Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

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

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Mark Luz

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

This was originally a WP:PROD, with me stating "Unnotable WP:NACTOR which has been mostly unreferenced for years." This was then deprodded by Kvng who then said "consider addressing Template:Pinoy Big Brother contents comprehensively". I don't exactly know what he means by this, but if the argument that he is primarily known as Big Brother contestant, then this falls into WP:NBIO (as we don't have a reality TV-specific policy, unless WP:ARTIST comes into play), and this will just be a rehashing of the Big Brother content and would just give WP:UNDUE weight on a non-BLP activities of a biography. As stated on PROD, this has been unreferenced for years, considering the 2 references used fail WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in mentioned references and all the roles he had played was special appearance or guest only rather than significant role or main. Fade258 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NACTOR, he clearly did not have multiple notable roles in TV or movies. --hroest 16:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan Akbas

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

Questionable if it meets WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Russell Surasky

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Russell Surasky

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

I don't see any improvement in notability since the last AfD in 2021. There are a few passing mentions and he has been quoted by Fox News a couple of times, but still nothing in terms of WP:SIGCOV. This page appears to have been created and deleted multiple times over the last 7 years under various titles such as Russell Surasky, Russell S. Surasky, Russell S Surasky, Russell Scott Surasky and Bridge Back to Life. See also Special:Contributions/8.25.157.160 who was blocked in April 2025 for persistently trying to promote this doctor across Wikipedia just days before this page was created. Yuvaank (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Medicine, and New York. Yuvaank (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last will and testament of Herbert Macaulay

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

Copied to Wikisource by me - s:Last will and testament of Herbert Macaulay, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no reason to keep here. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 20:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 20:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably also doesn't meet WP:GNG. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 20:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

del no encyclopedic content. --Altenmann >talk 20:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there's no evidence that this needs its own article. Cortador (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - short of a highly contested Will, they are never notable. I can only think of perhaps Elvis' or Howard Hughes' as being notable. This one isn't. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not suitable for Wikipedia. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cui Songwang

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

Broadly unsourced biography. Subject is only notable for his coverage of the 2007 Chinese slave scandal, and the article is almost entirely just a fork of the article we have on the topic. The only biographical paragraph is completely unsourced. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and China. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sands

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

Non-notable cosmetic dentist. Most of the sources namecheck him or briefly quote him. Some sources like [1], [2], [3] cover him in detail but they are all paid sources. W Magazine article doesn't count towards notability as it is QA-style article (WP:INTERVIEW). He has worked with celebrities but it is not possible to WP:INHERIT notability from his clients. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nom nails it. Refs fail WP:SIRS, subject fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly non-notable dentist without WP:SIGCOV as would be required by our guidelines. --hroest 16:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott King (artist)

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

This article doesn't appear to meet the WP:BIO. Specifically I do not believe there is enough widespread coverage by secondary reliable sources. I have tried to do some research, but of the few sources available these are either primary sources or linked to the subject. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Visual arts. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources exist - I'm finding coverage online to substantiate sigcov. Not !voting yet, but I'm pretty sure he meets notability for GNG if not also for NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yikes! I can see why this was nominated for deletion in its previous form. I have updated the article to show his work in MoMA and Tate. But it sure needs a little bit more help. Crummy article is used on https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/scott-king-2763 and https://contemporaryartsociety.org/artists/scott-king --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I apologise if I may have been a bit hasty with the deletion discussion! I had a short search for sources and came up short, but it looks like I could've dug a bit deeper. Appreciate the work you've done :) Sksatsuma (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sksatsuma, when searching for this artist (at least from the U.S.) many of the hits that come back were for Corretta Scott King, so it helps to use additional search terms like "graphic designer" or "artist" or "illustrator" or even U.K., England or British. This helps filter out the correct Scott King. If you haven't already read WP:BEFORE, there is also some helpful info there. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone Thank you for the advice - it's appreciated, it was definitely something that could've been done more thoroughly. I have read WP:BEFORE but did not follow it well! Sksatsuma (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The works of this British graphic designer are present in the notable museum permanent collections of the (Tate, and MoMA), therefore meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST; while the in-depth significant coverage in these: meets WP:GNG: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Additionally, there is this interview in Andy Warhol's Interview magazine which has quite a bit of editorial content and in-depth discussion (not a trivial interview). Other interviews: [11], [12], [13], and [14]. Interviews are normally thought of as primary sources, but I consider the first one listed here to be in-depth enough (and with enough input from the interviewer to be considered). Exhibitions include the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Barbican and Studio Voltaire in London; Museum of Modern Art and White Columns, in New York; Palais de Tokyo, Paris; State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg; Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago; Portikus, Frankfurt; and Kunstverein Munich. He's notable. Netherzone (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikesh Lagun

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

Looks like article written by subject himself or someone closely connected, as this if full of information unsupported by sources. Lacks genuine coverage as a researcher or academician. No media coverage to meet notability. Not yet established as an academic entity. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While accomplished for his age, there is no sign of the impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF notability. I also did not find press coverage for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find sources to meet WP:BIO; similarly WP:NPROF is not met. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 03:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riaan Manser

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

Promotional article about a person with one source that reports on the WP:SINGLEEVENT. The rest is unsourced puffery. No longstanding WP:SIGCOV. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, Cycling, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José Ilidio Nascimento

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

Non-notable lawyer that doesn't have WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a single source in the article and WP:BEFORE did not yield anything to meet threshold for notability. Patre23 (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Shammi Thilakan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage and most sources are non-bylined churnalism, mentions, or otherwise unreliable. Previously deleted A7 and G11 under Abhimanyu S Thilakan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marco (2024 film): Appears to fail GNG. Also WP:TOOSOON for NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shalom

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

This entire article, beyond the opening paragraph, is about a totally different person. Should be deleted or sent to drafts. How this passed the new page checks I can't understand. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Boxing, and England. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be a copy paste of Moses Itauma, besides the first sentence. Masohpotato (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I imagine that the creating editor (same for both Moses Itauma and this article) based this article on the previous one and forgot to remove the copied text. I have now removed it. Anxioustoavoid as far as I can see no-one up until now has marked the page as reviewed, so it has not passed the new page checks. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Ping me if you can find three reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Sharma

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

I can't see any sign of notability. Terribly written, simply a promotional article about a non notable person Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Technology, India, Delhi, and California. Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination that does not even consider the obvious notability criterion, WP:PROF. IEEE Fellow is a pass of WP:PROF#C3; in fact this specific fellowship is used in the guideline as the prototypical example of a fellowship that passes this criterion. The description of the content of his dissertation is unsourced and should be trimmed, and the New Scientist piece should be used to describe what he has done rather than to promote him as someone who has appeared in New Scientist, but WP:DINC and these are not delete-worthy problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David_Eppstein and as not promotional by the subject. It appears to me that a different person with the same name attempted to hijack this article by editing twice to include films by them. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:PROF#C3 as David Eppstein said, has a significant impact on his field with 47 publications and cited by ~16,700 according to his Google scholar, is a distinguished member of ACM ([15]), etc. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, fully agree with David Eppstein on this one. Subject meets C3 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C3. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as others have said above he easily passes WP:NPROF. A no-brainer. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Ruspoli, 10th Prince of Cerveteri

AfDs for this article:

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an Italian banker and aristocrat, and added one reference, but it is a passing mention and not an independent source (university news). One of the existing references (obituary of his mother-in-law) does not mention him. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. This diff has some information about his honours, albeit unsourced, but I'm not seeing a notability pass there. Article was at AfD in 2012 and deleted, although only two editors took part in the discussion. It has been tagged with potential notability concerns since 2020. A possible redirect target is the article about his father, Alessandro Ruspoli, 9th Prince of Cerveteri. Tacyarg (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Italy. Tacyarg (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Non-sovereign prince. Never served in a parliament. Glorified bank teller. Never did anything public, for better or worse. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Pradeep

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANTHM

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

Fails Wp:GNG, Wp:MUSICIAN, and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Poetry, Music, Ethiopia, Germany, Russia, United States of America, New York, and Texas. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudip Pandey

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is may not notable according to WP:NACTOR and does not meet the requirements for WP:SIG in reliable, independent sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Asia, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep despite the earlier deletion. The coverage of his death seems to just barely qualify him. Pinging Zuck28 who added Pandey to the List of Bhojpuri actors in January. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the nominator has a very low understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. They’re just nominating random articles created by me as an act of retaliation because I nominated a few of the articles they created about non-notable subjects. Their rationale for the AFD is unclear as, why they believe it should be deleted, anyways I leave this matter for fellow editors.

Thank you for pinging me.

Zuck28 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayshree Misra Tripathi

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

This article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR the specific notability guidelines and the sources cited in this article are not considered as WP:SIG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Poetry, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added reviews of her work, though the 2025 book is an edited book so it accounts less towards notability. I also revised the page and removed citations that were non-notable mentions of Tripathi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamani Srinath

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Winning an award does not grant inherent notability. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Music, and Indiana. CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. SachinSwami (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nomination Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is really "the highest Indian recognition given to people in the field of performing arts.", then this loks like notability. PamD 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she has an article in Telugu Wikipedia - I have merged her two records in Wikidata, so it now shows as a link from the en.wiki article. PamD 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 OK, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 7 and 8 appear to be met, unless you consider that 8 only applies to western popular music. PamD 19:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[16]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[17].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen: you duplicated one of the sources which could indicate you did not look closely enough at them to see they are mainly routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Are you talking about The Hindu article or both?Afstromen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No, I listed the source initially to point the awards. It was not my intention to list it twice or to give the impression that the sources were different. Afstromen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation. I still maintain that neither of those are independent. I would also think if she won the "highest award" as claimed, there would be more than just NEWSORGINDIA and a few interview type references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Tripathi

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actor. Fails Wp:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No lead roles no significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This article is notable according to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines such as WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Naidu

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

Fails to establish notability independent of his association with Ratan Tata, per WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, and WP:INHERITED.

His startups do not meet WP:NCORP due to modest scale and event-specific reporting, and the book lacks significant critical reviews or awards to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuck28, Before taking any abrupt or random action, always ensure proper research is done and all sources are thoroughly verified. Acting without accurate information can lead to serious consequences and misunderstandings. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vinod Sharma

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article under Wp:GNG, Wp:BIO or Wp:ACADEMIC.

While Sharma is associated with a Guinness World Record for the largest memory lesson (2018), there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Science, Medicine, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of these sources are WP:SIGCOV that I can see, they are short blurbs (even those that I could translate from Hindi). A world record by itself does not confer notability especially as these can be essentially purchased. Clearly doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear! @Hannes Röst, No, Guinness World Records titles cannot be purchased. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can, pretty much. They're a marketing gimmick from a novelty publisher. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How ? Any reference or Discussion available ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criticism is that you can make up some really niche record like "most 10W light bulbs lit at the same time" and pay for the items to be delivered and get the people from Guinness in to confirm the record and bam you have yourself a record. AFAIK the Guinness people dont care what the record is as long as it can be verifiable and can be broken by someone else and you pay a fee (see for example this recent record for most glass bottles trapped with a Slinky in 1 minute). --hroest 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own article about the Guinness Book explains, in polite terms, how it's a racket. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO according to sources. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the evaluations by the nominator and by hroest. This is an advertisement and should be removed as such. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ali Karim

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

Pundit whose article is primarily sourced to pieces written by themself, and is really only known for WP:ONEEVENT – the controversial filing a report for sedition against the Chief Minister Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT and the subject is the author of several of the sources cited - that makes the sources more of primary sources than independent secondary sources. Patre23 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He's 22 years old. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meyzenq

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

This disambiguation page is unnecessary. At present, there is only one Wikipedia article referring to an individual with the surname Meyzenq, namely Raymond Meyzenq. The creating editor appears to consider an individual listed on the Salomon Group article to be a notable figure and therefore has created a disambiguation page. However, there is no existing article on this individual to substantiate this claim of notability. Therefore, this disambiguation page should be deleted or be redirected, with CAT:RWP, to the existing article on Raymond Meyzenq, since he is the only person with that surname currently covered on this platform. QEnigma (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a surname page, not a dab page. It's reasonable to include the CEO, for whom a redirect would also be reasonable. PamD 08:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: It was a disambiguation page until you altered it ([18]). Your position would have been much clearer if that was included with your post. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma It was always a surname page. It was incorrectly labelled as a disambiguation page. PamD 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma But, OK, it might have been helpful if I had pointed that out ! Sorry about that. PamD 11:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I understand your position. However, it would have been preferable to make the alterations through consensus. That was the primary reason this article was listed on AfD forums. Nevertheless, I maintain the view that this article, whether a disambiguation page or a surname-related entry, requires the inclusion of more notable individuals with existing Wikipedia articles in order to be retained. As you are aware, there are numerous senior executives across various notable companies who do not have individual Wikipedia articles on them and are therefore not included in surname-related pages. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma I don't think any specific consensus is needed to remove an incorrect {{tl|dab}} template and add the correct {{tl|surname}} template. The AfD template says "Feel free to improve the article".

Plenty of CEOs don't have links, plenty do. I've made a redirect from him to the company, and tweaked the dab page accordingly. PamD 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Raghu D

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted with clear consensus from 12 editors in the previous AfD only 3 months ago. I still can't see any reason to keep this article. It probably doesn't fit WP:G4 due to Hindustan Metro. All sources found, including in my own searches, appear to be very promotional. For example, Cinebuster shows significant coverage but is clearly written by ChatGPT and is horrendously promotional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing has changed since March. Ajay Kumar Rastogi 12 please respect community consensus about this article. Star Mississippi 02:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fasih Ur Rehman (entrepreneur)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Part of the StayCalmOnTress SOCK farm created to circumvent the deletions of Green Entertainment and the name variations they have attempted to create. CNMall41 (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing - I did a thorough WP:BEFORE, but pointing out just the first three sources on the page, they are all bylined as "web desk" so no editorial oversight, likely paid-for press, and under same concept as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has all the hallmarks of paid editing. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevrakis

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

Completely unreferenced, containing unverifiable information, since 2009. No reliable sources found via Internet Archive, Wikipedia Library (general search), Oxford Reference, De Gruyter Brill, brief Google search (.com/.gr). This is a surname page with an empty list of people with this surname. Google turns up the conductor Nikiforos Nevrakis (who may indeed be notable) and the chess player Mihail Nevrakis, but these biographies do not currently exist on English Wikipedia. Furthermore, Greek Wikipedia does not appear to have an equivalent page for Νευράκης. Does not meet WP:V or WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't make sense to have a surname page if there are no people with the surname who appear on Wikipedia. DeemDeem52 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Currently this should not be a page. Coeusin (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom, no SIGCOV. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 18:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That's a compelling argument to me Local Internet User (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No entries and no sources. JTtheOG (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No entries and no sources. Luis7M (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No entities or sources and all I could find in a google search were characters. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: so far not getting any significant hits in my searches, even as a surname in context.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No sources found on google search to verify the information on the page. MichaelRichard67 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing indicates that this is notable enough to retain, therefore fails WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Yar Baloch

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

This article should've been deleted alongside Republic of Balochistan and Balochistan Freedom Declaration last month, and for similar reasons. This was redirected to Republic of Balochistan, then to Operation Herof 2.0, then to Insurgency in Balochistan. While it was a redirect, I nominated it at RfD with the same type of reasoning as what was successfully used against Republic of Balochistan, but I got impatient and later withdrew it and decided to restore the article so it could be speedied under criterion A7, but that one was declined because the sources used (News18, The Economic Times, The Times of India, the Hindustan Times, ANI News and Firstpost) constituted a "credible claim of significance" according to one editor. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - New coverage of the subject has emerged as recently as yesterday in The Globe and Mail. This figure has recent media coverage that is ongoing, and while cited sources do contain bias, they still constitute fact-based news from credible institutions. Effort needs to be put into improving the state of the page. Ike Lek (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Merello

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

This individual does not pass WP:GNG or fulfill the requirements for WP:BIO as this person has "not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Coverage of this individual in media is routine or passing mentions. Some of the sources do not appear reliable or particularly independent.

The argued notability of this person by editors that have removed prior tags appears to hinge on certain "honors" such as the "Order of the Eagle of Georgia" and the conception of "Lord Leslie" while these honors might sound significant it appears that honors like these can apparently be acquired without much difficulty (according to a source that was previously cited in the text by one of the contributors and later removed).

Another concern is that a number of the key contributors of this article appear to be very close to the subject including HearldicFacts and Mediascriptor. Another key contributor was previously blocked for sockpuppettry Judasith1234 which is not a good sign. Nayyn (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Nayyn (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Law, Singapore, and Antigua and Barbuda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only passing coverage in low-quality sources. Worth mentioning that HeraldicFacts added a picture to the article which was uploaded by Judasith1234 to Commons 19 minutes prior, so another likely sockpuppet.

— Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 14:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Arcaist - I will not take a position on this page retention, however just to clarify yours and @Naayn comment on "sockpuppetry", it was a misunderstanding of 6 months ago, which was opened in a sockpuppetry debate and resolved through a discussion and a final decision of several Admins, that ended with the deletion of user Judasith1234. It is unfair and incorrect to motivate a further deletion proposal based on this specific topic as it was already discussed and resolved in full previously. HeraldicFacts (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The subject meets WP:GNG through multiple non-trivial, independent sources covering his diplomatic and cultural roles. While some honours may appear unusual, they’ve been reported by independent media and involve internationally recognised institutions, not self-promotion. Rather than deletion, improvement is the constructive path forward, especially given existing sources and the subject’s international footprint. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Giacomo Merello clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Multiple reliable, independent secondary sources provide significant coverage of his career and roles, beyond routine mentions. Concerns about the subject’s honors and the contributors’ proximity do not negate the existence of independent sources demonstrating notability. Below, I outline the sources and relevant policies supporting retention of the article. Roles and impact: the coverage centers on his notable roles – as a Special Economic Envoy of Antigua and Barbuda, as a legal expert in digital assets and legal heraldry, examples 1. https://expatliving.sg/antigua-and-barbuda-citizenship-by-investment-and-coat-of-arms/Expat Living - this interview is a secondary source (Merello is the interviewee, with the magazine providing context) and offers significant biographical detail, demonstrating coverage in an independent publication; 2. https://www.henleyglobal.com/events/henley-partners-presents-celebration-caribbean about his activities as diplomat; 3. https://www.vietnam.vn/en/viet-nam-truoc-nga-re-tai-san-so-tin-chi-carbon about a seminar held for the State Bank of Vietnam. 4. https://antigua.news/2025/05/17/bridging-oceans-and-opportunities-giacomo-merello-on-promoting-antigua-and-barbuda-in-singapore-and-in-asia/ Antigua News - this is far beyond a trivial mention – it’s a full profile of his activities and impact, published by an independent news source (not a press release); 5. Multiple other independent articles about him from VIR and Malta Invest; 6. https://www.liveranionline.com/immagini/118224/retrospettiva-marcella-bella-cantante-con-il-figlio-giacomo-merello-nel-1985 ; https://dilei.it/spettacolo/marcella-bella-figlio-giacomo-singapore/1279204/ ; https://www.wemusic.it/marcella-bella-chi-sono-e-cosa-fanno-nella-vita-i-figli-carolina-tommaso-e-giacomo/ are all articles directly about him in connection to his very notable singer mother Marcella Bella, and not just as a routine mention, these are all independent secondary sources and are not "routine mentions" but the subject is the main topic. These roles have been covered in context by third-party sources, indicating he is a “significant, interesting, or unusual enough” person to deserve an encyclopedia entry, as per WP:GNG. The titles on their own may not necessarily meet by themselves WP:BIO, but in connection with all the rest, they definitely support and they have multiple mention in secondary sources on their own, like Debrett's, RSN, and Royal House of Georgia. On the Scottish Feudal Baronies there is currently in place an editing war which makes deletion based on that also shaky and not well thought. COI claim is vague and per WP:COI policy, an article should not be deleted solely due to who edited it, especially if just to fix objective links and factual elements, and any promotional tone wascleaned up by neutral editors in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Mediascriptor (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmah Pinky

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The references are either dead links or reports of minor details such as changing the company that manages her work, not substantial coverage of her. Searching for better sources was a total failure; it turned up this Wikipedia article, her Facebook account, a site offering downloads of her music, etc, no reliable independent sources. (PROD contested with no reason given. ) JBW (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. JBW (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS for notability.Littenberg (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Item

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

This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion by at Draft by Spiderone under section G11 for CIO/ promotional issues. It was deleted under this section for unambigious advertising by Admin UtherSRG. After, it was recreated and moved to mainspace. New Pages reviewer SunDawn moved it back to draft as it still had serious issues, but the page was put back in main space again.

The issues brought up by experienced previous editors remain here-- This individual does not pass WP:GNG as they do not appear to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There is a passing mention of this person in the Financial Times that is used in an undue and highly over generalized way to "support" claims here. Similarly individual appears to run a news organization that is used here to support claims in the text. Ambassadors and minor "nobles" are generally non-notable.

A number of significant edits on this piece are by users who have only edited this article or closely related articles including Redredwoman, Darniel ramos garcia1980 and Ignatius Shitanda, which appear problematic. Nayyn (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Italy, and Antigua and Barbuda. Nayyn (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Looking at this, what really stands out is how consistently this person shows up as notable across totally different areas.

First, you've got high-level diplomatic work covered by big international organizations.

Plus, major financial news outlets aren't just mentioning them in passing,they're reporting on specific, impactful actions that actually matter.

And on top of that, there's formal recognition in official, publicly accessible registers.

This isn't just one-off mentions. it's a real public profile built from multiple angles. When you see that kind of consistent, independent coverage across diplomacy, finance, and official channels, it really drives home the point of encyclopedic relevance.

It directly answers what the Notability Guideline looks for: significant, reliable coverage from multiple independent sources across different spheres Wadurorsch (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete. While I appreciate @CROIX' local knowledge, I'm not persuaded Item is a "household name" in A&B. The only news coverage I can find is either low-quality or not more than a standard press releases. I don't see moving the article to draft as a solution, as that has already happened multiple times without improving the quality. What I am seeing is a lot of peacock prose with a suspicious amount of single-issue accounts focused on adding more low-quality referencing. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 14:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't go through all references on the page as it is refbombed beyond belief, but the ones I did check were either dead links or trivial mentions. One reference (Ref. 18) is certainly in depth and secondary, but is so overflowing with praise that I have to wonder if it's a paid or otherwise somehow promotional content. No opinion on keep or delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The individual received significant coverage both in relation to his reporting on the Credit Suisse AT1 case and his role as an ambassador. The following publications (just a few examples) are secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Furthermore they dedicadet an entire article (and not a simple “passing mention”) to the individual in relation to the Credit Suisse AT1 Case:

- Financial Times "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop"

- Finews "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge In The Writedown Case Of CS"

- El Espanol "Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España: "El caso Credit Suisse AT1 ha sido una expropiación""

- Dominica News Online "Antigua and Barbuda ambassador Dario Item makes sensational international scoop in Credit Suisse AT1 case"

- Antigua Observer (which is NOT antigua.news) "Investigations by pizza lover Antiguan diplomat led to major Credit Suisse revelation"

- EconomiaDigital “Credit Suisse mintió a sus clientes justo antes de caer asegurando que no había retiradas de dinero”

- Insideparadeplatz.ch "AT-1-Geschädigten platzt Kragen: Klage gegen St. Galler Richter – Inside Paradeplatz"

The following media outlets/agencies (again just a few examples) published an entire article dedicated to the individual in relation to his role as an ambassador:

- UNWTO "UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda share vision of tourism for growth and opportunity"

- Yahoo Finance “Ambassador Dario Item on Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne Speech to the United Nations”

- Dominica News Online "Antigua & Barbuda's Foreign Affairs Minister praises Ambassador Dario Item as a game changer"

- Antigua Observer "Ambassador Dario Item advocates for more Antiguan and Barbudan missions to be established abroad"

- CadizDirecto: "Dario Item el hombre clave de Antigua y Barbuda en Europa"

- The European Financial Review “Dario Item, Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda: How We Can Help it Bounce Back”

There are perhaps hundreds of articles about this individual online (Reuters, El Pais, Die Weltwoche, Tagesanzeiger, Corriere del Ticino, etc.). The media coverage is definitely significant. Mediascriptor (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this is just becoming a WP:REFBOMB, much like the article itself (which at this point has significantly more references than e.g. the current German Defense Minister, and we probably wouldn't argue that Item is more notable than Pistorius).

Notability isn't the same as coverage. There are thousands of community leaders, politicians, or athletes that have plenty of news mentions and interviews without deserving a standalone article. Sources are a means to and end, not an end in themselves: the question is whether what's backed up by the sources about the subject is notable. Dozens of sources all rehashing the same 2-3 facts about the subject or summarizing yet another interview isn't good proof of his notability. Yes, he is the ambassador and UNWTO representative (as the article tells us with no less than 13 sources) and yes, he might have played a role in a scandal at Credit Suisse, although neither the scandal nor his contributions are even mentioned there despite being a GA.

As WP:GNG states, ""significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (emphasis mine). — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 18:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article is not necessarily in a perfect state, Dario Item is a household name in the country with extensive coverage in reliable sources. Item has been mentioned in some of the most reliable independent sources in the country’s media such as Antigua Observer (only newspaper in the country with a proper editorial staff) and the Antigua Broadcasting Service (only major television station in the country). A search for his name yields significant results. While the article is not impressive, and could be moved to draft space as an alternate measure, the subject fully meets the notability requirements for an article. CROIX^talk 13:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This guy fully meets the notability requirements for an article. His name has an extensive coverage in independent, authoritative and reliable sources. Furthermore, his revelations on the AT1 Credit Suisse case are of significant encyclopedic value..Juliannua (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this vote be disregarded. This is a 10-year-old account with one total edit, which is this one. Given that there have been several suspicious accounts working on the article itself, there is a significant risk of sockpuppeting here. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 14:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that I only have one edit. I have other edits in WIKI ES. You only need to look at the Edit Statistics. But even if I only had one edit, what difference would it make? Don't I have the same right to express my opinion as all the other editors? I see unnecessary aggression and bias in what you generally write.

@CROIX is a very experienced editor who lives in Antigua and Barbuda. If he writes that Dario Item is a “household name in the country” and “has been mentioned in some of the most reliable independent sources in the country’s media” such as Antigua Observer and ABS, how can you refute him without providing any concrete evidence and still expect to remain credible?

How can you, objectively, not consider the Financial Times to be authoritative?

In Spain, Dario Item is well known both as an ambassador and for his revelations on the Credit Suisse case. His name has appeared in many newspapers, including the highly authoritative El País (which interviews him often) and El Mundo, which interviewed him on the subject of the king's immunity (“La inviolabilidad del Rey, garantía de "estabilidad" en todas las monarquías parlamentarias de Europa” https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2021/02/23/603556b7fdddff256c8b4605.html). I have also seen significant media coverage in Switzerland. I don't think these facts are disputable. Juliannua (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juliannua, yes all editors are able to weigh in on this conversation. What I think Arcaist is bringing up with the regard to editing history is that it appears some editors who have contributed here bring up concerns about the possibility of WP:SPA.

As the draft article and was speedily deleted under Promotional and CIO concerns earlier, and other experienced editors have previously raised concerns, Arcaist brings up a valid point here.

This is because a number of those involved are new editors (CreateAccou4343nt555, Ignatius Shitanda), have few edits on EN wikipedia (such as yourself, Eternaldao7, Sharkwriters), few recent edits on EN wikipedia (SY DIGITAL, Kerry muga) or when they have contributed more broadly, they have contributed significantly to articles about Item or entities/individuals connected to him (Antonio Pérez Villanueva, Darniel ramos garcia1980 Jesus Sanchez Herrera, Mediascriptor).

Nayyn (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new, my account is from 2021. I know a good amount of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You saying that I'm new to Wikipedia while being unable to check for my account age and contributions contributes to the fact you don't seem to really check into and know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines so well as you seem to make it. Using such argument of account age is not really useful in any way here and does not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and disperses attention, and there is policy/guideline against it.

14:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC) CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject clearly meets WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources. It's quite surprising to see Nayyn claim the Financial Times piece is a "passing mention." The article, "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop," is demonstrably about Dario Item and his role in the Credit Suisse affair, providing in-depth coverage, not a mere mention. This alone is a strong indicator of notability. Beyond the FT, Mediascriptor and Juliannua have already listed numerous other strong international sources like Finews ("A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge..."), El Espanol ("Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España..."), and even the UNWTO ("UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda share vision..."), which dedicate substantial reporting to Item's activities, both concerning Credit Suisse and his ambassadorial role. The sheer breadth of coverage across different countries and languages (Spanish, German-language Swiss, English) underscores a level of international notability that goes beyond just local interest.

I also agree with Juliannua; their points are valid, and their !vote should be considered on its merits. Disregarding a contribution based on edit count, especially when they articulate clear reasoning referencing sources like El País, isn't productive. Furthermore, CROIX's local knowledge as an experienced editor from Antigua and Barbuda, stating Item is a "household name" and well-covered locally, should carry weight when assessing regional significance.

Concerns about "ambassadors and minor nobles" being generally nonnotable (per Nayyn) seem selectively applied here. Wikipedia hosts articles for many ambassadors, including other Antiguan diplomats such as Karen-Mae Hill, Carl Roberts (diplomat), Walton Alfonso Webson, and Claudius Cornelius Thomas, some with arguably less international press than Item. If the notability criteria are met through independent significant coverage, the role itself isn't an automatic disqualifier. I'm not currently editing the article and have no COI; I'm simply bringing these points up for fair and neutral consideration. The evidence provided by multiple editors points to sufficient notability here, and I hope others will take a second look in light of the above. While the article might benefit from further refinement (as many do), the sourcing supports keeping it. Eternaldao7 (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fundamental question for WP:GNG is whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In Dario Item's case, the evidence points to yes, specifically because these sources document a clear impact and influence he has had, particularly concerning the Credit Suisse AT1 bond affair. The Financial Times detailing his 'big Credit Suisse scoop,' Finews highlighting him 'leading the charge,' and El Espanol exploring his perspective as a key player, all speak to more than just passing interest – they document a person whose actions have had tangible, reported consequences and have generated significant discourse in international financial circles. This demonstrated influence, extensively covered by independent media, is precisely what establishes encyclopedic notability." Kerry muga (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Hello everyone. I've been reading through this discussion, and as someone who values Wikipedia as a place to learn about people shaping current events, I wanted to offer my thoughts. It seems to me that Dario Item is exactly the kind of individual one might reasonably expect to find information about here.

When a story like the Credit Suisse AT1 bond issue makes headlines internationally – and we see publications like the Financial Times writing dedicated pieces about "the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop," or Finews explaining how "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge" – it naturally sparks public interest.

People will wonder, "Who is this person at the center of this significant financial news?"

To me, that's where Wikipedia's role becomes so important. It's not just about whether someone is a "celebrity" in the traditional sense, but whether they've become a figure of public discussion due to their actions or involvement in noteworthy events. The articles in El Español, and even reports from places like Dominica News Online or the Antigua Observer about his diplomatic work and the Credit Suisse revelations, show that his activities are being discussed across different countries and contexts.

It feels like the core question of "has this person done something that made reliable, independent news outlets talk about them in a significant way?" is clearly answered with a "yes" here. The fact that he's also an ambassador, involved with the UNWTO, and has received various recognitions just adds more layers to why someone might be looking him up.

If parts of the article needed tidying up, that's what editing is for, and it sounds like good work has already been done on that front. But to remove the article entirely would feel like missing an opportunity to document someone who has demonstrably stepped into the public sphere through actions that have drawn considerable, legitimate media attention. It just seems like information people would genuinely be seeking. Sharkwriters (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My assessment is that the subject, Dario Item, satisfies the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). This is based on the presence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, particularly concerning his activities related to the Credit Suisse AT1 situation and his ambassadorial functions. Several specific publications provide coverage that appears to meet the depth required by WP:GNG: The Financial Times article dedicates substantial content to Mr. Item's role and actions, which constitutes more than a passing mention. Finews similarly focuses on him as a central figure in a noteworthy event. El Español offers an extensive profile, indicating significant interest from a major international publication. These sources are generally accepted as reliable and editorially independent. And these are just 3 of the many international sources other editors already mentioned and can be found in reference footnotes of Item’s article. The subject's diplomatic roles and interactions, such as with the UNWTO ([link, e.g., https://www.unwto.org/news/unwto-and-antigua- and-barbuda-share-vision-of-tourism-for-growth-and-opportunity]), provide further context of a public profile. While notability isn't inherited from a position, significant media coverage of activities undertaken within such roles contributes to fulfilling WP:GNG. Recognitions like the Scottish titles (referenced under legislation such as s.63 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 - [19]) and awards (e.g., from the Royal House of Georgia - [20]) are supplementary details that round out the individual's public record, though the primary basis for Wikipedia notability remains the independent secondary source coverage. The existence of articles for other Antiguan diplomats, as noted by other editors here, suggests that holding such a position is not an automatic bar to notability if WP:GNG is otherwise met. The key consideration is whether this specific individual has garnered sufficient independent coverage, and the evidence regarding Mr. Item's role in the widely- reported Credit Suisse case, in particular, points to this. While any article can benefit from ongoing editorial attention to ensure neutrality and sourcing precision, the available information indicates that the notability threshold for inclusion has been crossed. I think he has enough recognition to be considered in WP:GNG as his fellow peers also have their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SY DIGITAL (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This article and its subject clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and the following is proof of that, falsifying the deletion nominator's argument. First, the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources are the findings of my independent research for sources on Google that cover the subject Dario Item which asserts notability criteria by providing significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources:

ElHuffPost (2020-10-23). "Antigua y Barbuda, un destino turístico ligado al desarrollo empresarial". ElHuffPost. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by ElHuffpost with factual information on Dario Item's role as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
O'Murchu, Cynthia; Smith, Robert; Ashworth, Louis; Walker, Owen (2023-05-24). "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop". Financial Times. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by Financial Times establishes factual, in-depth information on the article's subject as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, journalist/writer, lawyer, and his role on Credit Suisse's case, contrary to what User:Nayyn claims. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Ortín, Alberto (2023-06-13). "Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España: "El caso Credit Suisse AT1 ha sido una expropiación"". El Español. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by El Español with in-depth information on Dario Item's role on Credit Suisse's case and factual information about him being a Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, and lawyer. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Insider Monkey Interviews (2020-11-04). "Ambassador Dario Item on Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne Speech to the United Nations". Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source on Yahoo Finance with factual information on the article's subject as an Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda.
UN Tourism (2024-02-06). "UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda Ambassador Dario Item Share Vision of Tourism for Growth and Opportunity". UN Tourism. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by UN Tourism on Dario Item role as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, and Permanent Representative to UN Tourism. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Gerber, Samuel (2024-04-05). "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge In The Writedown Case Of CS". finews.com. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by finews.com with factual information on the article's subject as an Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, journalist/writer, lawyer and his role on Credit Suisse's case. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Bautista, José Manuel García (2023-01-16). "Darío Item, el hombre clave de Antigua y Barbuda en Europa". Cádiz Directo. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by Cádiz Directo with factual information on the article's subject as an Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, and Permanent Representative to UN Tourism. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Michael (2024-12-04). "Ambassador Dario Item advocates for more Antiguan and Barbudan missions to be established abroad". Antigua Observer Newspaper. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by the country's native major news information Antigua Observer Newspaper with factual, in-depth information on the subject's role as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda and on UN Tourism.
johnson, jennelsa (2022-10-28). "Antigua and Barbuda consulate opens in Monte Carlo". Antigua Observer Newspaper. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by the country's native major news information Antigua Observer Newspaper with factual information on the subject's role as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda.
La Nueva Crónica (2023-01-30). "El embajador Dario Item nos presenta el boom turístico de Antigua y Barbuda". La Nueva Crónica. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by La Nueva Crónica with factual information on the on the article's subject as an Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda.

