2023 Indian Express Op-Ed, though a primary source, is relevant for his role as an LGBT academic from Global South (an underrepresented group on Wikipedia, here). Pinknetwork123 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to pass academic notability with very few publications. Wonderful that they advocate for change, but just not enough non-puffy coverage to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are invariably not notable and this one is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The article has undergone a lot of revision since it was nominated. Here is the source assessment for the current version with 23 sources.
- Direct independent coverage from secondary sources for criteria WP:NACADEMIC#7 (reliable) 11 sources: 1 (Hindu), 2, 21, 22 (Indian Express), 6 (NDTV), 7, 20 (Times of India), 10, 11 (Telegraph India), 12 (New Indian Express), 23 (Bloomberg)
- Significant mention in independent coverage from secondary sources (reliable) 3 sources: 3 (Economic Times), 4 (The Mint), 20 (Outlook)
- Direct coverage from secondary sources but could be press release. (partially reliable) 2 sources: 13 (Times of India), 18 (Hindu)
- Primary sources (less reliable) 7 sources: 5 (Op-Ed by author - Indian Express), 8, 16 (Profile, Report - Chicago Booth), 9 (Paper by author - PLOS One), 14 (News - IIMB), 15 (News - King’s College), 17 (Report - US Congress)Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, criterium 7 of WP:NACADEMIC is clearly met with extensive and diverse media coverage in more than one occurrences. Meeting one of the criteria is enough for academic notability.

JamesKH76 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to mention the extensive and diverse media coverage that Prateek Raj has received for his substantial impact outside academia, apart from the promotional, Op-ed, routine coverage of reports presented to governments and interview sources. To be precise, please highlight his substantial impact . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Vada Vala

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

Simply fails WP:FILMMAKER. Sources are not helpful toward establishing notability on this subject, the ones from WP:BEFORE are not helpful either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR with at least 3 notable films directed (and WP:CREATIVE with 2 written). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. None of his work is widely cited and significantly well-known that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Only exception is film Samandar that has barely two reviews and I could not find any more. The subject has not won significant critical attention for his work. The sources on the pages lack significant coverage on the career of the subject and are more on actor'debut, title track, unveiling of teaser, claim of audience reaction, unreliable source like filmytown.com and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it needs more sources. Xegma(talk) 14:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

Academics and educators

Richard McDonald (academic)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. He worked for some important organizations in non-major roles. I see no sign of any influential scientific publication of his on a reputable journal, or any terminal degree for that matter. This looks more like a resume of a postgraduate student than anything else. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Religion, and United Kingdom. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can find evidence of cites or reviews. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
His publication is released in December, and so these are forthcoming JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creation of page was due to unusual and niche academic field of minority religions in prison, which is the topic of his first publication due for release in 2024. His terminal degree was completed at Birkbeck Dept. Of Psychosocial Studies but I can’t find a citation for this so I didn’t include. On the ‘non major roles point’ - understood, but he held the role ‘Head of Policy’ for HMPPS in 2023 which feels notable? Apols if I’ve made it sound like an advert JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for making this page. If I can make the case a bit more: is a nascent academic but in a niche and unusual field of writing about Norse paganism in prison which distinguishes his contribution and his first publication is a book chapter with Bloomsbury coming out in December.

He sits on various policy and governance boards for national organisations including charities (Traveller movement) and the Magistrate’s association. I know he sits on several more including the Uni of Sheffield but can’t cite this.

I don’t want it to read like an advert, just an encyclopaedia entry for a niche academic who works at the intersections of religion and penology. JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajit Prasad

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

Not a notable scholar. The news articles in which he speaks as an expert are not about himself, they only feature comments by him about medical topics. The papers in the list of "his most cited papers" are not all that well-cited and were all primarily directed by other scholars with some collaboration by him. The creation of this article could be explained by User_talk:M.parvage#Reblocked. Badbluebus (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Medicine, Asia, and Bangladesh. Badbluebus (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. low GS cites in a very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dallas Rossiter

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

A before search does not show anything significant for this article. Does not pass GNG or NHOCKEY. Kline • talk • contribs 00:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not passes WP:GNG and also lack of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 05:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with academics and educators. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: NN hockey player with an ephemeral career in the low minors, fails the GNG and any iteration of NHOCKEY by a country mile. User:Sorable, whose equally short editing career mostly involved reverted edits and one revdel, would be up for a trouting at least if they hadn't walked away nearly a year ago. Good catch by the nom. Ravenswing 06:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Flibirigit (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christiane Wolf

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

She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Health and fitness, Buddhism, and Germany. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is produced that her publications have received enough attention. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I think this article is produced to create attention. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Two of the references are podcasts by notable people (Dan Harris and Sharon Salzberg), there is a book review in Spirituality & Health and some coverage in a Taos News article.

