Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:36, 27 June 2024

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was 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.

Closing as Soft Deletion as one participant is just "leaning towards Delete". I can also see this content being merged elsewhere should it be suitable for an article on public executions in the U.S. . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Hurt Hardy

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

Does not meet notability standards of WP:CRIME GuyBanks (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, History, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: I can only find pictures of this person and newspapers describing his trial and hanging from the time... I don't see much notability as there has been no discussion about this person since. Lack of sourcing other than news reports of the event don't help. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Slightly leaning towards Delete. As the person who updated this article (as it was only one sentence before my update), I don't want to take a strong opinion either way; I just want to contribute my two cents and any helpful background I know.

Checking the notability standards, the word "Generally" ("Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role") seems to offer quite a bit of leeway in terms of what can be included. There are quite a few crime articles throughout Wikipedia that I would say cover crimes/criminals that are even less historically significant than Hurt Hardy, yet those articles have not been questioned.

However, the article is an orphan, and I legitimately cannot think of a single article where it would be appropriate to link to Hurt Hardy. (The only one I might consider would be Rainey Bethea, as the ACTUAL final public execution in the U.S., because there could possibly be a mention on his page that Hurt Hardy's execution is sometimes erroneously given that title despite the fact that it isn't true. Even then, I really don't think Hurt Hardy is notable enough to warrant that.)

I did find one modern source discussing Hurt Hardy - https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article248407885.html (published January 11, 2021) – but one article isn't evidence of sustained coverage. Also, the article only briefly mentions him, and his mention is factually incorrect in several ways. Given the contextual text around that brief mention of Hurt Hardy, the article seems to be implying that Hardy was black, and there may have been an extrajudicial aspect to his public execution; however, Hardy was white, and his hanging was legal and carried out in private.

The relevant text is quoted here: "America’s history of public displays of racially-motivated mob violence is foundational going back to slavery, and public executions as a means of punishment happened well into the 1930s. One of the last public executions in the U.S. was on Missouri soil — the hanging of Hurt Hardy Jr. in 1937. Black people’s public hangings did not involve due process and were viewed as celebratory spectacles attended by thousands of white people, including public officials. People would advertise these “events,” sell food, print postcards of mutilated Black lynching victims, and take pieces of the victims’ bodies and clothing as souvenirs. When looking geographically at Missouri’s lynchings, we see that counties with historic racial terror lynchings are more likely to seek death sentences today."

I also found a 1947 magazine article discussing the murder he committed and his execution, but it is very sensationalized and reads like a detective magazine, and those are notorious for embellishing facts. Afddiary (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Ignacio Uría Mendizábal

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

Not a notable person. WP:BIO1E applies; the ordinary coverage of his death are the only sources. List of ETA attacks might be a redirect option. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spain. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete the death of a businessman is not notable in itself. — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete no assertion of notability outside a single event. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Right now, the only sources seem to be basic reports of his death. For a Wikipedia article, we'd need more substantial information about his impact and career. Waqar💬 15:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus of most participants is that this article subject is not notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Mario A. Guerra

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. No sufficient source to satisfy any application specific or general criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Cuba, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on significant reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantial article about their political impact. This, however, features virtually none of the type of content (significant things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, etc.) that we would need to see, and is instead devoted almost entirely to things he did before or after the mayoralty rather than anything he did in the mayoralty — and it's referenced predominantly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, while the few third-party footnotes come entirely from a weekly community hyperlocal rather than GNG-worthy media of record, and are mainly sourcing things like "former mayor has sports complex named after him" (which is not a notability criterion) and "former mayor pens open letter thanking the community" (which is really just another primary source, since he wrote it himself). This isn't what it takes to get a mayor over the wikibar. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: The subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG as these three sources have significant coverage and are independent as well, hence reliable:
[1]

[2]

[3].

He is a recipient of Romualdo Pacheco Award as well. [4] Macyramps (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I struggle to see any sourcing that points to the political impact of the subject, as Bearcat describes. The LA Times articles are a bit better, but one one of them is primarily about the subject, and even that article is just that he was selected to lead a regional association. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
"The association is made up of about 50 Southern California cities that run their own police and fire departments, hence the “independent” designation. Combined, they represent more than 7 million people." - it doesn't seem to be a regional association. Macyramps (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Non-notable local official. News coverage seems to be mostly passing mentions and WP:ROTM stories about his mayorship. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Small town mayor who didn't receive coverage for anything other than being a small town mayor. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment Excuse my naivety, but I believe the recent comments from fellow editors are not entirely accurate. The first comment suggests that the coverage is merely passing mention, yet there are several articles that provide significant coverage. The second comment labels him as just a small town mayor, but he holds other notable positions as well, such as President of the Independent Cities Association. He also ran for the state senate, won the Romualdo Pacheco Award, and serves as a Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army, a position that carries a three-star general protocol. I believe he meets the notability criteria. Maplelaple (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Maplelaple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
My comment referenced the fact that if he wasn't a mayor, which is usually the notability hook, he wouldn't otherwise be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[]

I understand, but the comments in this discussion seem contradictory. Some are saying there is no coverage about his mayoralty, while others claim the coverage is only about his mayoralty. Additionally, it is worth noting that he was the first refugee ever to be elected as Mayor of the City of Downey. I'm adding more sources below for further clarification:

Mayorship Coverage: [5], [6], [7] and [8]

Non-Mayorship Coverage:[9], [10], [11],[12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19] Maplelaple (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[]

I've taken a look, and the vast majority of those are simply local news coverage or are related to his political campaigns. I apologize, but I still don't see enough there to keep this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per tagging for WP:G4 -- article previously deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chioma Rowland ‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Chef Chioma

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Being a wife of a notable person doesn't mean the wife should be notable. No! It's WP:INHERITED. Besides, celebrities can be influential but not notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

del - thoroughly nonnotable. - Altenmann >talk 09:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: I've reviewed the article and understand the nominee's concerns. While Chef Chioma may be a notable figure in Nigeria, the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish their notability on a national or international level. The content is also quite brief and doesn't provide enough context or depth to meet Wikipedia's standards. Based on these factors, I support the deletion of the article. - 2RDD Talk🔊 10:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Non-notable individual. Article was previously deleted via an AFD discussion in May 2024. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Joseph Cloud

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

Biography of a person not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. The attempted notability claim here, "melter and refiner at the U.S. Mint", could get him an article if he were well-sourced as passing WP:GNG on coverage about his work, but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article without proper sourcing for it -- but the only two footnotes here are a primary source directory entry that isn't support for notability at all and one page of a book about the history of the county where he lived, which is being cited in such a way that it's deeply unclear whether it even refers to Joseph Cloud at all, or merely to an ancestor of his — but even if it does mention Joseph Cloud himself, being namechecked on one page of a book about something else wouldn't be enough all by itself.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage and/or history books than I've got can salvage it with better sources than I've been able to find, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Some mentions in journals from the 1800's [20] and [21] (apparently), but these are tertiary sources, so I can't vouch for the validity of each statement. I can't find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable, and is badly sourced. —Mjks28 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