I easily found the above and many more sources covering Dario Item by using the following Google search string:

"Dario Item" -site:darioitem.* -site:dario-item.com -site:embassy.ag -site:medium.com -site:instagram.com -site:x.com -site:twitter.com -site:youtube.com -site:facebook.com -site:linkedin.com -site:wikipedia.org -site:pinterest.com -site:academia.edu

User:Nayyn did not provide any policy or guideline for their claim that "Ambassadors and minor 'nobles' are generally non-notable." Actually, WP:DIPLOMAT says that "For any individual (including therefore any diplomat) who meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria, we presume that an article about them is merited", as proved above with many reliable sources. Also, prior discussion on notability have been had that "Ambassadors (and equivalent, such as High Commissioners, UN Permanent Representatives and EU Permanent Representatives) would be presumed notable". As such, this Nayyn's argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable.

User:Nayyn didn't provide any police or guideline on why the users edits' they mentioned would be actually problematic. The way they put it, seems as an appeal to authority logical fallacy. As such, this argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable.

User:Arcaist didn't provide any evidence for their claims. A simple research easily results in reliable sources, as demonstrated above.

What could be argued is that, naturally, further improvements could be made to the article. I personally added 3 reliable sources to it.

CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreateAccou4343nt555 welcome to Wikipedia! As you are new here, let me be a bit more detailed in my concerns about this article and why I brought it to this forum. Hopefully this can provide a bit more understanding as Wikipedia has a lot of policies that can be somewhat confusing to navigate for on your first day here.

Regarding notability-- When it comes to the amount of sources out there about Item, having sources is no guarantee that a person is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Individuals must fulfill the general notability guideline with significant coverage in independent sources. Ambassadors are usually not considered inherently notable, but it is a case by case basis. WP:DIPLOMAT is an essay, not an official policy. I'm not convinced that because he's an ambassador he's notable, feel free to disagree, that's why we have this discussion here. While there are reliable sources that have been added that confirm his role, I'm not sure his accomplishments as ambassador fulfill the requirements of WP:ANYBIO.

Regarding his notability as a journalist: While the Credit Suisse case brought attention to Mr. Item and provides WP:RS on him, it is a case of WP:1E. I haven't seen enduring coverage of him as a journalist with the exception of this case. On Wikipedia, notability is not temporary. Currently the reliance on the scoop and one Financial Times article appears to take an WP:Undue weight when it comes to assessing Item's notability. Just because WP:ITSINTHENEWS doesn't mean that someone is notable.

Regarding his notability re his nobility: While Item claims many "noble" honors, I have concerns if any of them fulfill WP:ANYBIO given that it appears he is in the business of assisting others in obtaining these and works for one of the entities that confers such awards. Other claims of notability that he is married to a celebrity do not fulfill the criterion either.

I nominated the article for these reasons. The requirements for sourcing for Living Persons on Wikipedia are high and require reliability.

Beyond notability, I also raised some concerns about the independence and neutrality of this article. While neutrality concerns cannot be a reason to delete an article, given the way the article has been edited, my concerns about WP:SPIP and WP:COI remain. These have not alleviated by the nature of this deletion discussion. Please see my comment here where I explain my concerns about WP:SPA and WP:NPOV.

CreateAccou4343nt555, I hope that the above explanation makes sense. Please remember, this is my personal view -- and anyone is welcome to disagree! That's why this forum exists for others to weigh in and for consensus to be made. But please be respectful in your discussion, as comments such as "Nayyn's argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable" as you did above, appear uncivil and against Wikipedia policies for these things.
Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your first day here :-) Nayyn (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new, my account is from 2021. I know a good amount of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You saying that I'm new to Wikipedia while being unable to check for my account age and contributions contributes to the fact you don't seem really check into and know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines so well as you seem to make it. Using such argument of account age is not really useful in any way here and does not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and disperses attention, and there is policy/guideline against it.

The link in "having sources is no guarantee that a person is suitable for inclusion" is an essay, not an official policy or guideline. The sources I provided fulfill WP:GNG because it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", it is easily verifiable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) is a failed proposal, not a policy, guideline, or even an essay, thus this argument lacks evident value and is disposable. As in the sources I provided, consensus is that diplomats are notable and fulfill criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. With all the multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources I provided, it's obvious the subject passes WP:BASIC criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AND "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.".

There are multiple reliable, independent sources provided that fulfill Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) which are enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, so WP:SPIP and WP:COI don't actually apply here as deletion criteria of the whole article.

There is no actual good evidence basis for deleting this article, what should be done is that the article should be kept and further improved. Please, help with that following my example of for example adding reliable sources.

CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, just noticed your talk page created today! Welcome back! Nayyn (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page was created in 2021... I really don't know what you're talking about.CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I say welcome back, as your last contribution to Wikipedia was in 2023 on GNU Guix Systems so it has been some years now since you contributed , so I wanted to be clear in my communication. Nayyn (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my reply to Mediascriptor, notability isn't the same as coverage. We don't need another 9 sources all saying that he's the ambassador, or 10 online sources all repeating his three quotes on the supposed Credit Suisse scandal. Such WP:REFBOMBs do not help a notability claim if all they do is state the same thing, but in a bunch of different outlets. The question is whether what is being said in those sources makes him notable. As WP:GNG states, "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (emphasis mine).

The Credit Suisse section is both a case of WP:1E, full of grandiose claims about Item's importance not covered by the sources (he "significantly contributed towards public understanding", "being prominently covered", "continued to publish significant revelations", "published a new scoop", "recognized by the international press as a primary source for comprehending the Credit Suisse AT1s case", etc.), and seemingly not important enough to be featured at Credit Suisse.

I don't believe what's given in those sources reaches WP:GNG, and neither do some others in this discussion. You're free to think otherwise, which is why we're having this discussion. But let's not make it look like his notability is beyond all questioning just because a Google search produces some results. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a very difficult discussion that seems to be highly brigaded with tons of accounts with very few edits on en-wiki that are all !voting keep (some have since been blocked such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mediascriptor), the article itself looks like a WP:BLP1E / WP:PROMO article for a lawyer that represents people in the case against Credit Suisse and clearly seems to gain financially from this and increasing his profile around the Credit Suisse case. Even if we grant that the story itself is notable and that he had a significant part to play in reporting the story, this is still a case WP:BLP1E and WP:JOURNALIST where reporting one single story does not automatically mean notability in Wikipedia. I did make an attempt to comb through the first 40 references on the heavily WP:REFBOMB article on the subject and apart from a critical article on finews.com discussing all his conflicts of interest there wasnt any WP:SIGCOV, almost all links were trivial mentions, a snippet from him or some work done in his official capacity as ambassador (diplomats are not inherently notable). However, I wasnt able to find an in-depth secondary piece on him (apart from the critical finews piece) and many stories are about the CS case and not about him; looking at WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG I cannot find enough evidence for notability in all the sources provided, the only possible criteria would be NARTIST#4c based on the award that his media company (not him) got but I think that is a bit of a stretch and would only possibly qualify the media company he runs and not himself. On a different note, reading the article actually doesnt really explain what it is that makes him notable and what he really contributed to the reporting around CS, which is another major issue in the article, from reading all the cited sources I gather that he got an internal correspondence between FINMA and Credit Suisse where they disagreed about how the AT1 bonds should be treated -- again something that is supposedly his major contribution and is not even properly laid out in the article. --hroest 16:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP – I’m new to this article discussion but have read through both sides and the underlying Wikipedia policies. Based on the evidence available, it appears that he meets the requirements under WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

The Financial Times article “Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop” is not a trivial mention — it’s a full, dedicated feature published by a globally respected outlet. In addition, there are multiple other independent, reliable, and secondary sources covering his role as a diplomat, his media work, and his involvement in the Credit Suisse AT1 bond story.

Some editors have raised the concern of WP:1E (one-event notability), but I respectfully disagree this applies here. The Credit Suisse coverage appears across multiple outlets, countries, and languages, and there is a pattern of coverage over time, including before and after that case. That demonstrates enduring notability rather than fleeting attention.

Concerns about peacock language or reference overload (WP:REFBOMB) are valid for content improvement, but they’re not, on their own, sufficient grounds for deletion. The solution to promotional tone is editing, not erasure. Wikipedia policy states that articles should be judged on the subject’s notability, not necessarily on the article’s current perfection. See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.

I would also note that Wikipedia welcomes contributions from a wide range of editors, and that participation from newer or topically interested accounts does not inherently invalidate their arguments, as long as they follow policy.

In summary, regardless of the article’s imperfections, the volume and depth of coverage across major international media strongly support retention. With a more neutral tone and clearer organisation, the article can be improved further. Based on WP:N, I believe it should be kept. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Seungmin Kim

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

Strongly suspect this is WP:COI. New user created this page, made trivial edits to get ability to create articles, and created it.

ko:김승민 큐레이터 ("Kim Seung-min Curator") this is the corresponding article on the Korean Wikipedia; it probably should be deleted too because it's clearly COI. It was created by a "Curatorkim" user (likely Kim herself); the article was made just a few days before the enwiki version.

My guess is that Kim hired someone to write this article in English for her. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, South Korea, and United Kingdom. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI concerns unless there are WP:RS on the issue. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentions of her here and there, biographies on affiliated sites. No independent significant coverage. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Grapesurgeon you're right. She hired User:Eavesayes but after a decline another bad faith editor posted the same draft on the mainspace. Gheus (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Snowdon

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

Previous PROD (endorsed and deleted) for a subject who has no secondary sources, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:JOURNALIST. The subject's claim to a PhD cannot be verified - I wrote to the alleged awarding institution as neither I nor others could find any PhD and the institution provided no information. The restoration of this one seems to have been an error, caught up in this mass restore of soft deleted articles [21] where discussion shows that the dePRODer intended to restore sports bios PRODed by a particular user, but included this one apprently by accident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails all of the above. This is a waste of time. Anwegmann (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's letter to Ali Khamenei

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

This has to be one of the best examples of Trumpcruft on Wikipedia. This is article is about a single letter, sent a few months ago. I held off nominating this article for deletion when it was first created, but it's been enough time now that I think it's clear it does not have enduring notability by itself; it has not received any extensive coverage since it was sent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was not a significant event. Any information worth keeping can easily be merged into the article on the 2025 United States–Iran negotiations (a subject that does have a more clearly enduring notability). Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Literature, Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. No reason this letter needs its own article. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. No need for a separate article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if we have WP:RS, but a merge is more preferable to avoid WP:CFORK happening. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to WP:NOMERGE, articles that are merged should not be excessively lengthy. Conversely, if an article has the potential for expansion, it should not be deleted. The article 2025 United States–Iran negotiations is lengthy and has the potential for further development. Also, the article about Trump's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei is quite well-known. It is a letter between two important and well-known people. Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Many years have passed since this article was published.GolsaGolsa (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Probably yes, but don't WP:OTHERSTUFF please. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This letter has no notability independent of the greater scope article. A sentence or two about the letter in 2025 United States–Iran negotiations would suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. It was the starting point for the negotiations. If it is merged, and a redirect is created, all original information in this article is saved (through History). If it is deleted, everything is gone. PS Just to be clear, if it is not merged, then Keep! Lova Falk (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This can be covered in 3-4 sentences on the main page. No WP:PAGELENGTH concerns due to the minimal amount of net new content. Longhornsg (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 78.81.123.235 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merav Ceren

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. The United States National Security Council employs almost 400 staffers, including numerous directors at Ceren's level. Many NSC staffers, including her former boss Eric Trager, a senior director, who has far more significant policy impact, don't even have an article. Coverage of Ceren is primarily due to a short-lived media controversy, not for enduring or substantive contributions to public policy. Routine job appointments or involvement in transient news cycles do not establish lasting encyclopedic notability, especially for a director who was in the job for 2 months. If anything, a case of WP:BLP1E for the controversy around her appointment. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Israel, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Good point about Trager, perhaps you could help develop that page. I think you under estimate Merav's contribution to public policy.Leutha (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trager now has an article. He's notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Still no policy-based argument for Ceren. Longhornsg (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very briefly held a mid-level position and there was a debate around that. Not right to build an article from there. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalani Hilliker

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears to be famous for being famous, but a WP:ROTM actor, dancer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as it lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent references to the subject and some of the references is self-published source and unreliable. Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ritam Chowdhury

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

Declined prod. Created by a single purpose editor. Only 2 sources, 1 being Amazon that doesn't even mention Chowdhury. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Note that a single purpose editor has been editing this article so possible WP:COI. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and India. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the list of edits and noticed that multiple minor edits along the way had deleted many citations and references for this page slowly over time. Tried adding a few things back in. Not sure the subject of this page is actively keeping tabs on these edits. Would recommend against deletion at this time. Freddiced (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)— Freddiced (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Freddiced, do you know or have any connection to Ritam Chowdhury? LibStar (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar Know as in i know the page as i had edited it a long time ago. Beyond that no - dont know this person IRL or have any connections personal or professional with them. Freddiced (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Freddiced, so why have you edited this article after 7 years not editing? LibStar (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStarLike i said im not a regular editor. I help when i can. I had some time to kill today. Was just checking on the pages i had edited in the past and noticed the notice for deletion on this one specifically. Tried to fix some of it. Apologies if I overstepped. Upto you and other senior mods/editors if yall want to delete this or other pages. Thanks! Freddiced (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar noticed a lot of the information on this page since has been deleted slowly over time. this also included actual references and citations. im not a professional wikipedia contributor. Freddiced (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Delhi, Maharashtra, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and fails to pass GNG, SIGCOV and nauthor. Fade258 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – All sources are of poor quality, and no sources are found on Google either. I agree with LibStar's opinion. Importantly, the page creator Lsmithcoops [22] (2015-02-04) and Freddiced [23] (2015-02-05) have their account IDs registered with a one-day difference. - SachinSwami (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Parra Vallette

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fail NPOL, as the mayor of a large city in Chile (Viña del Mar). He did so in full capacity following the removal of office of Rodrigo González, who preceded him. Although he was the mayor for only three months, the article could well be expanded using offline sources such as El Mercurio de Valparaíso. --Bedivere (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 334,248 is not large enough to entitle the mayors to be inherently notable. Let's be consistent with our judgments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put that into perspective then. It's the sixth largest commune in Chile by population. It's a large city in Chile. Bedivere (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Population doesn't mean high notability. Honolulu has a population of 344,967. Viña del Mar has more population than Orlando, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Des Moines and Anchorage, notable U.S. cities. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets enough NPOL, the subject of the biography has held an official position and has received sufficient media coverage. --Carigval.97 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is not about holding "an official position". Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luis Trejo

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with access to archived Chilean media can write and source something more substantive than this. Mayors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for existing, and have to show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about 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 this basically just states that he existed, and just cites the absolute bare minimum of sourcing needed to prevent it from being speedied as completely unsourced, without adding any of the more substantive content or sourcing that we would actually need to see. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article sufficiently meets the notability guidelines for politicians, as it addresses the first topic of politicians who have held province–wide offices, in this case, that of mayor of Viña del Mar.

Just as there are political figures with extensive coverage without holding an official position, in this case, it is a figure with historical notoriety without much media coverage. Carigval.97 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of a city is not a "province-wide" office. It's a local office that falls under NPOL #2, where the notability test depends exclusively on media coverage and cannot be passed without that. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rules, media coverage is a second important point, not necessary exclusive (that's why I was talking about cases where there are political figures without positions, but with sufficient references). Similarly, that position –mayor of Viña del Mar– is a province-wide office: that important city in Chile is a town in the Province of Valparaíso. Mr. Trejo has encyclopedic relevance as a mayor of a large city in Chile.Carigval.97 (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage is essential to passage of WP:GNG, not a mere option that can be bypassed. NPOL does not say that media coverage is optional; even a politician who does pass NPOL #1 (which a mayor does not) still has to have GNG-worthy sourcing too, and the only pass they get is that as long as their holding of the office is properly verifiable, we don't rush their article into the delete bin for not already being in a better state than it is — we give it time for improvement to a GNG-compliant standard, because it's an automatic given that the article will be improvable.

But mayors don't get the same indulgence: mayors only get articles if and when passage of the criterion for local politicians has already been shown off the bat, because there isn't the same guarantee that every mayor of everywhere can always be improved to a GNG-compliant standard. No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having to have GNG-worthy media coverage — there are just some levels of government at which the officeholders are given a grace period for improvement, and some levels of office at which they aren't given the same benefit of the doubt, but there is no level of government at which people are exempted from having to cite GNG-worthy sourcing at all.

I don't think you understand the definition of "province-wide", either. The fact that a city is in a province does not render the city's mayor into a province-wide officeholder, as he's mayor of the city and not mayor of the whole province. A province-wide office is one that has province-wide jurisdictional authority, like a governor or a provincial-level legislator, not a mayor of an individual town or city within the province. Mayors are local officeholders under NPOL #2, not province-wide officeholders under NPOL #1, which is precisely why a mayor cannot be exempted from having to pass GNG on media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasons, Bearcat, but Trejo's management as mayor of Viña del Mar is reflected in the document that refers to his social policies regarding legal aid, as well as in press reports that mention his management of the Viña International Festival. The lack of more digital news is due to the fact that the internet was not sufficiently widespread at the time. However, this lack is complemented by sufficient historical documents that do give him prominence in his field: the history of the mayoralty of Viña del Mar.

Regarding "No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having GNG-worthy media coverage", it's regrettable that there are cases where even long-standing English officials, such as Arthur Henderson, Baron Rowley (Labour), have few references, as well as Sidney Jones, Mayor of Liverpool, who does not register digital press releases, but rather press sources. Despite this, their notability lies in the positions they have held.