Rezaul Kabir

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for Academicians WP:NACADEMICS. WP:NOTRESUME Charlie (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, and Management. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides summary information to a large audience (i.e., students, academics, scholars, journalists, policy makers) who are interested in academic work on several business related subjects / topics. The content of the article is credible as it includes references to published / verifiable / reliable sources. RRLV (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete at this stage, notability is not established although he has a decent amount of citations over the course of his career so one could argue for criterium one https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=c_EQTfoAAAAJ&hl=en

JamesKH76 (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acceptable citations in a high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Mohammed Tharwat Hassan

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

Associate Professor with an h-factor of 12 and no major awards. No evidence that he comes close to satisfying any of the WP:NPROF criteria. While notability was challenged in a tag by Kj cheetham in Feb 2022, it appears it was not followed up on. He has somehow slipped through the normal review process that would avoid non-notable academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not established. Criterium 1 is not let either as noted in the initial report (low h-index for a field that usually has very high ones due to collaboration)

JamesKH76 (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Prue Bishop

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

This semi-promotional biography of an artist who trademarked her technique for, "sculptural watercolors" does not seem to meet notability requirements for WP:GNG nor for WP:NARTIST. She did not invent sculptural watercolor, she only trademarked her own specific method. An online WP:BEFORE search only found primary sources, many links to her own website, a couple Wordpress blogs, social media and links to a few things she has written. Thinking she might qualify as a scholar/academic, I searched for her h-index on Google Scholar and Scopus (zero); she has written a few articles on the artist JMW Turner, but they don't seem to be cited frequently enough to meet ACADEMIC. The current article sourcing is either primary, or unverifiable (other than her own website and her trademark). Unfortunately, as much as I dislike seeing articles on women artists deleted, I'm bringing it here for the community to decide the outcome. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, Women, Visual arts, and United Kingdom. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article for Prudence Mary Bishop by this same editor was rejected at AfC in 2018 as not showing notability. This is a second try, but I do not find any sources about her except her own web site. Many of the sources cited here are not about her but link to organizations that are mentioned in the article. Lamona (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. She might be a wonderful person, a creative artist, and all that, but unless we can verify basic facts about her, there’s only original research. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Raj

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

Apart from the obvious undisclosed paid editing by Pinknetwork123, a fairly new account with 20 edits, comes up with a 20000 bytes draft. It was quickly accepted by a reviewer who I believe did not properly evaluate it. At this point, the article was majorly based on primary sources. Interviews, commentaries, and his opinion pieces do not contribute towards GNG. I believe the rest are paid PR articles and there is no significant coverage of Prateek Raj in independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, Social science, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.

1. Edits are not at all paid. Sorry if they appear to be. Have edited Wikipedia in the past, but usually do without logging in.

2. Subject’s recently published paper got significant media coverage (mentioned in references), which triggered me, an acquaintance, to create the article including all of his previous media coverages.

3. Subject gained salience on D&I issues since activism on hate speech and LGBT issues.

4. Has significant social media following.

5. Have used credible third party sources for all information, from websites and reputed media houses that pass Wiki’s credibility check

6. I defer judgement to editor consensus, thanks. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw everyone’s attention to Wikietiquette Article for Deletion, WP:AFDEQ, especially on the fourth point “Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.” I would recommend editors to be unbalanced and take a constructive approach here, given that it concerns a living person.

First, the claim that the article has "obvious undisclosed paid editing" is not correct, as I have already explained before. Additionally, the assertion that he gives “interviews on paid promotional sources” is baseless. Which interviews specifically are paid? Those with The Times of India on hate speech, NDTV, Bloomberg, or discussions on caste and income in The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Telegraph, New Indian Express, or the op-eds on LGBT rights? Just a simple Google search shows that subject has several engagements. And his bio is openly available across academic space to help people create his profile.

It may be reasonable to debate the subject’s notability, it is inappropriate to dismiss their legitimate work as “paid” without evidence. I encourage editors to adhere to Wikietiquette WP:AFDEQ to remain impartial and decide constructively in this discussion. Thank you. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinknetwork123: What unsourced negative comments do you think have been made here? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Jlwoodwa for your comment. The comments made here on 1. “obvious” undisclosed paid editing 2. “paid PR articles” and 3. interviews on “paid promotional” sources, make unsourced negative claims about the subject and his work, which affects their reputation in this public space. This is not in line with Wikietiquette policy.

The article cites several reputed and credible secondary sources from the Indian media specifically covering the subject and his work. After this discussion, I agree there are some primary sources which can be removed, and the article can be modified to Wiki standards. The article has been put twice by two different editors in the mainspace.

I understand that editors can put any article to AfD, but I agree with Wikietiquette that AfD should not become a place for making unsubstantiated claims about the work of a living person. I’d welcome a more measured tone when dealing with living persons. Thank you! Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much a promotional article [17], so the statement stands. Others are items this person published under their own name, and are a primary source. No articles strictly about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a lot of the sources aren't at par with what I'd expect when looking for WP:BLPRS, I do believe there are atleast three reliable sources that satisfy the bar for notability:
- [18] is a article in The Hindu talks in detail about a paper the individual coauthored.
- [19] is another article in The Hindu that talks about a study he lead.
- [20] is another article in The Telegraph (India) that talks about research that he lead.
- [21] is another article in Indian Express that also talks about his research.