In the article, it's written: melter and refiner at the Philadelphia Mint, appointed by Washington. Perhaps it can meet GNG due to his role in the primacy of the Philadelphia mint and the early currency development of the United States. O.maximov (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

GNG is a measure of the quality of the sourcing present in the article, not of the subjective significance of their job title in and of itself. So getting him over GNG would be a matter of finding adequate sourcing, not just of asserting that he had a prominent role without properly sourcing its prominence. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Paul K. Davis (historian)

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

Fails WP:GNG, Can't find any other sources in an outside search other than one source in the article. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, United States of America, and Texas. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Despite the unscholarly ring of some of his book titles I found thirteen published book reviews of four of the books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep This military historian passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Most of these reviews indicates that the books are NOT considered major contributions to the field. For example: "This book is a generally accessible book for a mid-brow audience as opposed to a scholarly work." (That's H-War) The Michigan Review states: "Serious students of military history, however, will find here neither a dependable reference book nor an original contribution to the scholarship of command across the ages." The two for Ends and Means are one page each, and one states "Its principle weakness lies in a failure to draw in literature on the Middle East, and especially the Arabic results in gaps and misconceptions. It is nevertheless a strong study of the modus operandi of the British in the area, and of the muddle and misinformation which lay behind their eventual success". This sounds to me like the reviewers are not seeing these books as being major contributions to the field. Nothing in NACADEMIC nor AUTHOR states that if a book (or a few books) get ANY reviews the author is notable. Both of those policies include much more rigorous criteria, and among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics. This person clearly fails that. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Nothing in NAUTHOR says anything about the reviews being positive, nor about the reviewed books being scholarly works. They merely have to provide depth of content about the books they review. Your quote "among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics" is completely false. There is nothing in our criteria that reflects that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Please look at the 8 criteria in WP:NACADEMIC and indicate which of those this person meets. I don't think he meets any of them. And note that nothing in academic nor author notability mentions book reviews. I don't know why this has become a thing here at AfD, but the mere fact of reviews wouldn't satisfy the policy criteria for either of those categories. If, however, you are looking to see whether a person has (as the policy says) "...made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" then what their colleagues say about their work is evidence.Lamona (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Have I even tried to argue for a pass of WP:ACADEMIC? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:POLITICIAN? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:ATHLETE? Do you think that minor politicians who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as politicians, or that minor athletes who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as athletes? How about you address the criterion I am actually arguing for, WP:AUTHOR, instead of trying to make the ridiculous argument that being notable requires being notable for everything? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

So it sounds like you are going for #3 of AUTHOR. Here's the whole AUTHOR list:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

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

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

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

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

I do not see that this person has created a "significant or well-known work" merely because it has been reviewed. I am leaning on the word "significant" and when a book is reviewed as not being dependable (as above) then I don't see it as "significant." As I said, just getting reviewed doesn't make it "significant" and if you're looking at "well-known" then low citations and low library holdings (the only number we have because we don't have access to sales figures) tell me that this greatly stretches the concept of well-known. Also, I'd like to mention WP:CIVIL. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

4(c): The works have won significant critical attention. Perhaps you are having difficulty with the grammar of that criterion? The word "significant" is a description of the amount of critical attention the works have received, not of the works themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep by way of passing the WP:AUTHOR bar. Reviews don't have to be positive; what matters is that attention was paid to the author's work. Nor do we require that the books being reviewed have to be scholarly in a narrow sense. We have articles on authors known for inaccuracy, popularization, and inaccurate popularization. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR and probably WP:PROF#C1 as well based on number of reviews and multiple Oxford University Press books. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Yesunte Möngke

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY; only notable for being a relative of the purported ancestors of Timur. There is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS purely on him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Muhammad Ali Mirza

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

There is no specific WP:SIGCOV, and no in-depth coverage. There is routine coverage. Which clearly fails WP:GNG. He is a common youtuber, just known for his controversial statements. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Pakistan, and Punjab. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Agree Hammad (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: I will reserve a !vote for now but this and this doesn't look like some ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep meets WP:SIGCOV as we have in-depth coverage in at least two publications, i.e. BBC Urdu ([22], [23]) and Independent Urdu ([24]). Further references in Dawn ([25], [26], [27]). Some analysis of his work here ([28]). He is controversial like Martin Luther was during his lifetime which is ok. 2400:ADC7:5104:D400:6520:B74E:4354:AD86 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: The sources provided by Saqib meet WP:SIGCOV standards, with extensive reporting about him, sometimes due to his controversial statements and attempts on his life. If he is not notable, why is there so much coverage about him? Sources like BBC Urdu, as well as Indian and Pakistani news sites, report about him. In my POV the subject meets WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Minor portion of the article which are from non reliable sources can be removed. GrabUp - Talk 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

He is not a common YouTuber, He is a Daee and he has done alot of work for the revival of the actual Islam in Pakistan! Ahmad2411 (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete He is just an ordinary Pakistani YouTuber. The reliable sources such as Dawn, BBC Urdu e.g. primarily only focuses on Mirza's arrest whereas nearly the entire article is relying on poor sources such as "MM News", "The Namal", "The Pakistan Frontier", News18 Hindi e.g. Leithiani (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Changing my vote to Keep as I revised the sources and he seems to be a well-established YouTuber. Leithiani (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Leithiani: News18 Hindi a poor source? GrabUp - Talk 03:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Grabup, Of course, this is what happens when 4 days old accounts with a mere 300 edits participate in AFDs. By the way, did I forget to mention? Keep based on the coverage I provided above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Dr Ajay Kumar Singh

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Subject isn’t inherently notable based on NPOL nor passes any of the other basic and general criteria. Sources are either routine converses or dependent on the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, becoming an Mayor does not pass NPOL. Sources are not strong and in-depth so fails WP:GNG. Also I question the reliablity of LiveHindustan. GrabUp - Talk 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the amount of substance that can be written and the amount of sourcing that can be shown about their political impact — but this amounts to "he is a mayor who exists, the end", and is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Mayor of an area with a population of 700,000 plus people suggests notability, but I don't find coverage of this person. If sources can be located, willing to revisit my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, becoming an Mayor does not pass WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge with Ajay Kumar Singh (Uttar Pradesh politician): The mayor seems to be the same person as the member of the 17th Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
On the other hand, Dr Ajay Kumar Singh is apparently some kind of doctor, and the member of the state parliament doesn't claim to be. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Michael J. Nicholson