Finally, a city's case may remain provincial, but autonomous. Similarly, and being a local city, Viña del Mar is an important cultural and economic location (services, tourism). Based on this, and the fact that Trejo is a politician, the subject of the biography has sufficient notoriety to have held said office, as verified by official digital archives of proven reliability (Universidad Alberto Hurtado and notes from the Judicial Corporation). Carigval.97 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bring up WP:WHATABOUT "arguments". Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not just a matter of media coverage for the tenure of a politician's biography, a mayor in this case. The most important thing here is that "Politicians who have held international, national, or subnational office (such as members of national legislatures, governors, or mayors of large cities) are presumed notable." In this case, Viña del Mar is one of the largest cities in the country and is an integral part of Greater Valparaíso, the second largest urban agglomeration in Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igallards7 (talk) 3:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep: per Igallards7. The article has also been significantly expanded since the nomination. Luis7M (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NPOL does not state that mayors of large cities are presumed notable. The correct language in NPOL is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The language does not specify city size or even position a local government. The standard for all local politicians is what Bearcat describes earlier - the need to "show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact." This is true for a mayor of a population of 49, or a population of 32 million. In practice, this means that a local official should meet and possibly exceed WP:GNG to have a stand alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Zzz plant (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Knochelmann

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kentucky. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Knochelmann meets the notability guidelines for politicians due to extensive coverage of his tenure in office from local media, such as this article with biographical information. Other articles about his priorities and policies in office include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I know that this is not a criterion for notability, but as an aside I'll note that Kenton County is the third-most populous county in Kentucky after Jefferson and Fayette; there is substantial public interest in covering the county's leader. Mad Mismagius (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Yu

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Suffers from WP:BOMBARD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can understand the nominator's concern about "WP:BOMBARD" given the initial article creation, it's worth assessing the subject's actual notability separately from how the article came to be.

If Junie Yu indeed meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically for politicians, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and general notability, WP:GNG) through verifiable, independent sources, then the article should be kept. The focus should be on the subject's notability, not on the initial submission process.

Let's evaluate based on policy, not just initial impressions.

1bisdak (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Pam Baricuatro also fails WP:NPOL, she's one level of government higher than Yu (city vs municipality), and can be argued she may pass WP:GNG; of course that can definitely be determined by nominating that article for WP:AFD yourself as well.

Looking at the references on this article, it's Facebook, the Bohol provincial government, the Calape municipal government, election results databases, and actual WP:RS provide coverage mostly to his children (LOL?) passing the nursing board exams and being in a national beauty pageant, instead of him personally. There's one reference solely about him where his corruption cases were dismissed. Looking at all of this, delete as having failed WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the 2025 local election results, incumbent vice-mayor Sulpicio Yu Jr. unseated incumbent mayor Julius Caesar Herrera. See also the 2013 Bohol local election results.

Gregory Lyakhov

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

Subject does not meet inclusion criteria per the sources in the article. The sources do not meet WP:RS as the subject is the author of some of the articles. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tas Qureshi

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

Prod that was redirected to Robert Braithwaite (engineer). I don't think it is appropriate to redirect to 1 of his patients even if notable. Braithwaite's article doesn't even mention Qureshi. Article subject fails WP:BIO. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here are the sources I could find [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28]. These are mainly database entries that prove he exist, some with a small bio but they can't be independent. I couldn't verify the majority of the sources or claims presently in the article and most that I could open were not BLP quality. Moritoriko (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as it stands is not in good shape - most of the sources are 404 not found, which is not helpful. I am still doing WP:BEFORE, and it may help other editors participating in this AfD to also search for the subject under his full name Tahseen Qureshi (as, for example, here) under which name many of his academic papers appear. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princewill Chimezie Richards

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

Fails notability guidelines, as notability is not inherited from the Biafra Nations League. Searches fail to indicate notability of the individual aside from serving as a spokesman for the group. In lieu of deletion, the redirect could be restored or relevant content can be merged to the aforementioned article. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Africa. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone sees this, would they be able to move the comment on the talk page (which I'm assuming is a keep vote) here? I'm unable to easily on my phone. Thanks! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2025-06 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this anyways - here's all the sources used within the article:

"Renewed border tension: Biafra League barricades entrance to Bakassi, hoist flag" - No mention whatsoever of Richards. Would be more suitable for the Biafra Nations League article, but no author listed.

"Five Feared Killed in Bakassi Peninsula as Biafra Separatist Groups Hit Cameroon Warships" - Richards is only mentioned in the end as a spokesperson for the group.

"Militants kill Sailor, fail to hijack vessel in Bakassi" - once more, Richards is only mentioned as a leader or spokesperson for the group.

Little to no material exists on Richards himself. All news articles I can find simply have him as a spokesperson or founder. The article in this state serves as nothing more than a fork with limited information on the organization/terrorist group/separatist militia (unsure what exactly to call it). Any sources worth keeping are best merged with the Biafra Nations League, and the name should be a redirect unless more material comes out with the notability of the individual rather than the organization. The only sourced statement one could make is that Richards is a leader of the Biafra Nations League. jellyfish ✉ 01:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princewill Chimezie Richards page does not represent a group but a public figure, citations are there AfricaStates (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC) Note: moved from the talk page jellyfish ✉ 01:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Dahl

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is pure puffery - all notability inherited from Roald Dahl or Ruby Rose Molikog (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Molikog (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO. All but one source mentions relations to another famous Dahl or Ruby Rose, about 3/4 of place an extreme focus on them. Almost surely not notable in her own right. I can do stuff! (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources in the article, there is also coverage in The Cut [29], Women's Wear Daily [30], Cool Hunting [31], Racked again [32], Maxim and Curve [33]. Some of those include interviews, but also have biographical info and/or coverage of her fashion label. Many of them do mention her relatives, but just in passing, with half a sentence or so - the bulk is about her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hayes (adventurer)

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

Self-promotional article, subject does not meet notability standards. Article was created and heavily edited by user RowenaFernandes, who was banned for advertising and COI. All significant subsequent edits and expansions (most of them unsourced) came from a succession of accounts whose only contributions are on this article, likely to circumvent the initial ban. These accounts include 112.203.124.109, Litolividomaliwat, Service pa, Erictobeprecise, and Sonia.sherif. The attempts at ban evasion and COI/self-promotion should be enough for deletion, but the subject also has received no coverage besides a handful of low quality and self-published sources. A very niche Guinness World Record held briefly almost 20 years ago does not in itself establish notability. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched and added a ref, but overall don't think there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is material for a personal blog, not for wikipedia. InaRoed (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. These sockpuppet's edit histories are very revealing! NoSlacking (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alerted to this a few days ago, which I find a bit bizarre given the page has been published without comment / warning for 15 odd years - and only after a couple of new inputs from someone on my recent summitting of Mt Kanchenjunga appeared. References to all my work are everywhere online and I have little idea of inputters / input bans and other 'warning' comments. 2A00:23C7:F883:F201:5B4:B60E:DE2:73B5 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted because of the odd "Agree" comments by low-editcount accounts. Needs more input by experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I did not relaise there was a minimum edit count needed to participate in these discussions. While my account is old, I am trying to edit more these days, and this page was put on the "suggested edits" section in my homepage - I saw the AfD banner and thought I should try getting involved. Please feel free to disregard my Agree comment if you do not conisder me experienced enough to comment. I am here to learn after all! NoSlacking (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the concerns raised above, I did WP:BEFORE and added a citation and reformatted to try to clean up, but the coverage is WP:ROUTINE, do not think subject passes WP:GNG

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Speedy decline. Last deletion end of 2024 and nothing has happened since that time to show notability. Sources are promotional, non-bylined (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous voters @Wikibear47:, @Star Mississippi:, @Mushy Yank:, @Saqib:, @GrabUp: --CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
acknowledging the ping, and thanks @CNMall41

Unfortunately I do not have the on wiki time to do sufficient research to cast an opinion here and don't anticipate that changing in the next week. Will weigh in if I can and appreciate the heads up. Star Mississippi 01:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)m[reply]

Keep. Aina Asif meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on new coverage since the 2024 deletion. Her lead roles in Mayi Ri, Pinjra and Judwaa have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources like The Express Tribune and The News International. The article has been rewritten with a neutral tone and now includes bylined, non-promotional references that address the original deletion rationale. As creater, i have of the article written the article in neutral tone. Behappyyar (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out said sources? I find a few bylined articles that verify a role, but nothing about her. WP:NACTOR is not guaranteed for having roles as there is NO inherent notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR clear says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is significant sources about her acting in notable dramas. Behappyyar (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the entire thread as it is misleading not to do so - "Such a person may be considered notable if:" (my emphasis added). So....notability is not inherent here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Thank you for the clarification. I understand WP:NACTOR is not automatic notability. However, Aina Asif has received significant coverage in major Pakistani media outlets — not just for her roles, but for her rising status in the industry.

For example:

The Express Tribune published a feature on her Mayi Ri role and social impact: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2434576/mayi-ri-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction
The News International highlighted her performance in Pinjra in an article discussing child-centric storytelling: https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1002289-raising-questions
Reviews and interviews on platforms like Galaxy Lollywood and Dawn Images also cover her work in detail.

These are independent, bylined, and show non-trivial coverage, meeting the threshold for WP:GNG . I’m happy to continue improving the article if you feel more sourcing or clarification is needed.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided are either broken or lead to the homepage so I cannot review. Reviews and interviews are not considered significant for purposes of establishing notability. Interviews are not independent and the reviews must be of the actor, not just mentioning the actor with a review of the work. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the error. Here you go

[34] as rising star, [35] as a cast, [36] for his early drama roles, [37] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ref 1 - Intervew, Ref 2 through Ref 4 - unbylined paid-for and/or churnalism which is the same as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of this can be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Not even remotely notable. This article has been deleted twice yet somehow different users mange to restore the same version again and again. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just because someone acted in two more drama serials doesn't mean that they are now notable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibear47: I understand your concern about repeated recreations. However, this is not a re-post of the previously deleted versions. The article has been significantly improved with 'reliable, secondary, and bylined sources'. It now documents Aina Asif's lead roles in critically discussed serials like Mayi Ri, Pinjra, and Judwaa, with extensive media coverage that was not available at the time of earlier deletions.

The current version avoids promotional tone, uses a neutral narrative, and cites national publications like The News, Express Tribune, and Dawn. This supports a claim of notability under WP:GNG and shows growth since her earlier career stage.

I'm open to feedback and improvements but believe this version no longer qualifies for speedy deletion or a G4 tag.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the current version, how do you know what the deleted version looks(ed) like?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the references—because when the page was deleted, those references weren’t available at that time. Behappyyar (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to show the sources that support either?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is some coverage from reliable sources that establish notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask what I have been asking everyone (which still has not been answered with the exception of one use providing unreliable sources)......what "coverage from reliable sources" are you referring to that "establish notability?" Note WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Sorry, I was being lazy before.

Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News: [1] Khan, Asif. "Aina Asif: a rising star". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 2025-06-06. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This was incorrectly cited, so I have fixed it. It is a reasonably sized interview with the subject in a national newspaper, reliable source.

[3] "Aina Asif clocks four 'incredible years' of acting with gratitude note". jang.com.pk. 2024-11-18. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

Another important national newspaper, minor article about the subject.

[11] "Tuba and Aina Asif reunite". Daily Times. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This is a space filler but in a minor national newspaper.

Then we have 2 articles in the Middle East press about the series, but do mention Aina Asif as a star of the serial.

[6] "'Highest form of abuse': Pakistani drama 'Mayi Ri' shines light on child marriage and beyond". Arab News. 2023-08-02. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

[13] Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News:

Further the subject has 4 notable series ( Hum Tum , Pinjra , Baby Baji & Mayi Ri ) credited to her in the article, that alone justifies notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) this is an interview, not independent. 3) Unbylined churnalism crap (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 6) She is listed in the caption of an image in the article, nothing in the article itself about her. 11) Another ubylined article which is basically a short about something she said on Instagram. 13) Interview, again not independent, and only mentions her as having the role - nothing "about" her so just verification. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have no thoughts about this, but considering that this AfD will be relisted soon rather than being closed as keep/delete, I will leave some thoughts on this topic. Pakistani-based outlets often have dubious reputations as sources to be used on Wikipedia so I might !vote soon if time allows, but there is a number of sources here that could interest some users. But I suspect that these sources would fall under the "no byline, promotional, mentions, unreliable etc..." category. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit:, You are correct about the sourcing. I looked at a lot of these before giving up as you can see here and here that the bylines and promotional tone would fall under the same policy as WP:NEWSORGINDIA which I would argue applies to the entire subcontinent, not just a country. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was what I expect the sources to come up with. I am concerned though with the two WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote from some random users. The sourcing brought up by the first user speaks for itself; the sources often look exactly the same as the other "byline" articles as you claim. I am not am expert in determining the validation of the Indian/Pakistani sources, as they tend to masquerade promotion into their own articles. I will probably make my last decision tomorrow. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple significant roles in notable films and enough media coverage is available as sources. Zuck28 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR says "may" be notable. Having multiple roles does grant inherent notability. As far as sources, many have already been discussed. Can you point out which sources (outside NEWSORGINDIA) that would show notability under GNG?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more media coverage which, I found with a simple Google search.

1 2, 3, 4, 5. Zuck28 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aina Asif plays significant roles in many notable television shows. Also this actress is famous and meeting WP:GNG. Deriu And (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vantia

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

Unsourced, hoax article, There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources, not enough coverage, fails GNG. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, and Gujarat. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This article has existed for 15 years, with no sourcing whatsoever. — Maile (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has expressed a "delete" opinion, this likely will not stop the nomination. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending towards delete, but it seems reasonable to given it a bit more time for more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article should be deleted due to lack of reliable references. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsource, falls WP:GNG. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 10:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sivad Heshimu Johnson

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

Fails WP:Oneevent and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Hirolovesswords (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Shapiro (music agent)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, should be merged and redirected to The Devil Wears Prada (band). guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Daniel Williams has also been nominated for merging. guninvalid (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alaska, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect at the moment: I think I agree with the OP on this one. I feel as though this one may fall under WP:BIO1E? My reasoning being upon inspecting the references, many cover the 2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash in which he was tragically involved (19 of the 22 references). This is only upon initial inspection however and I would be interested to see others' points of view on this. For now I concur with OP and think a redirect with coverage on a relevant page would probably suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a merge/redirect to the page of the band Count the Stars would be most appropriate. My reasoning for this rather than the OP's suggestion is that there is no definitive evidence Shapiro had any link to TDWP other than the crash. As Shapiro was a founding member of Count the Stars, this to me makes sense as the most appropriate choice for merge/redirection. 11WB (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find any relation between him and the band other than him dying in the same event as Daniel Williams, who was a former member of said band. 2600:1004:B347:4AE1:3C78:5FC1:1294:B927 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point if correct. A brief scroll of Google seems to back this up. It appears Dave Shapiro was a music agent/executive, but not of TDWP. In my post above for this reason, I only stated to redirect to a relevant page and not specifically to the article for TDWP. This may have been an oversight by the OP, however I think the point to redirect elsewhere stands on its own regardless. 11wallisb (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending this to be a reply to guninvalid’s comment because he said that Dave Shapiro should be merged with T.D.W.P. 2600:1004:B33F:699D:C81D:4C36:8E3F:4FB5 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they will be able to see these messages! 11WB (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While we have a rough consensus to Merge/Redirect, we have two different target articles suggested and we have to get that down to ONE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know almost nothing about Shapiro so I am fine with @11wallisb's suggestion of redirecting to Count the Stars. Parts of this bio can be merged into both articles anyway, but since there can only be one redirect, I'm okay with that being Count the Stars. guninvalid (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The only reason my redirect article differed is because Shapiro has no searchable link to TDWP (other than the crash). 11WB (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahim Alwan

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

WP:BLP1E, the event being Buffalo Six. Article subject has no independent notability outside the Buffalo Six case, where all pertinent information can be covered. WP:SIGCOV is only in the context of the Buffalo Six case.

Also nominating the pages of the other Buffalo Six associates for the same reason:

Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect all there (aka add the sources). No comment on thereoeticsl notability but none of these talk about anything else at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and GNG. _Dgw|Talk 01:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well going by BLP1E we would redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more feedback here, especially given that it is a bundled nomination. Merge? Redirect? Or deletion? Or....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avner Netanyahu

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

There's a lot of coverage of him because he's the son of a public figure. Supporting your relative's political career does not make you a public figure. He's not involved in politics himself or done anything to establish WP:NBIO. WP:INVALIDBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is rather routine, he went to school, military and he got married... Perhaps competing on the TV show would make him notable, but there isn't much coverage about that either. I don't see notability being met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP and WP:NOTINHERITED violations galore. Many more (75%?) lines of text are devoted to his family, fights, arguments, phone hacks, breakups, and security details - than anything he's ever done. Where's the assertion of notability? Also, the photo of him as a kid is problematic. Ping me if you can fix this. I'm a fan of Israel, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avner Netanyahu himself requested that the article about him be deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia on 8 Arpil 2024. The article remained. There were editors who admire Benjamin Netanyahu, who supported the deletion. There was a biased vote. The article was deleted and then restored because it was discovered that there was a problem with the vote with editors who specifically registered to vote. See here. It is strange that even the English Wikipedia wants to delete an article about a person in whom there is a lot of interest. Avner Netanyahu is going to get married on June 16, 2025, in Ronit farm a very expensive place with 2,000 very wealthy guests. This is causing a lot of anger in Israel, and there are going to be many demonstrations near the wedding venue, including blocking the narrow road to the wedding venue. And here they suddenly think it has no encyclopedic importance. See Articles 1. חתונת המ(ח)אה: ההכנות לחתונה של אבנר נתניהו קיבלו תפנית מפתיעה - ואיש לא נשאר אדיש. 2. התכנון למחאה בחתונת בנו של רה"מ - והביקורת בשמאל: "מטומטם וחסר תועלת, כך מתכננים בשמאל "להחריב" את חתונתו של אבנר נתניהו, 3. חתונת בנו של נתניהו בסכנה? אלו הפעולות הצפויות באירוע Hanay (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article about him? Avner Netanyahu is less involved than his brother Yair, but he is definitely involved. He said of his father, Benjamin Netanyahu, that he is a great leader like Winston Churchill. and more. Hanay (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Avner Netanyahu may have been in the background in the past but his upcoming wedding is now of major interest. People will want to know who is Avner Netanyahu. His wedding is a slap in the face to the thousands of hostages, injured, dead, and their families. The lavish and ostentatious event for some 2000 guests is occurring while hostages, soldiers, and Gazans are being killed as a result of the policy of Avner's father, Benjamin Netanyahu. While some claim Avner shouldn't pay the price of his parents' perfidy, one of the leaders of the protests, who worked as security guard for the Netanyahu family so knows them well, appealed to Avner to wed in a modest ceremony. Ami Dror posted this notice: "Avner, Advice from someone who knew you as a cute little boy...Have a modest wedding,...as if the 58 kidnapped people were your brothers, and not as if they were a story that doesn't concern you. Go to the media and talk about it. I promise you we won't come. Stay at Ronit Farm, say there will be 200 guests, a reasonable number. No asado, no caviar, and no champagne waterfalls...Avner, A modest wedding - I promise you won't see us. A Ceausescu-style banquet - we'll do everything we can to have you dance to the Gaza horror film while pictures of the hostages fly above you tied to yellow balloons." Activists are reportedly organizing motorcades to disrupt guest arrivals and plan to distribute copies of the book Mr. Abandonment and magnets bearing images of hostages. “We’re not trying to ruin the wedding,” protest leader Ami Dror told Ynet. “We couldn’t if we wanted to.” He explained that the protest isn’t about the marriage itself, but what the celebration symbolizes—especially after 21 months of war, during which many soldiers have held modest, makeshift weddings in between reserve duties. “It’s about the disconnection and arrogance. While reservists got married on wooden crates, he’s hosting a grand event at the country’s most luxurious venue.” MK Naama Lazimi of the "Democrats" party, headed by Yair Golan: “The problem isn’t the wedding itself,” she added, “but the complete tone-deafness. While the public grieves, struggles, and goes sleepless, the prime minister’s family puts on a lavish spectacle. It’s a show of detachment from the people.” Who is Amit Yardeni? Meet the woman marrying into Israel’s most-watched family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves coffee (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By having this extravagant wedding while so many people are suffering, Avner has made himself a public figure. Loves coffee (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The singular source provided is about Avner's finance. Still no policy-based argument or evidence for keep. Longhornsg (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Hanay, it is interesting to learn about the subject's deletion request at hewiki, but as I understand it he has made no such request here, so it likely does not impact this discussion. The English Wikipedia has its own standards for notability, which are fairly high. Please do not be surprised that an article kept elsewhere might be deleted here. More importantly, I understand that the discussion at hewiki was troubled, but the way you have worded your comment, it sounds like you are accusing Oaktree b and Bearian, two highly-experienced editors, of being connected to the issues there. This is casting aspersions and not allowed; I encourage you to strike the sentences beginning "It is strange..." and "And here they..." Toadspike [Talk] 23:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Even with the sources from Hanay, it seems the subject would be considered WP:BLP1E at best.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avner receives regular coverage, not all of which dervives from his family name, From the recent wedding saga to the very debate on his article deletion on hewiki (1, 2), to his victory in the bible quiz, enlistment and so on. I haven't looked into it too deeply, but this seens to constitute repeated coverage from noteworthy sources (haaretz, ynet, N12) that centers on Avner himself. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:INHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're more experienced with this than me. If that's how the criteria is defined, i guess i'm changing my stance Totalstgamer (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.