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Subject isn’t inherently notable based on NPOL nor passes any of the other basic and general criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Massachusetts. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. This is essentially "he is a mayor who exists, the end" — but mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on WP:GNG-worthy media coverage analyzing their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's no content like that here, and the article is "referenced" entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with not even one bit of GNG-worthy coverage about him shown whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Primary sourcing from the town's website says he's the first Hispanic individual and the city's youngest mayor, which suggest notability. I can't find sourcing about this person, other than being appointed to a position in the fashion industry. Nothing for notability that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

The article has been updated to cite non-government sources, and explains some aspects of his notability such as his age at election and ethnic background both being historic in the city. -Joseph A. Rinaldi (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

"First member of [underrepresented minority group] to do a not-inherently notable thing in one specific local area" is not an instant notability freebie. The notability test for mayors hinges on having a significant volume of media coverage that enables us to write a substantial article about his political impact, and identity criteria such as age or ethnic background (or gender or sexual orientation, where those are applicable) don't exempt a mayor from having to pass that test all by themselves. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Alan Read (activist)

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

Only 1 article links to this, the suburb where he is from. The sources are all primary and mostly not significant coverage. The obituary cited is by the organisation he was involved in so it's not independent. Article worked on by an editor with same surname. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. No notable information. A similar article could be written about just about anyone. Athel cb (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Not all of the sources listed are reliable but there has been no opposition to keeping the article in two weeks of discussion. czar 12:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Jonathan Pageau

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article about a non-notable religious leader and speaker. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are self-published and opinion piece. No actual WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Canada. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment we can agree that Jonathan Pageau is not world famous. At all. However within a specialist sphere of religious communities interested in orthodox and catholic art, as seen by treatments in various religious journals, the artist has received significant coverage. Hence the artist's thought and work is discussed in the following reliable sources:

East, Brad (2024-05-08). "Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age". ChristianityToday.com. Retrieved 2024-06-24.
Brierley, Justin. "I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He's asking all the right questions (a good part of which is about Pageau)". Premier Christianity. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Dreher, Rod (2024-03-02). "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube". europeanconservative.com. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Taylor, Darrick (2024-04-09). "Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse". Crisis Magazine. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
Carr, Kathleen. "Jonathan Pageau". Catholic Art Institute. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Barron, Bishop Robert (2021-10-13). "How to live a meaningful life". The Catholic Voice. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
"'Living Tradition' Symposium in Charleston, SC". OrthoChristian.Com. Retrieved 2024-05-31.

And there are also primary sources that have been used in the current iteration of the article, but they are not needed to establish notability, rather they seem to be used for descriptive statements of facts. I believe from the above sources that it's established the subject is notable, albeit within a very particular field of endeavour. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

One perspective is clear: while Pageau's outlook is primarily religious, much of what he has done is applicable to secular art as well. It is erroneous to characterize his impact as only 'religious' (personally, I find such characterization as typical of the non-NPOV shown by people hostile to religion).

I found the concluding pages of his Snow White and the Widow Queen - a non-religious text, I might add - to be clever and original. More books in this series of fairy tales are still to be published.

Yes, I can see where people might conclude that WP:TOOSOON might apply, but he already has a substantial published body of work - well, more substantial than my four unpublished books (ha!). Also, he has been interviewed over and over by and collaborated with people judged to be notable such as Jordan Peterson, Robert Barron, Paul Kingsnorth, and Gavin Ashenden: they think he is notable.

Thank you for listening. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Nice to have you join in the discussion @Tfdavisatsnetnet - I know you're strongly interested in this topic. To be fair to the administrators looking at the discussion here, they will only be interested in whether the subject of the article is notable, as seen by good secondary sources. However, you do make a valuable point here, in that known writers write about the subject at hand, so Rod Dreher writes about Jonathan Pageau and Robert Barron talks about (and talks with) Jonathan Pageau and Paul Kingsnorth writes about Jonathan Pageau, all of which would indicate, to me, that there is substantial coverage of the subject (while not being exactly world famous). MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I think it comes down to: do YouTube videos count as much as printed material? If so, then Jonathan Pageau IS notable, despite the fact that the sources are primary and not secondary. Again, personally I find him to be far more notable than many others. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Don't think you need to point youtube videos. More relevant to point to places where known thinkers are writing about Jonathan Pageau, which certainly includes:

I don't know of an article by Jordan Peterson where he describes the significance of Pageau's work to him, but of course he does co-author a paper with Pageau here, which alone makes him significant, given that Peterson is notable. Still, ultimately, what makes Pageau notable is that he has received coverage from reliable sources in the area of religion like Christianity Today. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

An update I did a comb through the article today, and removed material from the Orthodox Arts Journal as the subject is a member of the editorial team. Turns out everything from that source was found in better sources, which I've now added. So, the article now leans on:

Several articles by Terry Mattingly, a subject matter specialist on religion in the United States, in particular "On Religion" published in the Daily Review, New telescopes, old question: Where is heaven? in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and "On Religion: Facing modern chaos, priests need old symbols and truths" in the Tahlequah Daily Press
'Christianity Today' and its article Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age by Brad East
'The American Conservative', particularly its article "Portrait of the Artist as Iconographer: Searching for meaning in the postmodern wasteland" by Bradley Anderson
The Gospel Coalition, especially its article "Christ and Consciousness" by Phil Cotnoir
'Institute of Public Affairs Review' "Liberalism to the Barricades, Again" by Scott Hargreaves . 76 (1): 34.
My long night with Jordan Peterson — and his superfans, originally in 'The Times' but also in 'The Australian'] by James Marriott.
The British online publishing house 'Premier Christianity', in particular the article I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He’s asking all the right questions" by Justin Brierley.]
The European Conservative, with regards its article "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube"] by Rod Dreher
Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse: What I learned at the Symbolic World Summit] by the academic Darrick Taylor.
A book review of Pageau's work in the online poetry journal from 'Age of Muses' by David B. Gosselin
The journal, 'Modern Age' and its piece from 2022 by Grayson Quay, "The Perils of Re-Enchantment: Beyond the end of materialism, G.K. Chesterton and Darren Aronofsky see nightmares: Modern Age".