As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.

Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.

Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.

Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications

The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic), Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!

And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sci-fi & Fantasy Modeller, and Fine Scale Modeler are credible sources where he is the interview subject. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are usually considered primary sources, and additionally might not have sufficient independent content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi

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

I recently accepted this article via AfC. The subject has significant coverage in reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Print, and Hindustan Times, mainly around his death, but with in-depth info about his life. There's also a 2021 Hindi source with substantial coverage. I believe this meets the GNG, but to ensure consensus, I think an AfD discussion would be helpful so experienced editors can weigh in. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Only obituary articles seen. That is not notable. Dualpendel (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also found these sources on Google, [38], [39]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough references to demonstrate subject's notability. [40] - This is an in-depth coverage by reliable source Mongabay, [41]- An in-depth article by Hindustan Times. AndySailz (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was his death notable? Most people have obituaries. Where is the significant coverage outside of his death? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question please. If a news article about a person's death includes substantial coverage of their early life, career, and accomplishments essentially providing in-depth information directly about the subject, does that count toward meeting the General Notability Guideline (GNG)? Or is such a source discounted just because it's related to their death?Afstromen (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting on someone's life is exactly what an obituary does. If they were notable prior to the death, there would be significant coverage about their life during that time. So, unless something about the death is notable, it would not count. Otherwise, we could simply create new pages based on obituary sections of newspapers. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i wasn't aware of this. Outside his death, i found some sources [42], [43], [44].Afstromen (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi was a celebrity in Indian conservation circles prior to his death with many stories published about his work in Hindi and English. He also won notable awards, so he seems to clear the notability bar. Naturepeople (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was notable person before his death. He won awards from Rajasthan gov and he was featured in many popular news sites. Jodhpuri (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there coverage in reliable sources of the awards? Please provide links to the coverage in new sites and add to the article if you can. Dualpendel (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Rajasthan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject has got substantial coverage in independent media like The Print, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, and other. I think it passes WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Person was not notable before the death. Page is made up of mainly obituaries and reflections on his life. If he was worthy of notice prior to his death, there would be reliable sources covering his life more in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - https://www.hindi.news18.com/news/rajasthan/jaisalmer-meet-radheshyam-vishnoi-nature-lover-goes-for-100-kms-to-save-wildlife-his-spirit-inspires-5946711.html this article was published before his death. and many articles was written when he was alive.
Jodhpuri (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link timed out. Can you ensure you supplied the correct URL? Also, is this the only source? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you can google Jodhpuri (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/jaisalmer/news/jaisalmer-wildlife-savior-radheshyam-bishnoi-inspiring-story-134644803.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/barmer/jaisalmer/news/radheshyam-vishnoi-was-rewarded-with-young-naturalist-award-2021-129184236.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://hindi.news18.com/news/rajasthan/jaisalmer-meet-radheshyam-vishnoi-nature-lover-goes-for-100-kms-to-save-wildlife-his-spirit-inspires-5946711.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jodhpuri, the photo uploaded on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) mentions "Own work." Did you take this photo yourself, or was it sourced from another website? SachinSwami (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jodhpuri:, not my job to present your contention. I conducted a WP:BEFORE and the sources you provided do not change what I found. These are quite good churnalism but nothing reliable.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41,

I’m asking just to improve my understanding, could you please clarify why these sources are considered churnalism? As someone from India, I can confirm that Dainik Bhaskar is one of the top Hindi-language publications in the country and has a strong reputation. News18 is also a well-known media outlet.

Tagging @SachinSwami for his insights as well, as he is familiar with Indian news publications. Afstromen (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also, it sounds like you are asking on behalf of Jodhpuri since this is their thread. Did you mean to reply on a different thread? I am a little confused. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you view everything with suspicion? I asked only to improve my understanding, as I clearly mentioned. It's possible I asked in the wrong place. should I have brought this up on your talk page instead?Afstromen (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen:, I asked for clarification so as not to make an unwarranted accusation. Which thread was this intended for so I can address your question?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Hi @Afstromen, I'm a bit confused about the AFD process. I have some questions. If the page was accepted from AFC, why didn't you wait for experienced reviewers to review it before nominating it for AFD? Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? Also, the page creator Jodhpuri uploaded a photo on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) with the mention "Own work." I asked them about it here, but they haven't responded yet.- SachinSwami (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources, Bhaskar News has written against the wrongdoings of the Indian government, and even during IT raids on their office by the central government, they continued to raise their voice against such issues. We have seen this kind of journalism, but if a news article mentions the journalist's name, that source holds more weight; otherwise, the news lacks significant value. This is because promotional or social media information, or news created based on someone submitting a story to the office, often does not include the journalist's name. Hence, such sources are not reliable. Additionally, the Young Naturalist Award by Century Asia Group is a private award, not given by the Rajasthan government. SachinSwami (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean? Could you please be more specific?

Well I accepted this draft because I believed it contained significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. However, user CNMAll14 added a notability tag and raised a concern regarding the nature of the sources, noting that most reliable sources were published only around the time of the subject’s death. Due to this, I nominated the article for deletion so that more experienced editors could provide their opinion. I agree that while the sources are reliable, and have significant coverage but sources were published around the death time, which raises questions about whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline.

Before nominating for deletion, I confirmed that the article had previously been moved from mainspace to draft space. I accepted the draft based on multiple reliable sources but acknowledge my responsibility to address any oversights in evaluating the nature of the coverage.

Additionally, I did not review the image when accepting the draft, which was an oversight on my part.

If you review my AfC history, you will see that I take conflict of interest issues seriously and do not accept drafts when COI concerns are present. I also request COI disclosures as needed. Afstromen (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jodhpuri, Please answer here about your uploaded photo on Wikimedia commons. read Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest (COI) guideline, and disclose whether you have any COI.Afstromen (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41 had also tagged the second page. Did you check the page you accepted? And did you bring it to AFD? The answer to that is "no."

So, I have doubts about your review of the AfC history for that page. I created the page Nagamani Srinath, which was declined by Greenman and Gheus, with significant comments from them. Those comments were helpful for me to understand how to create pages properly in the future. I wanted to see what other important comments would come on that page. But suddenly, you accepted it, which was surprising to me. Later, when CNMall41 tagged the page for notability and unreliable sources, I checked some of the AfC pages you accepted and realized that, like me, you are also new to Wikipedia, so I ignored it. SachinSwami (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I still believe Nagamani Srinath is notable per WP:ANYBIO as she is a recipient of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award. While I may not be a highly experienced editor, I am doing my best. Instead of making allegations, we should communicate with each other constructively and respectfully. But again Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean?Afstromen (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also please See this. Afstromen (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with the tags placed by CNMall41 on the page. I also know that this page is notable, but receiving the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and having sources for it is not sufficient under WP:ANYBIO. The person must have made significant contributions to their field, earning widespread recognition (e.g., in arts, science, literature, sports, politics, etc.). This requires confirmation of their contributions through reliable and independent secondary sources. Additionally, if a person is famous only for a single event (e.g., a viral video or a single news story), they do not qualify as notable under WP:ANYBIO unless their long-term contributions or impact are proven through sources (see WP:BLP1E).

Also, I responded because you pinged me. I haven’t directly accused you of anything. Based on the photo added by Jodhpuri, I only mentioned that it “ I'm a bit confused" and asked about it while staying within WP:AfD rules. If my question has hurt your feelings, I apologize.-SachinSwami (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, but please take care of this. If you are unsure or confused about any of my actions, feel free to ask me anytime. However, I kindly request that no direct or indirect allegations should be made without reason.Afstromen (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes. this picture was captured by me. Jodhpuri (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is distracting from the notability discussion. As far as Nagamani Srinath, I went ahead and sent that to AfD here as I still have concerns and notability is not inherent simply for winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The sources in it are not reliable, and the award is also not credible. Importantly, according to the comment above, the person who created the page has admitted to taking the photo themselves. There may also be a possibility of a conflict of interest (COI).- SachinSwami (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person who created the page may have a conflict of interest, and the subject is not notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhar Khanzada

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

There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator's reason. Ixudi (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has concurred with the delete rationale, this may not stop the nomination. I have no opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Mayuran (Saba)

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

A bodyguard that lacks notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with Tamil references was notable and the LTTE named a sniper unit after him, known as the Mayuran Sniper Unit after his death.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the references are in Tamil, could this article be moved to the Tamil Wikipedia? ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG Recommend that sources be in English but as long as non-English sources are reliable and could be verified they are also allowed. -UtoD 10:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding the sources. I’m currently working on finding additional references in English or from more widely accepted Tamil publications. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article’s compliance with WP:RS. Thili1977 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing the discussion. While there are no English-language articles about Captain Mayuran (Saba), this is primarily because he served in a security role within the LTTE, which was not internationally covered in detail. However, his internal importance to the organization was clearly recognized — for example, the LTTE named a sniper unit after him after his death. His legacy is remembered through Tamil-language commemorative publications, obituaries, and community memorials. I understand the need for reliable sourcing and am doing my best to represent the subject neutrally and verifiably, within the limits of what is available. Thili1977 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the suggestion to move this to the Tamil Wikipedia, but I believe this topic has relevance for an English-speaking audience as well — especially in the context of the Sri Lankan civil war and the Tamil diaspora. Many members of the younger diaspora today can no longer read Tamil fluently, or at all. Having this article in English supports broader educational access, cross-cultural understanding, and historical documentation. I hope the article can be retained and improved here rather than removed or relocated. Thili1977 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original contributor of this article. Captain Mayuran (Saba) was a member of the LTTE during the Sri Lankan civil war and served as a close protection officer for LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. He participated in several key operations and is remembered within the Tamil community, especially for his role during the Battle of Pooneryn in 1993, where he was killed in action. The article is based on multiple Tamil sources, including contemporary reports and commemorative publications. I have aimed to present the content in a neutral, fact-based manner. I’m open to improvements and willing to add stronger references if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thili1977 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolu Okupe

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no information or sources stating of this person is either a model or activist. The article does not mention any fashion shows or brands that he participated in, nor does it mention any activism that he has done. He is only notable as a son of a former presidential aide which makes this WP:INVALIDBIO. This person is not notable. Sackkid (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is some coverage in reliable sources; how significant is debatable. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. The coverage that you are referring to all mirror that this is a gay man who happens to be the son of a former presidential aide. But there is no actual notability in that. I would say it would be more appropriate to merge this with Doyin Okupe but it is already there. Sackkid (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. Shoerack (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Blaise

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

Fails WP:BIO. A lot of this stuff is trivial. The Time source does not feature him as the topic of discussion, The Pink News source simply mentioned that he was one of the attendees but does not state that he organized the protest, The Bloomberg source does not exist, The Out magazine source was written by them (Blaise); which leads that this article could have been created and edited by Matthew Blaise. "In 2020, they were a winner of The Future Awards Africa "Prize for Leading Conversations" but the source does not mention him winning any award of the sort. Also, the page receives very little traffic. If this person is an actual activist, there should be more focus on what they actually changed in the course of history and human rights. But once you take away the sentences with the meaningless sources, you are left with trivial information about where he is allegedly attending college. Sackkid (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg source exists and link is still active. There are many articles and publications about them, and their nonprofit is quite active as well. Iseaseeshells (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, none of them say what he has actually done as an "activist", they are simply mirroring each other. I saw several pages that says he founded The Oasis Project but there are no articles that elaborate on it, say who it has helped, or what it has actually done. Many publications do not do their own research to see if the information given to them is credible. They are simply calling it "a Nigeria-based registered non-profit organization" but it is not registered with the Nigerian CAC or Global Giving, so it is not an establishment. So again, these publications are mirroring each other. Example: "I believe the sky is yellow and pink because you told me. You believe the sky is yellow and pink because I told you." Sackkid (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear where you’re coming from, he is active with his nonprofit, Obodo, which is registered with CAC Iseaseeshells (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There would still need to be significant coverage from reliable sources in order to support the claim that Matthew Blaise is notable by Wikipedia standards. Also do you know Matthew Blaise personally? Sackkid (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 12:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and fails GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umair (music producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. At first glance there appears to be significant coverage but looking closer you will see that most are not bylined, are from unreliable sources, or just routine coverage or mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Umair meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. His 2024 album Rockstar Without a Guitar peaked at #8 on Spotify Pakistan and was featured in Genius Community’s 25 Best Albums of 2024 (ThePrint). His single “Asli Hai” topped YouTube Pakistan charts (Music Metrics Vault). Covered by reliable sources like Samaa TV, ThePrint, Wordplay Magazine, and Itz Hip Hop. Producer for notable duo Young Stunners. Meets NMUSIC via charting work, media coverage, and national significance.

— Behappyyar (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSICIAN would not be met based on charting. Spotify and YouTube are not acceptable under WP:CHART. Also, being a producer for someone notable does not come with inherent notability. Can you address the non-bylined references? Do you feel these are reliable and if so how? For WP:GNG, you are also cited press releases above which can never be used for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 While it’s true that WP:CHART places limits on YouTube/Spotify data for standalone notability, those indicators support broader cultural relevance under WP:NMUSIC#1 and WP:GNG. Chart placements help demonstrate impact in the absence of traditional charts in South Asia, where mainstream media often lags behind independent or digital-first musicians.

Regarding sources:

Samaa TV and ThePrint are independent, professional outlets with editorial oversight and journalistic standards. These are not self-published or fan-driven and are widely accepted as RS in other music-related AfDs.
The Itz Hip Hop review is bylined and analytical, not promotional; it contains critical assessment of Umair’s production and album structure.
The Wordplay Magazine article, while regional, is independent and contains critical evaluation — see similar RS used in AfDs for artists in UK/India-Pak context.

I accept that the ANI press release cannot count toward WP:GNG, but it was cited for factual support of chart placements, not to satisfy notability directly.

Notability isn’t only about headlining credits. Umair is the primary producer behind Rebirth and Open Letter, two of the most discussed hip-hop albums in Pakistan — both critically reviewed in RS and recognized in independent retrospectives. His influence is creative and structural, meeting WP:NMUSIC#2 (“significant contribution to the work of others that is covered in reliable sources”).

On balance, the article meets WP:GNG through multiple independent sources with critical commentary, and WP:NMUSIC through documented production of notable albums and influence on Pakistan’s hip-hop scene.

— Behappyyar (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a major role in major works proves notability. Could you give more info on the part he played and on the notability of those albums? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to forget: Talha Anjum's most famous song Kaun Talha? in which he diss an Indian rapper Naezy was produced by Umair. ^[1] Behappyyar (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@(Itzcuauhtli11) He served as the lead producer and co-composer on both Rebirth (2017) and Open Letter (2023), two landmark Urdu hip-hop albums in Pakistan.

On Rebirth, Umair produced all 15 tracks for Young Stunners, a duo considered foundational to Pakistani rap. The album is credited with shaping the Urdu hip-hop scene and received wide media attention from outlets like SAMAA TV.^[2]

For Open Letter, he was again the key producer, collaborating with Talha Anjum and international names such as KRSNA. The album was reviewed independently and discussed critically within South Asian music forums.^[3]^[4]

These albums are not just popular but culturally significant, marking key points in the evolution of Pakistani hip-hop. Umair’s complete production involvement and critical coverage of these albums demonstrate a major creative role in notable works, satisfying WP:NMUSIC#2 and strengthening his case under WP:GNG. ^[5]

References

^ "Indian rapper asks 'Talha Kaun?', Talha Anjum responds with a brutal diss track". Images.Dawn.com. Dawn Media Group. 21 May 2025. Retrieved 23 May 2025.
^ "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.
^ "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".
^ "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".
^ "Umair and Jokhay The man behind the rise of Talha Anjum amd Talha Younas".

There is a huge WP:WALLOFTEXT so I will only be addressing some of the main points. I wouldn't consider Young Stunners even notable despite having a Wikipedia page (that one needs to go to AfD as well). A single collaboration with a rapper is not something that gains inherent notability. Everything else is more of an WP:ILIKEIT argument. As far as the "landmark" albums you speak of, I would guess they would have enough coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page since they are landmark, yet I do not see it. Fact is, the coverage has some mentions, routine announcements, and unreliable sources (even a publication that is reliable like Dawn can have specific articles considered unreliable - see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). The rest of what you cited is not reliable (two blogs and Reddit?). If this artist was truly worthy of notice (a requirement of notability), there would be more than blog posts and promotional churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 This isn’t WP:ILIKEIT—his notability stems from his influence on multiple notable works. While some early coverage may be light or promotional, there is independent, reliable coverage (e.g., SAMAA TV, The Express Tribune, and Dawn articles/interviews) highlighting Umair’s production role. [45]. Behappyyar (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The comment proves what I have been saying. You cite this which is a routine announcement and not-bylined. It is not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. It is the same concept as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Finally, please do not cite interviews anymore. They are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link i have shared Umair slides into Genius Top Albums of the Year is not a routine announcement. It highlights Umair’s recognition by Genius alongside global artists like Beyoncé. This editorial coverage by a reliable source (The Express Tribune) goes beyond routine mentions and supports notability per WP:GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already stated numerous times. It is NOT BYLINED and falls under similar concerns as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Articles published under "news desk" or "webdesk" have consistently found to be unreliable for notability purposes as they are promotional churnalism, not something in-depth written by a journalist. Please see WP:CIR. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: would benefit from additional input. Contributors are also reminded to please refrain from using LLMs to generate walls of text, as they don't help anyone. Write your own arguments, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I lean to agree with CNMall41; most of the articles with SIGCOV doesn't mention the author of the article, and all of them have promotional undertones. The Rolling Stones review is nice, checks all the boxes for a good sources (except the promotional vibes). If we can find another 2+ sources of the quality of this Rolling Stones article, we can save the article. This source also has a little bit specifically on Umair. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought the Rolling Stone reference was okay, but when I looked closer during a WP:BEFORE, I saw it was Rolling Stone India which is not Rolling Stone and has different (if any) oversight authority. Should be treated similar to Forbes India or Entrepreneur India. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that he meets WP:NSINGER criterion 2, having a single listed on a country's national music chart. 1 190.140.190.217 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source that you pointed out states that "As well as several tracks making Spotify’s viral charts in Pakistan and India". Regional Spotify listings do not count towards WP:CHART. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify to modify sources~~ Delete: Having read the above discussions, read the article over and checked the sources, there are a few things that stand out to me. Firstly, the names of some of the article writers, namely refs 2, 5, 10 and 12, appear to not be the name of an actual person (Images Staff and Culture Haze). These sources are likely not bylined, as I believe has been mentioned previously. Secondly, ref 14 is a link to the artist's Spotify. Whilst Spotify isn't listed on WP:RS/PS, I would question whether it counts as a WP:RS. For these reasons, along with the article still potentially being a WP:Stub (it has the notice at the bottom of the article), I think that ~~draftifying~~ deleting the article ~~to take care of these issues would be beneficial in strengthening arguments for keep~~ is the appropriate action to take. 11WB (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb The references contain nonsense parameters because this article is AI generated. Sources 4 and 16 contain utm_source=chatgpt.com in the URLs. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Yes, it appears you are correct for ref 16. That link was attributed by Google Analytics to ChatGPT as a source of traffic. I believe this relates to Wikipedia:AI-generated content - not yet a policy, but important nonetheless. Having seen this and the other things I mentioned previously shifts my opinion from draftify further to deletion pending further insight. 11WB (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my last message, it appears ref 20 also links to Spotify. I've re-read the article, I'm still not confident in my own ability to detect LLM usage or other AI generated content, so I think it best I leave that to be confirmed by more experienced Wikipedians. Regardless of AI, this article definitely has issues that need addressing in its current form. 11WB (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Needs more coverage.

Edard Socceryg (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines regarding WP:NMUSIC. From a glance of the sources in the article, they do not discuss the subject significantly, or are adverts, or are profiles... And I could not find any valid sources on the search engine. I also opposed draftification unless there is a possibility that the subject will be notable in the future. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit, @Edard Socceryg I would like to make a request to you that we draftify this article. I hope we will find out more reliable references in Future. Behappyyar (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to draftification if you agree. But the draft should be submitted via AfC and should not be moved back to mainspace. But U have a concern about the long-term notability of this subject, which is why I think draftification is not ideal. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I understand your concern regarding long-term notability. Personally, I don’t have any issue with draftification as long as it goes through AfC and isn’t moved back to mainspace without proper review. Behappyyar (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfC would definitely be advisable for this article. In fact, a complete non-AI written and sourced article would be much better, provided notability can be proven. My support goes to taking the article out of mainspace (for now) either way. 11WB (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you support. I will definitely work on it in draft space. Behappyyar (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that leaves it up to a single AfC reviewer (who I am one of) to decide the notability of a page that is already at deletion discussion. You are more than welcome to copy this to draft space but I would object to draftification as it would simply be recreated and we will be right back here. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little bit of research regarding the AI side of this. I understand this would not be the place to discuss my thoughts on that, so I will instead simply change my vote to match TE and Edard. I no longer believe returning the article to draft is appropriate. 11WB (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe draftification could allow space for improvement, especially if future sourcing strengthens notability. It avoids immediate deletion while keeping quality in check. Please reconsider your decision. Behappyyar (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the editors who !voted delete are okay with moving it to draft — especially you, as the nominator — then I don’t see any issue in doing so. Behappyyar (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Again, if it is moved to draft, it can wind right back in the mainspace and we would need another long discussion at AfD. Once deleted, it becomes eligible for speedy if moved back. So, the proper decision I feel would be deleted. You are free to copy the information over the draft space, but I feel the discussion here needs to be decided so we don't wind up here again next month. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I will not bring it to back to the main space by simply moving. I will follow the entire process and submit through AFC. Behappyyar (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again (please focus on what I am saying), you are more than welcome to copy a version of this to draft space where you can work on it. It's easy and accomplishes your goal. You are more than welcome to submit that draft to AfC. If the result here is draftify, it can be moved back by anyone, including an AfC reviewer (a single person) in circumvention of a deletion discussion. It is a waste of everyone's time here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CNMall41. My personal reason for switching my vote relates to the AI/LLM presence in the article, as I detailed from my initial observations on the 7th June. 11WB (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

Article appears to be a BLP failing WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. The sources listed are primary (1-7) or passing (8). A pretty substantial search turned up nothing covering this individual. Garsh (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Engineering, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which i provided are this man's own interviews. and its very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem though, interviews are primary sources and do not show notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do then. This article is very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I quickly found this article in Israel's newspaper of record. It's about Sassoon and about the organization that interviewed him. Haven't made up my mind yet. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be more about the organization that interviewed Sassoon and Saddam's regime, not necessarily Sassoon himself. I'm not sure that a two paragraph mention in an article about a related topic counts as significant coverage. Garsh (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beginning. If others want to continue the search, they can! gidonb (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaoul Sassoon mentioned is Zionist, who is son of Iraq's Grand Rabbi Sassoon Khadouri. not Engineer Shaul Sasoon Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaul Sassoon is different from this one on whom the article is about Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked some more and did not find enough for the GNG. The domain is not well-covered, so with regret. gidonb (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are news some sources such as Baghdad Observer and al-Watan.com, these are website sources and remaining are interviews in four parts (four refs can be interview themselves and two parts of interview is mentioned in a website separately Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if you want this article to be kept, please indicate Keep in bold font so it doesn't get overlooked. Also a source review would be very helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand. Can you pls explain me what you meant to say Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i believe the article should be kept, even thou its not currently at its best, it is good in expanding on reconigtion of iraqi jews during the 70s-2003, when jews are overshadowed in iraqi history. Local Mandaean (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG. Skitash (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's failing WP:GNG and lacking significant coverage. Cinder painter (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is important with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It gives an important information that just like Christians and Mandaeans, Jews were also a part of Saddam Hussein's government. Unlike the propaganda narrative spread by Israel on anti-Zionist leaders, whom they equate with total antisemitism. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, this shouldn't get resolved by whom someone likes (whether the subject or Saddam), or by whom we dislike. We regularly delete bios of wonderful people and keep these of villains, value free. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last chance for the keep !voters to provide sources in support of their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

Hume Peabody (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)

Academics and educators

Sung Kwan Lee

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, coverage is also not directly about them grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Social science, and Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhmani Kaur Saggu

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

Very recent grad (bachelor’s in 2024) who has co-authored 3 papers and appears to have a run-of-the-mill research job. I don't see how she could pass any criteria of WP:NPROF even with the broadest possible interpretation, and as for WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE in google/bing news, google books, newspapers.com, and PressReader did not turn up any mentions. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very far from WP:PROF notability and none of the sources support WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Vegantics (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you look at the version that was accepted at AfC it is noticeably worse. Some poor quality control there, it should never have been passed to main. I do not see any reasonable chance of repair, so a full delete is more appropriate than draftification. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraz Daya

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

I can't find a single in-depth piece about this doctor from an independent, reliable source. Most of the current references are either dead links or simple mentions of them. The rest either do not mention them at all, or are primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Ireland, England, Northern Ireland, Minnesota, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for your reasoning. Yikes to UPE--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks direct detailing in independent reliable sources. Every major contributor to this page is either the SPA page creator or an ip contributor. BusterD (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is news coverage, although some of the best of it is in the Daily Mail; I triggered the deprecated sources warning leaving 2 such sources in hidden comments, while citing what I consider less good sources that are not listed as deprecated. The article needs to be cut down and its language further de-promotionalised, and I am going to advocate deletion and redirection of Centre for Sight. But I believe Daya meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has been reference-bombed, which is common with articles by paid editors, which makes it difficult to perform a standard source assessment. Can the author of the article, or any other proponent of the article, identify three best sources that establish general notability, or should we conclude that there are a large number of low-quality sources that do not establish notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon... I didn't go through all of them, but I went through 25. Not a single one of them was an in-depth piece from an independent, reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending identification of the three best sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the news coverage does not actually rise to the level of GNG - they are just stories where he is interviewed as part of a larger story, they are not specifically on him. And there's nothing else here which shows notability... SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Schleip

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

Insufficiently notable per WP:NPROF. While the subject does get a text box at doi:10.1126/science.318.5854.1234 this is not enough. Other sources are unreliable and/or being used as a coatrack for questionable biomedical content. Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lean keep he is a full professor at TUM, one of the leading German research Universities and his GS profile looks quite decent with an h index of 42 and a total of 18 articles with 100+ citations. Also there is a (short) profile in this Science article. --hroest 13:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The User:Bon_courage who added this deletion notice is a paid pharma editor who's targeting this page because I'm working on edits for Rolfing. If you look at the Talk:Robert_Schleip there's already been a healthy discussion and was ruled against. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not contributors. Your !vote will be ignored by the closer for having no basis in policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Biology, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. H-index of 42 appears to pass WP:NPROF#C1. In this situation (where the article is WP:PROFRINGE but passes notability), I think we're supposed to keep the article and clean it up rather than deleting it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 29 references listed. Incredible amount of other sources if you click on publications indexed by Google Scholar listed under External Links. And on it goes. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Lewis

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

Subject was previously weakly deleted in 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher) (3rd nomination). Since then they have apparently published a book with some reviews, but on the face of it the article still seems to fall short of notability for an academic. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep since the last time this was up he's gone from Associate Professor at a flagship state university to full professor at an Ivy. His H-Index has gone from 10 to 18 according to Google scholar and he's continuing to publish in top journals (and book chapters with top presses). The book has been cited quite a bit and by our notability standards, if we think he's not notable, the article should be redirected to the book title and an article on the book created. Jahaza (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the book itself is notable. BD2412 T 00:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit WP:OTHERSTUFFy, but if this is notable... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, England, California, Florida, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. A good citation presence in a low cited area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral on the article. The citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (although maybe strong for philosophy) and one book isn't enough for me for WP:AUTHOR. But the book is definitely notable: the article currently lists three reviews (Sebens, Shaw, and Garcia) and I found three more: : Valia Allori, Philosophy of Science, JSTOR 26551953; Ben Novak, The Review of Metaphysics, JSTOR 44806993; Alyssa Ney, Metascience, doi:10.1007/s11016-017-0232-8. With six in-depth independent reliable sources it passes WP:GNG. If the biography is deemed non-notable, it would still be possible to have an article on the book and redirect to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The topic appears notable. The prior deletion is somewhat antiquated. However, I still cannot observe a substantial enhancement in coverage regarding the subject CresiaBilli (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the last 2010 AfD has had a book published by Oxford University Press and moved from associate professor at a good regional university to full professor at Dartmouth, with good citation numbers for a low-citation field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why all of that would make the subject notable, other than the citation numbers, which (as David Eppstein mentioned above) seem borderline, at least to me. Can you refer to any other criterion of Wikipedia:NPROF that you believe this subject meets? Because one book wouldn't be enough, generally. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, I note that his article-length works aren't just cited in passing; his work has started some long-standing conversations in the philosophy of science. See, e.g., the opening line of this paper. Here and here are papers in that conversation where Lewis's name is literally the first thing that appears in the abstract. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budhendra Kumar Jain

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

Sources are only for Padma award. No significant coverage from multiple independent sources neither. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. GrabUp - Talk 15:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – Keep the article

Dr. Budhendra Kumar Jain is a Padma Shri awardee (2025) and a distinguished ophthalmologist known for revolutionizing rural eye care at Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya, Chitrakoot. His work has been recognized both nationally and academically.

Significant coverage includes:

The subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NBIO based on sustained, independent coverage from reliable sources. The article should be improved, not deleted.

— Anildiggiwal (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a Padma Shri receipient, India's fourth-highest civilian award. Meets WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based in the award and the article in the peer reviewed Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, these both strongly indicate notability per WP:GNG and also to a degree for WP:NPROF as having made a strong impact. Clearly the award is relevant and looking at past awardees, almost all of them have an article. The sources found by Anildiggiwal also clearly indicate this is not a case of WP:BLP1E as asserted in the nomination. --hroest 13:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The journal article is fine but the citation used seems to be about another person, the link leads to the correct article. The award won is also notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Salahi

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

In my opinion this article don't meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia and there is no reliable source quoted either in the article. R1F4T (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikesh Lagun

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

Looks like article written by subject himself or someone closely connected, as this if full of information unsupported by sources. Lacks genuine coverage as a researcher or academician. No media coverage to meet notability. Not yet established as an academic entity. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While accomplished for his age, there is no sign of the impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF notability. I also did not find press coverage for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find sources to meet WP:BIO; similarly WP:NPROF is not met. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 03:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Sharma

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

I can't see any sign of notability. Terribly written, simply a promotional article about a non notable person Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Technology, India, Delhi, and California. Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination that does not even consider the obvious notability criterion, WP:PROF. IEEE Fellow is a pass of WP:PROF#C3; in fact this specific fellowship is used in the guideline as the prototypical example of a fellowship that passes this criterion. The description of the content of his dissertation is unsourced and should be trimmed, and the New Scientist piece should be used to describe what he has done rather than to promote him as someone who has appeared in New Scientist, but WP:DINC and these are not delete-worthy problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David_Eppstein and as not promotional by the subject. It appears to me that a different person with the same name attempted to hijack this article by editing twice to include films by them. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:PROF#C3 as David Eppstein said, has a significant impact on his field with 47 publications and cited by ~16,700 according to his Google scholar, is a distinguished member of ACM ([46]), etc. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, fully agree with David Eppstein on this one. Subject meets C3 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C3. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as others have said above he easily passes WP:NPROF. A no-brainer. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vinod Sharma

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article under Wp:GNG, Wp:BIO or Wp:ACADEMIC.