Acknowledging that that secondary sources like the above are what we use to settle WP:GNG I believe we now have the sources required, following the outline in such as are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as per WP:BASIC. When it comes to primary sources, following the guidance, only a few have been used and only with regards straightforward statements of facts, these include

The piece "Jonathan Pageau on icons, political dehumanisation, and befriending Jordan Peterson" by the broadcaster Elizabeth Oldfield in 'Theos'
The Greek online journal 'Antifono', and its 2022 article by Kornarou titled "Orthodoxy is the last stronghold of Christianity"

In short, revisions and edits are concluded for now and I submit the article has been improved and reasonable concerns about the notability of the subject have been addressed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment Having become well aware of Pageau through both the religious and public intellectual worlds and watched/listened to him on various platforms, I am very surprised that this article is marked for possible deletion. The article itself and the discussion above show that there are numerous reliable sources establishing notability. This article should definitely exist, and of course it can always be improved, as all articles can be! Alex IslaCara (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm just a casual Wikipedia reader and was surprised as well. Never heard of this individual until yesterday and I didn't want to immediately launch into his YouTube videos, so I'm glad there was a Wikipedia page I could read. Please don't delete it. 2600:8800:49B:7800:3418:2EA0:3C86:BCCC (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep given the subject's notability is established by wide coverage. On top of being discussed in specialist journal articles (such as 'Modern Age') Pageau has received coverage in reliable sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here here and here. MatthewDalhousie (talk)

Keep because subject is referenced in new publications, such as The Classroom as Cosmos by David Mathwin, published by Kalos Publishing in 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamSimonson (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC) — WilliamSimonson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

Keep - Just because the references are from niche publications, does not diminish them from going towards GNG, which this person meets.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep - Jonathan Pageau is the only Orthodox icon carver in Canada, and he's received significant coverage for that in reliable publications such as the Catholic Art Institute , where he was featured artist. Other than being a distinguished artist, he also is active in teaching iconography and the methodology of Orthodox art, by appearing in important religious organizations such as the Institute of Sacred Arts of the St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. Because this is reported, the subject is notable. MariaMKorn (talk) — MariaMKorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep because there is significant coverage in multiple sources with editorial integrity, including (but not limited to) The European Conservative and Crisis Magazine. There are many updated sources in the main article that reflect this, since the deletion discussion began on 23 June 24.Sir Awesomness (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) — Sir_awesomness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

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

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

The result was keep‎. Without any support for deletion, redirect cannot be chosen as an ATD. Discussion about merger or redirect can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Preethi (name)

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

Same listing exists at Preeti. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: and replace the section within Preeti to a see also. Alternatively. split Preeti between the article about the name and the disambiguation links. Or replace Preethi (name) with a redirect. The article should not be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
- Reply - I have no objection to redirecting Preethi (name) to Preeti. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep and revert the recent addition of adding "Preethi" to the "Preeti" name page. Unless sources show these are the same name they should be treated as separate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment Most sources on the internet seem to indicate that Preeti and Preethi are related, though I'm not sure how many are reliable. In the instance that they are, I'd probably agree with Eastmain's proposal to redirect Preethi to Preeti. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I would agree that they're related, but my issue is that they're not the same name. For example, Thomas and Tomas are separate pages, as is Katherine and Katerine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Reply - If this is the case, let's have separate pages for "Preity" and "Priti". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Valid concern although I'd say those pages are split because many more people have those names and there's a linguistic difference. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep and replace text at Preeti#Notable people named Preethi with a {{main}} hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Preeti#Notable_people_named_Preethi. WP:CFORK. No need for separate page. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep, separate pages for Jon and John and Tom and Thom, so why did her here? Hyperbolick (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao

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

This seems to be a case of WP:INHERITED notability, given people largely talk about him in relation to his father. I can't check two of the sources here (and one is a WP:NOBITS) but the one I could find, as well as my searches of the internet returned no new sources for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: I find this [29] and this [30] which I think is the same person that is the subject of the wiki article. Name or portions of the name seem to be very common, so it's hard to determine notability in sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Neeraj Kundan

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

Fails WP:NPOL where the article itself claims the subject person as a politician. WP:GNG can't surpass WP:NPOL criteria. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Failed WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Fairoz Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

I wonder how it passes WP:NPOL to exist here and that a WP:AUTOBIO by user @Fairoz22khan. If this to be here then why we are declining Draft:Varun Choudhary. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Being accused of sexual crimes doesn't add to notability. I don't see the notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: more bugs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Kundan and similar. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak delete: There is some coverage in WP:RS but it is not WP:SUSTAINED and no SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Gaurav Nanda

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources available in the article only appear as simple mentions, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. And the history of contributions to the article assumes a WP:COI. Ciudatul (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Ciudatul (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Rossi Morreale

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

Non-notable and poorly sourced BLP. The present sources barely mention him or are gossip about his wedding. Ditto any search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:GOSSIP, and WP:V. — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Popular culture, and American football. — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete — this man played minor-league American football for a few years and appeared on a bunch of TV shows of very little interest. White 720 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@White 720 Interesting change of heart by the creator — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
It happens. But only rarely so maybe don't rub it in. I thank White 720 for not using this forum to waste anyone's time where most others would. It's a kind gesture. So thanks White 720. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I created this article 17 years ago after being curious about the subject's then-current project. I don't have any real attachment to the article subject, and while I can't resist a chance to save an article with last-ditch citation adding (I've succeeded before) there's no point in preserving an article for a person whose entertainment career never really took off. White 720 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Agreed. I didn't mean any malice — Iadmc ♫^talk 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Following this referral from WP:BLPN. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The sole extrinsic claim to N is WP:NACTOR. However, (the paucity of) BLP-worthy reliable sources underlying the claims to NACTOR makes it hard to support any particular prose or derivative filmography section. If we remove what is unreffed or supported only by the subject or allmusic, there is no encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: Found [[31]], but I was surprised of the lack of WP:SIGCOV considering this subject played at the highest level of college football. Let'srun (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
An enormous number of people play division 1 college football — there are 134 teams, which have like 80 players each, and no one plays more than 4 years. So there are probably 3000 new players each year. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Demetrio Cortes

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

Does not have references even though it is a biography, the only thing I could find were news outlets talking about his son, Demetrio Cortes Jr. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Found a couple passing mentions in books, but nothing to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Censorship in Turkey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Diamond Tema

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

Non-notable YouTuber Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bibliographies, and Webcomics. Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Diamond Tema is a well-known YouTuber and writer in Turkey. She has been featured on all major news channels and websites such as TRT. See the references in the article. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

~~Per the other commenters, like Kerim Demirkaynak, I'd vote weak keep in this discussion and hope that the sourcing is improved.~~ ~~71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)~~ Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge with Censorship in Turkey: This article was created after a recent controversy. I can't find much coverage of him in the news prior to that. There isn't anything that contributes to his wikinotability on Google Books as far as I can see. Current coverage appears to be largely of the arrest warrant, so if there should be a standalone article, it should be of the event rather than his biography, but I'm not sure about that as well. Unless an editor demonstrates its notability through WP:NEVENT, it may be considered routine news coverage. By the way, self-published and primary sources such as Twitter, Youtube, his books do not determine his notability and should probably be left out when merging. Aintabli (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Support Merge: Coverage is significant but there is not that much of it. Seems likely there will not be much lasting coverage, and the event would probably benefit from context. The Censorship in Turkey article is very long already but if it has to be split it can be (and hopefully will be). Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