While Sharma is associated with a Guinness World Record for the largest memory lesson (2018), there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Science, Medicine, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of these sources are WP:SIGCOV that I can see, they are short blurbs (even those that I could translate from Hindi). A world record by itself does not confer notability especially as these can be essentially purchased. Clearly doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear! @Hannes Röst, No, Guinness World Records titles cannot be purchased. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can, pretty much. They're a marketing gimmick from a novelty publisher. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How ? Any reference or Discussion available ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criticism is that you can make up some really niche record like "most 10W light bulbs lit at the same time" and pay for the items to be delivered and get the people from Guinness in to confirm the record and bam you have yourself a record. AFAIK the Guinness people dont care what the record is as long as it can be verifiable and can be broken by someone else and you pay a fee (see for example this recent record for most glass bottles trapped with a Slinky in 1 minute). --hroest 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own article about the Guinness Book explains, in polite terms, how it's a racket. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO according to sources. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the evaluations by the nominator and by hroest. This is an advertisement and should be removed as such. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hedman

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF from his publications listed in scholar, and I can't find any other evidence that he's notable: the Templeton award he won seems to be different from the Templeton prize since that had a different winner in 1993, and the International Association for Jungian Studies doesn't appear to be a selective organization. Psychastes (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: H-index of 6 is exceptionally low for a senior academic; getting an award for a paper from the Templeton Foundation most decidedly not the Templeton Prize. I don't see any evidence of notability here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The better-cited of the papers in his Google Scholar profile seem to be mostly respectable papers in graph theory and the history of mathematics (although I do wonder why one of them is in Hadronic Journal); these are low-citation fields but we can't use the small citation numbers as a reason for keeping. The sources in the article are not in-depth and independent, and searching failed to turn up anything better, so we have no evidence for notability through WP:GNG nor through any WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hedman is not the traditional professor or minister. His areas of study / specialization are definitely niche. And his integration field such as mathematics & religion, Jungian psychology & first people's art are notable. While the his Templeton recognition is not the main prize, he is recognized for his paper in the field of Humility theology, which is again not "mainstream", is notable. - — ERcheck (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a stronger and more specific argument for this than WP:ITSNOTABLE? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that one paper is enough to make a person notable (in Wikipedia's sense of the word), outside of truly exceptional cases. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not totally unheard of, Edmund Gettier is a salient philosophy example, though there are certainly others. but Gettier's paper currently has 6400+ citations in google scholar and largely defined the last 50 years of epistemology, while the paper in discussion here on Cantor has... five, all of which are papers which also have a single digit number of citations. Psychastes (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citability is low, and there is nothing else to indicate notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, while I could follow the argument of ERcheck in theory that he combines these fields in a unique way we would have to have some external evidence of a source specifically talking about this per WP:NPROF. Usually academic recognition comes in form of highly cited papers which are not present here but they can come from other sources as well (of which there isnt any evidence here either). A single paper award is not enough per NPROF#2, it would have to be a major award from a well established academic society. --hroest 14:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since he is not solely an academic, it seems that holding only to WP:NPROF is too narrow. - — ERcheck (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the standards outside of NPROF are even more stringent, so using NPROF is the most charitable. Do you think he passes WP:GNG? Are there any sources with WP:SIGCOV? As I said I would be happy to keep if you can back your arguments up with a reputable source -- its not enough for you to say that he is notable and exceptional in his field, for an AfD keep !vote we need a reputable source that says so. --hroest 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dröscher

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. I will put aside the question for the time being as to whether Heim Theory really does pass WP:GNG/WP:NFRINGE and whether we need two articles (one on the "theory" and one on the eponymous author), but this article seems to be claiming a kind of inherited notability from those obscure points. I don't really see serious coverage of this person in independent sources. jps (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Spaceflight, and Germany. jps (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (inherited notability), seems to be notable only for developing Heim theory, but the theory's article in turn credits most of its proposal to Burkhard Heim and does not mention Droscher at all. GoldRomean (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited and GS cites are too small to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Notability not established. The only tangible achievement cited is being co-author of a paper that won a minor award given by a sub-committee which the other co-author headed. - Donald Albury 13:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, does not todaly clear WP:GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of being, by all indications, a marginal figure even for a marginal topic. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 2006 AfD got it mostly wrong -- even within the (fringe) area of work isn't sufficiently cited as an authority. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and seems somewhat covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly no reception in the academic world that is evident, a single paper award is not enough for NPROF#2. Whatever can be salvaged can be written in Heim Theory. --hroest 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even setting aside the WP:FRINGE issue, which requires in-depth coverage by mainstream sources to provide properly neutral coverage of his work, his citations are not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and a best-paper award (much of the basis for the 2006 keep) is not enough for #C2 (nor enough to show lasting influence for #C1). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Coverage of Dröscher is minimal and largely tied to Heim Theory, which lacks mainstream recognition and falls under WP:FRINGE. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lello Zolla

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

AfD to enforce draftification. BLP of a perhaps notable academic with zero sources. Multiple editors have tagged the page for lack of inline sources, peacock, inaccurate sourcing and other issues. Article has been declined more than one, and has a history of removal of both AfC & maintenance tags. Most recent editor overrode AfC declination moving page with zero sources to main and again removing maintenance tags. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and Italy. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. He may well pass WP:PROF#C1 but the article is unsourced and unready for mainspace. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with the above. He is certainly worthy of an article, but this one is completely unacceptable as it stands. His research output is good, and his origins with Erno Antonini and Maurizio Brunori -- two of the greatest Italian biochemists in the second of half of the 20th century -- could hardly be better. I should probably be familiar with Lello Zolla's work, but I'm not, at least, not until I look it up. I'm amazed that neither Antonini nor Brunori have English Wikipedia pages, though Brunori has one in Italian. Surely with the flood of obscure football players there ought to be room for them. In the case of Antonini I don't think I have the knowledge to write one, but I ought to be able to do something for Brunori (whom I know pesonally) if I can raise the energy. Athel cb (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. Substantial improvements are underway, and I would like to clarify that:

1) I'm gonna reviewing the article to include inline citations and a references section, primarily using peer-reviewed publications and institutional profiles (e.g., Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and university websites).

2) Lello Zolla meets the criteria under WP:PROF#C1 due to his extensive peer-reviewed publication record (100+ papers), with notable research in proteomics, metabolomics, and chromatography applied to both human and plant biology.

3) He was also instrumental in the creation of the Journal of Proteomics, a high-impact journal in the field.

I acknowledge that the earlier version lacked sufficient sourcing and tags were removed too early — I take full responsibility and am addressing these issues in good faith. I respectfully request that the article be moved back to Draft, if necessary, rather than deleted, to allow time for a thorough revision to meet notability and sourcing requirements.

On a related note: every time I submit or revise the article, I receive unsolicited emails offering paid editing services from people claiming to be “Wikipedia reviewers,” proposing to fix the article for money. These messages only arrive after each submission, which I find troubling. I sincerely hope that these contacts are not related in any way to the review process itself, but I wanted to mention this for transparency’s sake. My intention is simply to contribute in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, independently and without commercial involvement. Fveneziano93 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Yes, those are WP:SCAMs. GoldRomean (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check if the article is now compliant? 2A02:B125:12:4B26:CC94:9B20:F5EE:A9D3 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check if the article is now compliant? Fveneziano93 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He clearly passes WP:NPROF#1 with an h index of 67 and the article has been substantially improved with sources per WP:HEY. What sources to you have for his involvment in the launch of the Journal of Proteomics? I only see him listed in the editorial board and the editor in chief was Juan J. Calvete, he wasnt even an executive editor (basically he was just a frequent peer reviewer). There is something wrong with your citation Zolla, L. (2008). "Editorial – Launching the Journal of Proteomics". Journal of Proteomics. 71 (6): 561–571. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2008.09.002. PMID 18848913. since it links to a different article from 2008. --hroest 14:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we are there yet for a WP:HEY versus draftification. In addition to the citation error noted above, some of the others have wrong author lists, the DOI goes elsewhere and I find no evidence for the existence of [8].Ldm1954 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The DOI for reference 2 points to somewhere else, and the article supposedly being cited doesn't seem to exist. I can't find any indication that reference 8 is a real paper, either. I suspect that LLM slop may be involved here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your valuable feedback. I've reviewed the article carefully and taken the following steps:

1) I have removed the claim regarding Zolla's involvement in the launch of the Journal of Proteomics, as the cited editorial was incorrectly attributed to him. The DOI pointed to a different article, and I found no reliable sources confirming his foundational role. He is currently listed as a member of the editorial board, which I have retained with appropriate attribution.

2) I’ve verified all existing references: those with incorrect DOIs or unverifiable claims have been removed or replaced. 3) I am now working only with confirmed publications from Scopus, PubMed, or institutional sources.

Reference [8] has been deleted, as I could not confirm its existence. I will ensure that only verifiable, independent sources are used going forward.

I welcome any further input and will continue improving the article in line with WP:NPROF, WP:RS, and WP:V. Fveneziano93 (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you, at any point, use an LLM in making this article? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used google translator for some specific parts for which I had difficulties in translating. Is that a (new) problem? Fveneziano93 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLM (Large Language Model), also called sometimes called AI can invent sources if they think that they are needed to support a statement that the code makes. This page shows indications that one was used as there are AI hallucinations in the references. If you only used Google Translate, it may be that the original italian (?) source was created using a LLM. This is currently a big problem with people using LLMs to generate new pages, that then volunteer editors have to check and either purge or repair. Because of all of this, the question of whether you used one was asked.

N.B., did you check the references on the other page? Ldm1954 (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked directly with Lello Zolla (is my neighbour!!!) and it seems that everything is ok.

Let me know if we can go out from the deletion page and finally publish the article.

Thanks in advance Fveneziano93 (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fveneziano93 it is not OK, and Msrasnw who appears to be a collaborating editor is not helping, adding incorrectly formatted and duplicated references (I just corrected one), masses of non-existent links and ignoring the non-exist source. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for XfD closer. The responses above all say that he seems to pass WP:NPROF, but the page needs to be cleaned up. While the main involved editors have done some work, they are not doing enough for a WP:HEY. Unfortunately some of their edits are making things worse. I think it is time to abandon hope of a quick repair and let the article be corrected as a draft. (I am ignoring the issue of COI in writing an article about your neighbor.) Ldm1954 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person seems to me to clearly pass our WP:NPROF 1 by virtue of his publications and citations (GS seems to report 15347). Sorry if I didn't use the citation template and did not know that was now required. I knew I should have not doubled up the ref. to support the claim that he participated in the founding and establishment of the Italian Proteomic Society and of the Italian Proteomic Association (ItPA). This though would also seem to help with passing WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Mark Sheldon

AfDs for this article:

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

this article was previously deleted, and remade despite no further evidence of notability / meeting WP:PROF Psychastes (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous article, and the first nomination that led to its deletion, appears to have actually been about another Mark Sheldon; that one was about a politician (mayor), not the philosopher and professor of medicine that is the current subject. (I have no opinion on the current article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Medicine, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His job title, "distinguished senior lecturer", is one that in US universities designates someone hired for teaching rather than for scholarship but who has been at it long enough to be distinguished and senior; it is not itself a sign of notability or its lack, but it is not promising. (In universities in UK-based systems it would have a completely different meaning.) I searched but was unable to find well-cited publications or multiply-reviewed books that could lead to WP:PROF#C1 or WP:AUTHOR notability. There is a different Mark A. Sheldon with a well-cited paper on semantic file systems but even that one paper wouldn't tip the scale. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was previously a full professor at Indiana University Northwest, however. See the bulletin here for example[47]. However that's not great either, since it's not the flagship IU campus. Jahaza (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The "distinguished" in "distinguished senior lecturer" is an assertion of notability (in teaching, research, or a combination of both) from a flagship institution which in my view does (and should) count towards a WP:PROF pass but in itself, without published documentation about what that distinction was, is not itself enough to pass. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is simply no evidence provided for meeting any of the criteria in WP:NPROF and even upon searching academic sources I could not find any of the usual indicators of an academic passing NPROF#1, such as highly cited papers, published reviews of books or a detailed discussion of his work in context. --hroest 14:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the "distinguished" position and more than 400 citations on Google Scholar count towards WP:prof. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schmid

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

Fails WP:PROF, nothing in google scholar for *this* eric schmid, none of the listed papers have any significant number of citations Psychastes (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Switzerland, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I am skeptical of WP:NCREATIVE, and the current article does not make a case for it. Commenting that several of the references in the article do not appear to mention the subject here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still looking into sources in the article and a BEFORE, but it seems that what is here are a lot of name-check mentions, listings, connected non-independent sources, or brief snippet of content that are basically mentions rather than sustained in-depth significant coverage that we would normally see for a notable artist. No notable exhibitions, nor works in permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, nor the usual art historical sources nor art critical/theoretical coverage. Holding off on !Voting for now until I do a deeper search, but it looks like he is not a notable artist or curator. Also want to mention that curators do not inherit the notability of the artists they select for shows they curate. Netherzone (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Someone has to cast the first !vote) -- one reason for general guidelines like WP:NPROF's statement that graduate students are very rarely notable is to help wade through mountains of side-mentions, mentions-of-groups-participated-in, etc. and all the other near citations that this article is full of and let us ask, "is there a significant reliable source that says that this person is significantly important in any of his fields?" Without it, it's WP:TOOSOON to have an article. (keep up the good work Eric...) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree it is WP:TOOSOON for any criteria in WP:NPROF and likely also for WP:NARTIST since I dont see any indication that he is part of a permanent collection or even had his own solo exhibition yet. For example the Speak Local exhibition was not a solo exhibition and it doesnt look like any of the others were either. Similarly I dont see any in depth profiles that would amount to notability per WP:GNG. --hroest 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree on the comments above, especially the Too Soon comments. Not yet. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON for this multidisciplinary person, they don't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Maybe in a few years, but not now.

S.T.Nandibewoor

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

I can't find any reliable secondary source that mentions this professor. Sources that backed up his achievements are mostly links to Wikipedia pages, and only one source shows that he is a professor in Karnatak University. Also, the article is poorly edited. I think it failed WP:GNG 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 14:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. His citation record could potentially make a case for WP:NPROF#C1, although I think it's borderline at best. But the article as it stands is an AI-generated mess that's almost entirely uncited or cited only to Wikipedia. If someone wants to clean this up it's not impossible that he might meet NPROF, but I'm having trouble finding sources that would allow us to write an adequate BLP in any case. The article as it stands is pretty much entirely unsalvageable. MCE89 (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and TNT. All sources except the irins link (which is generic and not about the subject) are either WP:CIRCULAR references to Wikipedia itself, or tagged as via chatgpt. Nothing here can be verified and even if it could we would need TNT to eradicate any chatgpt-generated content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. And the fact that this article will require fundamental rewrite to confirm to standards, irrespective to notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting Wikipedia standards, poorly sourced and a non-notable article.Almandavi (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TNT was never more relevant than for this article. Someone wanting to make a case for notability would need to start over anyhow. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice since it seems the subject itself could pass WP:NPROF with a rather high h index and several awards such as the lifetime achievement award from the https://indianchemicalsociety.com . --hroest 14:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Patre23 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination and other comments. Zuck28 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly written with AI. The author didn't even bother to remove the emojis. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tajmar

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Woodward (physicist) and I came over here to find a WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTCV promotional article for an academic that I do not see passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. None of these sources is truly independent of the subject in the way we would want for a proper biography what with the WP:FRINGEBLP implications. The cringeworthy picture included makes me think there has probably been some WP:PROMO going on and while AfD is not cleanup, this seems to me to indicate that a WP:TNT is warranted and I doubt anything will arise from the ashes. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Spaceflight, and Germany. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the past discussion from 2008 about whether this article should be deleted seemed to have suffered at the time from an undue credulity that the ideas for which Tajmar's notability was being argued, were somehow not WP:FRINGE proposals. The benefit of time, I hope, shows that they really, truly are and that the sourcing does not rise to the required WP:FRIND levels for proper inclusion in our encyclopedia. jps (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with sourcing required. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Which sourcing? The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the extremely low bar of WP:NPROF. Most of their papers are barely cited, and when they are it's often in predatory journals or bottom tier ones. Not all the time, but often enough that citations are too low to matter. Awards are also minor. This is not a notable researcher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After evaluating the sources in the article and searching for other possibilities, I agree with jps and Headbomb. Nothing indicates that an article is warranted here. The awards are inconsequential fluff, and the citation record would be unremarkable even if all the citations came from worthwhile journals, which they don't. (Two of the sources currently in the article are conference proceedings. In physics, that's little better than writing a blog post about your work.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tajmar’s TU Dresden profile [48] lists his key publications from 2003 to 2011. These have a median of about 25 citations on Google Scholar, which is modest for an academic. A JSTOR search only turns up a single passing mention, which doesn’t suggest much academic attention. His CV also shows no listed publications from 2012 to 2020, despite being updated in 2020. This falls short of notability under WP:PROF and WP:GNG. On top of that, the article also gives weight to a 2006 gravitomagnetic experiment that has never been independently replicated, raising WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE concerns. This is more than a cleanup issue. The subject does not meet the standard for a standalone article. HerBauhaus (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, does not todaly clear WP:GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was looking through all of his highly cited papers (100+ citations) which are usually relevant to establish NPROF#1 notability and of the 5 papers, none of them were actual research papers with him as first author, the others were either large collaborations with dozens of authors or review papers or a book. There is one paper that contains some experimental data on a particular type of propulsion method but one moderately cited paper is not enough for NPROF. Based on this I dont think we can reasonably argue that he passes WP:NPROF#1 and I could not find evidence for him passing any other criteria of NPROF. --hroest 15:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalvo Ferreira Santos

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

Didn't see this was already deleted through a prod back in 2020, so not eligible for prod. Same two issues apply. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. And does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find the publications and citations that would be needed for WP:PROF#C1, and his administrative positions are not at the high level (head of entire university) that would be needed for #C6. With the possible exception of the government source for his honorary Sergipe citizenship [49] the sources do not have the depth of coverage and independence needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per David Eppstein, economics is not a low citation field and I cannot find any evidence for notability per NPROF or GNG. --hroest 15:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Hedengren

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

Sourced entirely to academic/scholarly databases, organizations, and articles, some of which do not seem independent of subject. Not enough significant coverage shown in secondary sources. His daughter Jane seems to be far more notable. Would appreciate input of editors that specialize in academia. Furthermore, User:OptimiserPrime appears to have a conflict of interest with a similar article James B. Rawlings and perhaps Hedengren as well. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did find this source but one alone is not enough. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Texas, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Nominator does not address most relevant SNG of WP:NPROF. And COI by itself is not a reason for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a field I know, so I am assuming that having one academic paper with over 400 cites and another with over 200 (plus others with fewer cites) is significant for his field. From the sources I read he is "somebody" in his field, based on professional activities and the fact that he runs a research group at BYU. Lamona (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professor (Full) at BYU, an R1 research institute, and winner of the John R. Ragazzini Award is enough to satisfy WP:NPROF which is the relevant deletion criterion. (The athletic section might also be relevant under a different notability subject? I don't know, but a HOF at an NCAA Div I might be enough there too?). In any case, whether his daughter is or isn't also notable is irrelevant here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. His citation record is in the range of passing WP:NPROF but with 27 in a field that is a medium to high citation field and thus not a clear cut case for NPROF#1 but together with the award the could pass per NPROF#2. However I also agree that the nomination should have performed an analysis per WP:NPROF. --hroest 14:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record would only be enough for a weak keep for me but the Ragazzini Award pushes it over to a full keep. It's an award for educators rather than for researchers, but a major one from a notable society; I think those should count for WP:PROF#C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Rawlings

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

Same reason that I nominated John D. Hedengren for deletion. Entirely sourced to academic databases or organizations, and not enough independent secondary sources shown. Also, User:OptimiserPrime seems to have an apparent conflict of interest with the subject (and perhaps Hedengren as well) based on the user's edit summaries. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion because of an incorrect deletion rationale and not properly understanding Wikipedia policy pertaining to the notability of academics. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - subject meets WP:NPROF C1 - has some very highly cited works, h-index of 80, WP:NPROF C3 via IEEE fellowship, and WP:NPROF C5 via named chair. Zzz plant (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. His named professorships (Paul A. Elfers Chair and later Mellichamp Process Control Chair) each pass WP:PROF#C5, his society fellowships (AIChE, IFAC, and IEEE) each pass #C3 (and in fact IEEE Fellow is listed in WP:PROF as a prototypical example of something that passes #C3), his other awards make a plausible case for #C2, and his massive citation counts (one publication with a 5-digit count, h-index 80) give him a clear pass of #C1. The nomination rationale is totally erroneous: it doesn't even consider WP:PROF notability, which does not rely on the existence of secondary sourcing and does not require sources to be independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't specialize in academia but article creator has a likely COI with the article subject. I'm happy to withdraw my deletion nomination if Wikipedia policy for academics deems him notable.