François Thibaut

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

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [32]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Appears to be a promotion for his business, with no in-depth coverage that would support GNG, neither in the article nor found elsewhere. It doesn't help that two of the three footnotes have the same url and that the further reading links are all deadlink copies of press coverage selected for display by the same business. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete, lacking significant coverage and as such fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Carlos Malcolm (composer)

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

Two different Carlos Malcolms, the other of whom invented Ska music, make it hard to source this one. Doesn't seem very notable though. — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak keep The article currently cites two sources. I think this article provides significant coverage. The book Cuban Music from A to Z has a passing mention on page 65 and a one-paragraph description on page 129. I can provide the excerpt if needed. I think it could be given similar weight to a dictionary of national biography, where inclusion alone indicates notability. I also found this, a statement from a Cuban embassy, and this SPS (possible from a subject-matter expert), which don't count for much. This isn't a lot, but he's definitely a real musician who's composed some stuff and has probably had some musical impact. Toadspike [Talk] 19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
More marginally helpful sources: [33] (kinda self-published, again might be a SME), this (not sure if it's about the right guy). Toadspike [Talk] 19:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I also found two mentions in this book chapter, one of which cites a paper as "Brouwer, “La vanguardia en la música cubana,” Boletín Música no. 1 (1970): 3". I cannot find that paper anywhere. Although these are just passing mentions, they confirm that Malcolm was part of the "1960s Cuban musical vanguardia" and moved to Poland (which was apparently common for Cuban musicians, as Poland was less "conservative" than alternatives in socialist Eastern Europe). Toadspike [Talk] 10:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Thanks Toadspike. Not sure how helpful these are as they are just passing mentions. Keep looking though! — Iadmc ♫^talk 10:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hopefully, these new sources can find their way into the article, at least the ones that are reliable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Manyiel Wugol

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

I don’t see how this subject article is notable. Not by anyway meeting the WP:GNG. On the reference section number 5. Instagram reels cannot be use as a source. His just an upcoming basketball player yet to gain fame and notability that meets the general notability guideline. Even the biography there’s no reference to back them up after making my research on Google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Basketball. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sudan and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG: The only potentially reliable source, the Herald sun article, does not mention his name. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete, no significant independent coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete, fails GNG. ~~SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)~~ Changing to weak keep per the sources below. A couple of major Australian news outlets wrote articles on Wugol, which is good enough for me. I still think the article needs those references incorporated as in-line citations, not as a vague external link dump. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Do not delete

I found over 5 reliable sources and news article about Manyiel Wugol which shows he’s a well known basketball in Australia . See below

https://pickandroll.com.au/p/bigger-than-basketball-manyiel-wugols

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8102113/sudanese-refugee-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/unstoppable-african-australian-athletes-smashing-through-the-barriers/97b7l6fjq

https://thewest.com.au/sport/basketball/sudanese-refugee-manyiel-wugol-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia-after-death-of-close-friend-alier-riak-c-9888802 SportsFanatic220 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further review of new soources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for a review of newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus supports retention. There's no argument that the article is in a sorry state, but a common theme among contributions to this AfD was that there are multiple reliable sources with sufficient coverage of Long to meet GNG. Hopefully their presentation in this AfD will encourage a rewrite to expand this beyond the current uninformative stub. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Terry Long (white supremacist)

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

I could not find in-depth coverage. He ran for public office but does not meet WP:NPOL nor WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Politics, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Agree that he doesn't pass NPOL or NBIO, but does clear WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in Atkins, Kinsella, Bartley, Sherren, and Perry and Scrivens, plus newspaper coverage. His notability seems to go beyond a single event so WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Fails notability and RS guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per Dclemens. Some of the books linked go into a decent amount of detail. A non insignificant figure in Canadian white supremacist groups it seems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

A reliable source (Washington Post coverage syndicated in the International Herald Tribune) has been added to validate this claim, @Maile66. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: I don't even see coverage in Canadian sources. What's used now seem to be trivial mentions. Lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted. Flatthew (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment - The article is a mess. I believe the subject is probably notable, but I could make a case for good old TNT without prejudice towards recreation. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
There's no point in TNTing a stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review sources brought up in this discussion along with any in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I disagree with some of the keeps; it doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources are reliable sources, and there's no significant coverage in any of them. The first mentions the subject, not what he's about, when he was born, what he did in his life, and none of that (which should be a common start in a Wikipedia article). The second one links you to a Google book without telling you what it's about. There is no significant coverage in sight in that link. The third source is not specific; it just points to a list of books without telling you what the subject is about, like all others. Based on what I've viewed with the links and research, there aren't enough sources to meet WP:BLPS; since the person is living, precise sources are needed. Have a look at WP:NPF and WP:PROVEIT. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Extended content

*:Also, all of the links Dclemens1971 has sent are all broad, they don't really lead anywhere specifically and I think since this person is living, more precise sources are needed. Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

@Normanhunter2 They're books. You can't upload full copies of books online, as that is a copyright violation. I accessed them and determined most of them constitute SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I understand they're books, but WP:BLPS have strict sourcing when it comes to living persons, and as I said in my vote, I don't think I am comfortable with this article on Wikipedia. Normanhunter2 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 Your argument makes no sense. Most of the provided sources are high quality academic books - what exactly is unreliable about them? They're far more reliable than say, newspaper articles. Those are the best kinds of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]
It's just a link to a cover of a book, not whats within it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2....??? Do you expect people to commit copyright violations to prove it to you? I checked the books myself, they contain sigcov. You can't link anything else besides say, Google Book listings, or you would be committing a crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Also, to a limited extent, you can search within the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Surely, you would know WP:DBTN wouldn't you? I'm merely suggesting that since it's a link to a cover of the book, it wouldn't be considered a source because to me, it's not reliable and it clearly says in there that the piece of work itself can affect reliability, which is my main argument here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 Those are all links to Google Book listings for the page that 1) show you what book exists, who published it, when, enabling someone to search it out 2) a searchable version of the book's contents, which can verify the information. What is your issue with it?

The link doesn't matter. Offline sources are perfectly fine. The Google Books link is merely a helpful way to find if a book discusses a topic: I have verified that at least three of them do. This is enough for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Thanks to @PARAKANYAA for doing the source analysis below. I'll be honest, @Normanhunter2, your assertion that the "none of the sources are reliable sources" is quite strange. The Atkins book is a standard reference work on extremist organizations published by Bloomsbury Academic, a major academic press. The Kinsella book is published by Harper Collins. Both contain significant coverage of Long, which you can see with the in-text search. Bartley is a respected professor at a major Canadian university and his book has sigcov of Long on pages 248-271. Sherren is a prominent journalist who discusses Long in his memoir. And Perry & Scrivens mention Long on four different pages of a book from a respected academic press. Telling us that "they don't really lead anywhere specifically" and that "it's just a link to a cover of a book" suggests that you didn't bother to evaluate the sources. Finally, no one here is attempting to bite the newcomers. I've been active on Wikipedia for years but started engaging in AfDs only about six months ago, and I spent a lot of time observing and learning. I made some mistakes along the way, and I still do now and again, but learning from other participants and taking their proposed sources and analysis seriously has made me a much better editor. For a new editor who's very, very quickly gotten involved in AfD discussions, I would invite you to be a little less dogmatic and a little more open to the sources that your fellow editors turn up as part of this process. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
If there's significant coverage in the books you're researching, then there should be no problem gathering the information off of the book and placing it into the article. Now, I've scanned through the sources, and find it strange that most of the sources come from books, which are written by ideas of people. As for the articles content, I suggest going over WP:ONEVENT, some text inside of it states: 1. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." 2. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed." You might ask me, what are you trying to prove here? The answer is, the amount of content on the page, and the single event on the article, I don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. In the simplest terms possible, if the article has only one notable, highly significant event possible, then the article should be included. In this case, looking at the event in the article, there is a tiny, minuscule event there without any information. I know the Wikipedia guidelines are different then what other people think when they read the article, but to me, when I am viewing the article, In the 1980s and early 1990s, he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta. doesnt..quite make sense to me. There is no aftermath of the rally, no pictures of the rally or the person either. We only know this person exists through text. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I forgot about WP:CONTN, disregard the message where it includes the articles content. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Where to start with all these ideas!?
There is nothing that requires an editor to add the content to the article if he or she supplies it in an AfD as evidence of notability. (I have my own editorial priorities and limited time to participate in Wikipedia.)

You "find it strange that most of the sources come from books." Read WP:RS -- the kinds of books I have suggested here (academic books and books published by major publishing houses) are, depending on the context, generally considered high-quality sources. Plus, I have mentioned newspaper sources (several in the article and more here along with book texts you can evaluate with a free archive.org account: https://archive.org/details/texts?tab=collection&query=%22terry+long%22+%22provost%2C+alberta%22&sin=TXT.

The presence of pictures is not an indicator or notability, nor is their absence evidence of non-notability.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
You mentioned the guideline WP:RS, what inside of the section should I be looking at here to get a better understanding of your argument here? I'm sure you know that there needs to be multiple, reliable sources on here. Could you explain how the book sources are reliable? It would be helpful if you provided enough information on the books to establish readability on the sources to make sure they're books, otherwise, it could potentially be deleted. Could you also explain to me how those sources fit into the article, and also reliable as well? I'm still sticking to my WP:ONEEVENT point, because it is true that there's only one event on that article (unless if you find another event). Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 Why is any source reliable? They're published from qualified major publishers with a reputation for fact checking. What information do you have that they're unreliable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Newspapers are usually significantly worse sources than books, FWIW: if there's a reliable book source I would almost always rather use that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

It seems like you've answered your own question at the first part of your sentence. What information do you have that they're reliable? I should be asking you that contradictory question here.

1. For this sentence "Terry Long (born May 1, 1946) is the former leader of Aryan Nations in Canada" there's 3 sources that apparently connect to the source, almost a WP:CITEKILL and a WP:REFBOMB.

2. For the sake of it, I did some research on the authors (obviously using google), and i found some that are deemed not notable. See here, and here.

3. For the 4th footnote I couldn't find anything about that, and no link has been provided for the newspaper source, that's a little problem here. (If you could provide me the link to that newspaper link then I would go over and read it, but otherwise I wouldn't consider that a source at all).

4. I went to archive.org and looked at the sources, turns out that it does mention the subject. But still, based on what I've seen here, it's not a notable event. Read WP:BLP1E, it states: "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", which it does on the newspaper article here. The second reason according to the guideline The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". As mentioned on the article, the person is only recognized for one event, which kind of makes this a low-profile individual. Last one here: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." On the newspaper article, it does not thoroughly explain his mention of organizing a white-supremacist group and what he did specifically in that event. All it says is In 1990, the Canadian Aryan Nations’ leader, then Terry Long, organized a white-supremacist gathering in rural Provost, Alberta, that made for the first time that Canadians felt that hate was sprouting from their soil. (it also briely explained that they burnt down a cross and displayed swastikas at non-racism protesters) So this also fails WP:BLP1E too, not enough in-depth coverage at all. In fact, this event has very little significance.

5. Just a side note here, I would vote on even a weak keep here, but I think delete is the best option here. If the article had more information about the event, I'd gladly change my vote here. But otherwise, I am sticking to my nomination here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 The NOTABILITY of an article topic is unrelated to the state of the article. Sourcing exists. I volunteer to improve the article should it be kept with the available sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

And what is the "one event"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Oh, I see what you mean. That is irrelevant to the general notability of the article: notability does not depend on the current state of the article, it depends on the existences of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Do you think they're reliable sources? Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Yes, because they're published by reliable authors and publishers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
How are they reliable when I couldn't find them by doing a simple google search? Even on the books section too. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2

"how are they reliable when i couldn't find them on google"

oh my god.

Google is bad. Google has no determination on source reliability. Google does not show you the most reliable sources. Most of what you find on Google nowadays is AI generated spam nonsense that is less than worthless.

Best sources are academic books and journals, neither of which you will find on Google. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
But if Google is bad, then wouldn't Google Books or Google Scholar be bad too because they branch off of it? There's also AI generated spam for books and even scholars too, it's everywhere. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Google, the search engine, is not good for searching for serious academic treatment of topics. Google Books and Google Scholar aren't perfect but are OK for books and journal articles respectively. They contain some garbage but good stuff too. Google, be it books/scholar or the search engine is nothing but a venue for which to search for sources. Source reliability does not depend on popularity - the Daily Mail is plenty popular, but is one of the least reliable sources imaginable, but a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
They never sourced the Daily Mail on the article. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 ... I don't even know what to say at this point I think this might be a CIR issue PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
It's certainly not a CIR issue, and you probably knew I was kidding about that. If you didn't, I apologize for that. On the article though, they sourced The Ottowan Citizen but I can't find the page or the year of the release where it says that information. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 The sources currently in the article don't matter. IIRC the Ottawa Citizen is on newspapers.com so I can go check that later. We have plenty of book sources listed below that are much more reliable and significant than what newspaper coverage is there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Good to know. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

WP:BLP1E, there's only one event on the article. I'm not saying "significant event' because it barely has any coverage of it right now. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 What is in the article right now has no bearing on notability. That is not what BLP1E means. Read WP:NEXIST PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Only one small event exists in the article, that's my problem here. Not enough significant coverage on it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 What exists in the article at the moment is completely unrelated to its notability, given the capacity for improvement with existing sources. WP:NPOSSIBLE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
It's based on it's reliability. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 ... of the sources that exist, yes? Which we have repeatedly established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Well..I mean the reliability of the source. If it's a strong one, or a weak source, or a source that doesn't related to the subject at all. That's why I did my inital research of the sources on the article to make sure they were correct.

Even if they were correct, they still are written by people with their own ideas and perspectives of things in the real world. I believe that only notable authors can be accepted as reliable and not unknown authors. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Normanhunter2 The idea that only notable authors are allowed as reliable sources is absolutely ludicrous and under this standard 90% of articles on wiki are not notable. There is not a single aspect of policy that reflects this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Well, I think I've said enough about this nomination. We'll see what people think about this. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Checkuser note: I've blocked Normanhunter2 as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. Source analysis, since no one else felt like doing it:

Atkins: This is an encyclopedia of the far right, contains a full length entry on Long. Describes him as "one of Canada's leading" far right figures.

That Wasn't The Plan, couldn't find a copy of this, but from the Google Books preview it seems to discuss Long in depth, going into his plans for racist groups in Alberta in some detail.

Perry & Scrivens seems to be passing mentions

Kinsella seems to have at least two pages of coverage on him on 135-136, as well as 158-159.

Bartley contains sigcov throughout the book, describing Long as a "huge benefit" to recruiters for the KKK, and generally his involvement in these circles.

In conclusion, he passes the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep The Bartley book has a couple of dozen pages on him, as listed in the index. Ditto Perry and Scrivens - see pg 273 of the index which shows extensive coverage. Lamona (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per Dclemens1971's review of RS coverage. Seems like the subject has a notable nasty streak. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Kyle Cartwright (poker player)

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Only notable for a single event, so WP:BIO1E applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom; an unremarkable professional poker player who has not been the subject of substantial press coverage other than routine coverage of tournaments he placed in. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Michael Lodge

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

WP:BLP about the leader of an organization, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for leaders of organizations. As always, just having a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but the content here is strictly on the level of "he is a person who has a job, the end", with absolutely no content about any specific things he did in the job, and the "referencing" consists entirely of his primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage about his work in media or books. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out the sources added by Uhooep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources available. They give significant coverage and are from reliable sources. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete and merge anything here that isn't already included into International Seabed Authority. I only find one source that is specifically about him, which is the NY Times article about the criticism of his leadership. Everything else is about the organization, naming him as the director. Being the director is not itself notable, as Bearcat states above, as is evident from the paucity of information about him. I should note that the UN and WEF sources are not independent; bios in such sites are almost always provided by the subject of the bio. And the Q&A article is also not independent as that is him speaking about himself. Lamona (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment the Q&A article also includes prose at the beginning which was written by the journalist, not the subject. ~~Uhooep (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)~~[]

Redirect to International Seabed Authority. I agree with Lamona's categorization of the sources; he isn't the focus of them, but appears in them as a source of quotes for an article on the organization or on the topic of deep-sea mining more generally. -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep the sourcing is sufficient. Oppose a redirect; if he isn't "notable" enough for a stand-alone article we don't need a mini-biography in the organization's article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny with the history preserved if someone wants to enact a merger. Star Mississippi 00:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Artur Ocheretny

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

notable only from a single event, his marriage to Putin's ex-wife; WP:BLP1E applies Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Argument in favor of keeping the article:

- I found this deletion request because I was interested in learning more about Ocheretny, I presume others may also be interested Blaadjes (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Accidentally submitted before I was done, sorry, new to this!

Another reason:

He has been investigated and had properties seized, possibly he and his wife receive millions of dollars from Putin, which might make him more interesting to the public. The article could use some work, but I think it should stay. Blaadjes (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

even the article you linked says that he's notable only because of his marriage: A villa belonging to Russian national Artur Ocheretny, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife's new husband. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge to page Lyudmila Putina. He is not notable by himself. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny. Procyon117 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge/redirect per previous votes. He doesn't seem to be notable on his own. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Calabar Chic

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

Fails WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.

Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: sourcing is fine, [34] as well. Most is celebrity coverage articles, but they give background and some context into tragic and not-so-tragic events in this person's life as of late. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet, just arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Sourcing is fine but they’re mostly interviews (save for this one here). She has featured in some movie but not in a major role. Probably too early for an entry. Best, Reading Beans 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Lots of interviews by reliable sources, which is a potential indication of (future) notability, but they don't offer enough secondary journalistic coverage outside of the transcript to meet GNG. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. I imagine the subject will be notable in a year or two. C F A 💬 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Daniel Sepiol

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep World Championship win + bracelet win should merit inclusion. Now satisfactory backed up. PsychoticIncall (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@PsychoticIncall: As I've asked in other AFDs, please read and understand WP:SIRS and then list WP:THREE references you feel are SIRS. WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability, not just assert it through non-policy means (which is what you are attempting). - UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

And again - the sources are all there backing up the main statement probably even more obvious than ever before (Las Vegas Review Journal isn't just providing routine match reports). PsychoticIncall (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

weak delete sourcing depth just isn't there for a biography IMO. It might just scoot over WP:N, but I really don't think we have enough for a biography. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Of the current sources, the only one I'd say meets the WP:GNG (marginally) is the first one from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which does delve into a significant event. The remaining sources are of the routine coverage variety with little in the way of actual in-depth coverage needed to meet notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Clear consensus to keep from all participants other than the nominator. (non-admin closure) Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these[35][36][37][38][39]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
- Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
- Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
- The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
- Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
- The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. — Saqib (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. — Saqib (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]
GM Dogar has obtained significant media courage on various matters. Someone has added links to media coverage given to him below. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. Asadwarraich (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A nominator who regularly argues with everyone who disagrees with them over the course of numerous AfDs (repeat: numerous, not all) may be viewed by some as engaging in disruptive behavior.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:COMMONSENSE as chief of police of a massive city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
- Necrothesp, Pardon my ignorance but I'd like to ask if being the "chief of police of a massive city" does automatically makes one inherently notable? And as far GNG is concerned, this BLP doesn't meet that threshold as I've done source assessment above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
  - Shall I cite WP:COMMONSENSE again... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
    - Necrothesp, OK, this might be my last reply, as I don't want to come across as bludgeon, but I find it intriguing that an editor voted to keep a BLP based on WP:COMMONSENSE. By this logic, every police chief of a massive city would easily gets a WP bio, based on some ROTM coverage. Cheers! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
      - Yes, I think that would be fair. After all, we wouldn't dream of not having a bio for the chiefs of police of London, New York, etc. And I'm not sure why you keep emphasising that this is a WP:BLP. So what? There's nothing unsourced here. BLP and notability are entirely different issues. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
        Necrothesp and excessive use of WP:ROTM (an essay, never vetted by the community) as argument to dismiss valid reliable secondary references is clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Saqib, either stop using this term or be ready for repercussions of wasting our time reading these poorly written cookie-cutter AfD rationales. 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
        2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9, And, why don't you just stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING and LOUTSOCKING! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
        WP:ASPERSIONS. @Doczilla: has an advice for you above. 2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per Necrothesp. There is enough coverage (with bylines) to meet WP:GNG:

"Lahore CCPO Dogar suspended by federal govt". DAWN.COM. November 6, 2022.

Bhatti, Haseeb (December 2, 2022). "SC reinstates Ghulam Mahmood Dogar as Lahore CCPO". DAWN.COM.

Malik, Mansoor (February 19, 2023). "Another leaked clip adds to Dogar controversy". DAWN.COM.

Bhatti, Haseeb (February 17, 2023). "SC suspends transfer of Lahore police chief Ghulam Mahmood Dogar". DAWN.COM.

2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Jesse Sylvia

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Please read WP:SIRS. If you feel that the sources pass SIRS, please provide WP:THREE for evaluation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Per WP:SIRS, the references must each be independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. None of them provide significant coverage. You have obviously failed to read and understand WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Some people seem to have a specific understanding of what significant coverage means, interpreting that anything other than a biography should be discarded. I see it as being any coverage that goes beyond trivial and passing mentions. Jesse Sylvia is mentioned as winning some significant tournaments, and, to me, SIGCOV is present there. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Doreen Kyazze

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

I reviewed this article thrice to determine whether it is considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Firstly, I saw there were good sources as though a reviewer will do. I now checked the sources and almost a good percentage weren't reliable per WP:RS. Religion of sources and lack of WP:SIRS definitely defined this type of article.

In second checking for confirmation, I discovered so many sources lined her perhaps a single line other quote while addressing her as a worker at Penal. I would have said this should be redirected to the organisation page but didn't see any advocacy worthy enough for WP:ATD. Another subtle was drive by the award nomination. This cannot be called WP:ANYBIO since it was once nominated and wasn't won (it's is also a lesser award, thus not major like ANYBIO. I've therefore brought this to the table proper discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: The award from the EU seems notable [40] and [41]. I'm ok with the sources given. At least enough for BASIC Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Oaktree b, EU human rights award is nothing but a less major award. Though must have come from a notable form EU, but the article bearer was a nominee and was only once. How does that satisfy WP:BASIC? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: I find coverage [42], [43], [44] and [45]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@User:Oaktree b, the sources you listed all were independent of the Ugandan academic Spire or nearer to that. However, one nominated award is never enough for a career that isn't established. For example, a writer that has written extensively and appeared in reaserch paper may be considered even with the writing and more when nominated for an award like this. In this context, however, the article doesn't meet GNG of her career or any significant impact or SIGCOV of her advocacy ad work. Arguing about an award that is not even won is likely biased for me. It's simply a reminder! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: From the source presented, I don't see how this person won this award. She seem to be a runner up which didn't mean she won a significant award or has been invited for it many times (stated in WP:ANYBIO). While the sources listed by Oaktree b is about the announcement of the award, source 3 and source 4 still were about Dr. Spire who won the award, and little coverage of the runners up. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Per nom, and nom's further comments. I find I can add nothing to those 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Anthony Masake

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. While the notability of Chapter Four Uganda is questioned, I simply may conclude deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. I can find several sources where he has a non-trivial mention, but all of these are simply related to his role at Chapter Four Uganda. https://www.pulse.ug/news/chapter-four-resumes-operations-appoints-ag-executive-director/bms1s5p https://nilepost.co.ug/news/147338/poor-cultural-practices-violence-hindering-africas-development https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422020935790 I would suggest Redirect to Chapter Four Uganda- he does not need his own article in my opinion.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Spiralwidget, the Chapter Four Uganda doesn't seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT and has been tagged for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter Four Uganda, with possible redirect to Opoyo of thereabout. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Romy Tiongco

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[]
- Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]
If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]
One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.

So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Zack Cooper

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

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

~~Delete~~ for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[]

I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[]

So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [46] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.

...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as "No consensus". As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

What are your reasons? See the note on your talk page by Liz. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[]

Comment. The delete !votes further up are heavily focused on evaluation per PROF, but, as I said above, foreign policy and/or govt/ngo analysts do not fit neatly under this heading. Much of their work is not circulated publicly like academic work, so tends not to have the same citation statistics, and may even be classified in certain instances. Most of these folks would not be notable under PROF, though Cooper arguably is. Here, I think further weight should be put on the article creator's record as an expert in this area, the high-level positions this person has held at DoD etal, and the fact that in several other WP articles in this space refer to him by name. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

PS. I am 128.252.210.1 above. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

I think this is an interesting policy question. We have policies for WP:ANYBIO, which requires evidence that the person has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". It isn't clear to me how we would determine that. Assuming that we don't look at this as a WP:NPROF then we have WP:AUTHOR. That has "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and then "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique...". Unfortunately it doesn't say how we determine that the person has had the requisite impact on their field. One way is to look for citations, another would be awards. The only other way to determine this, AFAIK, would be if there are articles about the person in reliable sources that make this case. With this person, what evidence do we have to make this determination? Lamona (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep as someone who can make a prima facie claim to being regarded as an important figure and/or has published impactful publications. Also it's good the article doesn't suffer too badly from hype language. Trying to measure impact by citation count, asking whether co-publications count the same, etc., runs the risk of driving the discussion into a kind of pseudo-empiricism that masks the larger question of whether he has enough notable real-world activity that the encyclopedia benefits from having verifiable information about him. I'd rather this close as keep than no consensus, as NC tends to invite do-overs and the way forward will be no more clear nxzt time (unless he gets a named chair or something)Oblivy (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Discarding canvassed votes and views not based on P&G, there is rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [47] and [48] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [49], [50], [51], and [52]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.

See his marriage news from Prothom alo, Dhaka Tribune, The Business Standard.

Older articles about him also show his prominence.

See these article from Prothom Alo 1 2, Bangla Tribune, The Business Standard, Jagonews24

Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete - He is notable on YouTube as an influencer & content creator. but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia.--DelwarHossain (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep - He is notable person. I agree with Ontor22. Yubrajhn (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD. There's close to a consensus to delete here, but not something I'm comfortable closing as myself given the promises I made to stay out of using my admin tools for tricky content issues.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

DELETE Not notable enough for Wikipedia standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

KEEP After four consecutive AFDs, the article mostly survives on Wikipedia. Still, there is a stir among editors. Mainly his being a YouTuber, but he has also worked in drama and music which makes him notable under WP:ENT. Mafmes (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

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

People proposed deletions

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 <!-- Only if additions to this section do not clearly fit with one of the aforementioned categories, then please feel free to list or transclude. -->
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hurt_Hardy}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignacio Uría Mendizábal}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario A. Guerra}}