I always thought Wikipedia needed to reference secondary, independent sources from the media (which is what we do for athletics). Was unaware that scientific journals and organizations counted, especially if they have a direct tie to the article's subject. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KnowledgeIsPower9281, athletics is covered in the daily news. Academic contributions are not. WP:NPROF gives the reliable sources that verify significant contributions to their fields. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Has held named chairs at two top-tier public research universities. Member of the National Academy of Engineering. Please refer to WP:PROF. Jahaza (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, California, Texas, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NPROF, per h-index of 80 which makes him pass NPROF#1 without question, the Aiche awards as well as the hall of fame award per David Eppstein. Clearly the nominator is not familiar with WP:NPROF and the guidelines in this field. --hroest 13:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Woodward (physicist)

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

The WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:NFRINGE considerations of this page makes me think that James Woodward is just likely not notable. None of the sources listed mention him seriously as a person and I question whether his fringe theory really is all that notable. Certainly his idea is not published reliably, but instead are in fringe journals, and there does not seem to be WP:FRIND sources available to the degree we would normally wish. When academics are supposed to be "notable" for the claims outside their field of expertise, it is an immediate WP:REDFLAG. I think this is not deserving of an article. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Spaceflight. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to meet WP:NPROF. Only two of the seven sources cited are independent of him, and those two don't provide significant coverage of Woodward, but rather more about the flaws in weird propulsion science. More telling, we can compare Woodward's h-index of 58[50] with what's typical for a full professor in the sciences [51], suggesting that he isn't notable, but rather average in terms of scholarly impact. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Google Scholar profile page is for a different James Woodward, a philosopher of science who worked at the University of Pittsburgh. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think [this is the correct page for the current subject at CSU. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, New York, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find evidence that Woodward is notable (in either the colloquial or the Wikipedian sense of the word) as a person. The general topic of esoteric space drives that would require violations of known physics is encyclopedia-worthy, like perpetual motion machines and squaring the circle. But the "Mach effect" is just one proposal in a long line of them. I doubt there's enough in reliable sources about it to justify giving it an article, and there's certainly much less justification for having an article about Woodward as a person. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, if suitable WP:RS exists the theories can be assigned to some relevant article, but they seem minor even in that odd line of concepts. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the similarity of name and topic I am convinced that all the publications that might contribute to WP:PROF#C1 are by the other James F. Woodward (who is definitely notable despite our problems with his article) and that all publications that might contribute to notability for this James F. Woodward are fringe physics. They don't have enough citations for #C1, and I was unable to find reviews that might contribute to WP:AUTHOR for his book Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes, let alone the mainstream reviews needed for WP:NPOV-compliant coverage of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I taught physics twice and had my articles rejected after peer review by Ralph Alpher. That doesn't make me notable, and neither does it make this guy, who fails PROF badly. We are not the place to post original content and we never have. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the current state of the article is not good, WP:PROF is not the only metric for notability. WP:GNG may be satisfied. Woodward's career, and the fringe nature of his research, has been covered in depth by the likes of Scientific American^[1] Wired magazine,^[2] Big Think,^[3] as well as a shorter article in the Orange County Register.^[4] His research is summarized and built upon briefly in a paper by Martin Tajmar.^[5] I'm not well-versed in physics, theoretical, or otherwise, but if someone did a deep literature dive it's plausible even more reliable secondary coverage could be found. If people and/or their ideas have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, then they are notable. Simply summarizing Woodward's controversial research, as Wired and Scientific American have, should not be considered promotion of it. The third-party sources I've found in a few minutes of googling can largely replace the existing primary sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out Martin Tajmar article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar (2nd nomination). N.b. Wired and Scientific American did not do their due diligence in seeing how out-on-a-limb this guy (and others in those articles) really is. See WP:SENSATION -- which is, sadly, what both of these otherwise upstanding source fell into. As for OCR and Big Think, those two sources are much more commonly recognized for credulity pushing. jps (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-science magazines and websites are generally unsuitable for writing about fringe topics. They nearly inevitably skew to the sensationalist; they've been known to grant unearned credibility to total nonsense. (The industry has a history of getting suckered by space drive stories in particular.) Credulously "summarizing" claims that violate basic principles of physics is promoting them. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not pass WP:NPROF. Note that there are at least two people with the same name, one which is the current subject with an h index of 10 and a second (history) professor at Pittsburgh with an h-index of 29. Therefore he doesnt pass NPROF#1 and given how little reception he gets inside academia I think it is hard to argue that he passes any of the points in NPROF. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I'm not going to be nice here. Sorry for being so confrontational, y'all, but it really feels like none of you even bothered to look up sources properly (other than the only other person who clearly did and then decided to vote Keep because they actually took the time to look). The guy's fringe, 100%. He's also definitely not a WP:PROF pass, 100%. However, the WP:GNG seems very clearly satisfied by multiple years of news coverage of his fringe-y work, not to mention scientific papers discussing his ideas or debunking them (even if some are written by other fringe-y credulists, they're still in proper journals) that addresses his claims as the main subject of the papers and not just as an aside.

This seems like an attempt to delete subjects entirely because they're fringe, without any regard for actual GNG notability standards. Which is, sadly, fairly standard for Fringe topic noticeboard regulars and there's been multiple cases where I had to come in and actually argue for our notability policies previously.

Beyond Einstein? by Stephen Notley, Edmonton Journal (1999)
Woodward’s Wormholes by Sherri Cruz, The Orange County Register (2013)
Set the controls for the stars by Gwynne Dyer, Kimberley Bulletin (2018)
Is it Space Drive Time? by John G. Cramer, Analog Science Fiction and Fact (2014)
Mach Propulsion, All About Space
Mach-Effect thruster model by M. Tajmar, Acta Astronautica (2017)
Possible Mach Effects in Bodies Accelerated by NonUniform Magnetic Fields by N. Buldrini, Physics Procedia (2011)
A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory by José J. A. Rodal, General Relativity and Gravitation (2019)
Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems and Integration by Paul A. Czysz, Claudio Bruno, Bernd Chudoba, Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Making starships and stargates by E. Kincanon, Choice Reviews

So, if we want to have a discussion about the sources that actually exist, most of which were easily findable from a Google search, then let's please do that. Rather than claiming there aren't any sources, which is easily debunkable. Being fringe pseudoscience doesn't mean non-notable. Silver seren^C 02:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You think these sources pass WP:FRIND? I don't think so. jps (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are literally mainstream secondary sources, the kind that FRIND specifically talks about as what should be preferred. They aren't fringe specific media or sources. Silver seren^C 21:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspapers and a science-fiction magazine are not going to be good sources for an article that's supposed to be about science. (Even the Guardian and the BBC have bungled it sometimes, running silly season stories about "local man says he can divide by zero" and such. One example is documented in Underwood Dudley's Mathematical Cranks.) Moreover, we're not debating whether to mention "Mach effects" in an article about the general topic of way-out-there spacedrive proposals. The question is whether a biography page for James F. Woodward needs to exist. There's potentially enough for the former, but after subtracting out the noise, there isn't for the latter. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Choice Reviews item is a brief (248 words) paragraph saying that libraries shouldn't feel obligated to buy Woodward's book. The gist: "Historian/physicist Woodward (California State Univ., Fullerton) proposes a propulsion method that seems to contradict basic physics principles." And, other research "explains the errors of his experiments and points to results that show no extra field effects." A cursory dismissal of Woodward's publication is not evidence in favor of having an article about Woodward. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of what you said has anything to do with notability or WP:GNG. He is a fringe crank, yes. Sources covering him as a crank is a good thing in that regard. In fact, sources dismissing him and his ideas are exactly what we want for notability for a fringe topic, since that allows us to not only have coverage, but can also explicitly put that his views are nonsense. Silver seren^C 22:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Local newspapers and science-fiction magazines aren't reliable for this purpose. A trade journal for libraries is probably not the best bet, either, and one paragraph is not what I'd call "significant". Overall, Woodward falls into the case described at the end of that guideline. He doesn't "meet these criteria" as a person, but there are still "some verifiable facts" about his claims, which are best discussed "within another article". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple pieces of significant coverage about him and his claims. Local newspapers only applies if they are all in the same local area (and generally if its actually an area local to the subject), so you don't have say someone in a single Kentucky county who keep getting coverage from county newspapers. That's not at all the case here, these newspapers have no connection with each other and are temporally disparate to boot, so it's not a single event burst of coverage either. Also, I have no idea what your addition of science fiction magazines has to do with that. Science fiction magazine are perfectly reliable and contribute just fine to notability as with any other magazine. Coverage of someone's statements and ideas is also coverage of them, so long as it isn't solely question and response interview coverage. Silver seren^C 22:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fluff pieces aren't any better than "question and response interview coverage". Those news stories are fluff pieces. (The Kimberley Bulletin: "It's starting to look like interstellar travel may be possible in a time frame that may be manageable for human beings. [...] I'd explain the Mach effect in greater detail, but I barely understand it myself.") Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you selectively picked that one, the weakest of the news pieces, while ignoring coverage like this that is a full page article that has much more detail. Specifically what the claimed theory is, what the machinery is he built and how it's supposed to work and, happily for me, criticism of his claims by other scientists and pointing out how his ideas are doubtful in their efficacy. It's good we have multiple sources, including Rodal's rebuttal academic piece up there, so we can clearly and directly state the fringiness. Silver seren^C 22:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I picked the quote that made the fluff-piece nature obvious, in my view. The Edmonton Journal story is longer, but not better. In some ways, it's worse, because it plays up the false balance. It's yet another example of a genre with which all scientists grow familiar: "This maverick has an extraordinary claim! The so-called 'experts' think there's nothing to it... but who knows?!" It uncritically accepts Woodward's own framing that he had "good theory and good experimental data" and gives short shrift to the one independent critic (Don Page). The extra "detail" just drowns out the basic lack of substance.

The Orange County Register story is quintessential silly season. It quotes no critical voices at all. It flunks high-school physics by confusing Newton's first and third laws of motion.

Even the most generous reading of the available documentation only shows that this far-out fringe idea is not the most obscure of the far-out fringe ideas. I don't see the need to wrap the one-paragraph explanation of why it's a far-out fringe idea with another few sentences about where its originator was born and went to school. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire argument here seems to be classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT in regards to the fringiness. Yes, he's fringe, I've already repeatedly stated I agree on that. But that has nothing to do with notability. Him being a pseudoscience nonsense pusher is completely irrelevant to a discussion of notability. Your criticism of the sources seems to boil down to them not covering the subject in the way you'd prefer. It is not an argument that actually refutes the coverage meeting WP:GNG requirements. Silver seren^C 23:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics. Newton's first law is not the same as Newton's third law! They're not reliable, and so they don't qualify towards any guideline that depends upon the existence of reliable sources. You can't make an encyclopedia article out of news clippings that are scientifically illiterate.

I'm not saying that articles about people known only for fringey things are bad. I'm not saying that an article about Woodward's fringey work would be bad. I don't think there's enough to write about it that an entire article would be warranted, and I don't see how the paltry amount that could be written is enough to hang a whole biography on. Under different circumstances, if different source material were available, I'd be defending the existence of the biography page, but as matters stand I just can't make the case for it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics.

Is that an allowed factor enumerated on WP:GNG? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that guideline requires that the sources be "reliable", and news stories that do the physics equivalent of declaring the Earth to be flat, or setting up a false balance between antivaxxers and actual medicine... There's no way in good conscience to call them reliable, so how can they count towards the guideline? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note my !vote above.

I'm just saying, or asking, as that sounds like a much stricter definition than I've seen argued yet. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the venerable Acta Astronautica? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating Woodward by the academic notability standard, one paper commenting on a person's work isn't enough to make that person notable (not by a long shot). It could contribute to the work being notable, or worth mentioning in an article on a broader topic. Since the author of the Acta Astronautica paper later co-authored a follow-up saying whoops, no "Mach effect" after all, relying on the 2017 paper would give a pretty skewed impression... On the whole, I think we can justify writing a little about the idea, but packaging that into a biography of the person just doesn't make sense to me. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply asking if there was any possible dispute that Acta Astronautica is not a reliable source. I can't see how but in bonkers once-a-century edge cases anyone would argue it's not WP:RS for anything aerospace related. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any reason not to suppose that Acta Astronautica is generally fine. (Of course, claims about spacedrives that rely upon fringe physics are just where one would expect those bonkers edge cases to arise. Engineers have been known to give a pass to wacky ideas from outside their specialty now and then. They might endorse creationism, dabble in crank math, etc. It happens. And all it takes is a couple referees willing to go "yeah, looks fine" to claims from outside their field for a paper to slip through the review process.) My only concern with relying on the Acta Astronautica item is that it's utterly commonplace for A to write a paper that cites B; one instance of that happening is insufficient justification to have an article about B. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually a ton of papers in Acta Astronautica about Woodward and his claims, I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal. And the existence of that later paper increases his notability and makes it that much easier to point out that his claims are bunk. And it makes more sense to have an article on the person and not the effect, since the effect is bunk and should be kept as just a thing this one guy claims. Having a separate article on the effect would actually be giving it more perceived legitimacy. Silver seren^C 23:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that point of view. But wouldn't it make more sense to have a separate article on neither? Shouldn't we just have one moderately-sized page for all the related kinds of bunk? (Particularly since those papers do discuss the "Mach effect" and the EmDrive together [52], for example.) We have the page reactionless drive that could host a section about Woodward's "Mach effect". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm being/coming across as more confrontational than a matter of article organization really warrants, so I'll wander off now and trust that the excessive number of words I've spilled already can convey my point. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal

As far as I'm aware, even if literally nothing but the New York Times covers you--and everyone else in media implausibly ignores you--a WP:SIGCOV in the times once a week for a month makes any of us article worthy, most likely.

If like ten authors wrote about this guy to SIGCOV in that journal, top 20% or so (IIRC) for aerospace, then this is super notable. Is that what you are saying? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I would agree. But there's some people that argue that sources from the same publication don't count separately toward notability, no matter the disparity in time or authorship. So that's why I usually focus on presenting a breadth of different sources, to better convince those with that opinion. Silver seren^C 02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Scoles, Sarah (August 2019). "The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion". Scientific American: 58–65. JSTOR 27265292.
^ Oberhaus, Daniel (September 3, 2020). "Gravity, Gizmos, and a Grand Theory of Interstellar Travel". Wired.
^ Johnson, Stephan (September 7, 2020). "NASA-funded scientist says 'MEGA drive' could enable interstellar travel". Big Think.
^ Cruz, Sherri (May 21, 2013). "Woodward's Wormholes". Orange County Register.
^ Tajmar, Martin (2017). "Mach-Effect thruster model". Acta Astronautica. 141: 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.09.021.

Chris Moloney

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

No sigcov after Googling, and the sources in the article aren't enough. Only the Sports Business Journal seems significant. The Reuters and MarketWatch articles don't mention him, the Bizjournals bio isn't a real article, and the rest are WP:PRIMARY or passing mentions. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable; only primary sources, and those merely say that he has had various jobs in the commercial world. I can't find any RS. Lamona (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BuySomeApples. Thank you for reviewing the article. If I could find more secondary and reliable sources on the internet, would it be possible to prevent the page from being deleted? Sergiomarcus (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sergiomarcus: of course! The purpose of a deletion nomination is to give people time to find sources and even improve the article if they can. Even if you can't find sources now, there's nothing stopping you from recreating the page if the topic becomes notable later. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaynab El Bernoussi

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. And does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR, meager citation count, some minor awards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some older sources that list assistant professor, but they are outdated and old. The admission to the Weatherhead Center for Interntational Affairs and lecture at the Harvard law school were notable achievements. Another notable event was organizing the International Prayer for Peace in 2006. 196.74.228.91 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some older sources that list assistant professor, but they are outdated and old. The admission to the Weatherhead Center for Interntational Affairs and lecture at the Harvard law school were notable achievements. Another notable event was organizing the International Prayer for Peace in 2006. 196.75.253.199 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The selection for a doctoral fellowship at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill under the mentorship of Charles Kurzman in 2014 was also another significant achievment for a scholar born and raised in Morocco. 196.75.253.199 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

She was recently names Recipient of the 2025 Global South Award [53] [54] (does this satisfy "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."? WP:NACADEMIC

I found some of her work published on reputable publications, does that contribute to her notability as an academic in any way? for example Oxford Columbia Uni

She was appointed Interim Chair of the Department of Humanities at The Africa Institute [55] (does this satisfy "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." or "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society."? WP:NACADEMIC Rap no Davinci (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Global South award is not notable enough to satisfy NACADEMIC. Having worked published in and of itself is not indicative of passing WP notability standards. Rather, how many others have cited her work? In this case, the answer is not many. Interim chairs also do not count as notable. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to address all the 3 questions I had.

unfortunately I am not familiar with her work, so I can't help with much as I don't know if she has " significant impact in their scholarly discipline". but one last attempt:

she has been cited by quite a number of scholars, Scholar books now if they're reviewing one of her works, that could be something I believe, maybe WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR, but I don't have much time to dig that deep, the creator of the article might be better familiar with her work and can help with this part!

She's won few other prizes like the Arab Prize, but probably still not notable enough: "Ms. Zaynab El Bernoussi from Morocco won the third prize of 5,000 USD for her paper published in English, “The Postcolonial Politics of Dignity: From the 1956 Suez Nationalization to the 2011 Revolution in Egypt”." [56]

She sits at the Editorial Board of Cambridge, not sure if that in itself is enough, but might add something! [57]

cheers! Rap no Davinci (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if possible. The author was reviewed by the notable Aili Mari Tripp (who visited Morocco), Jan Nederveen Pieterse (as he invited her to UC Santa Barbara), Joseph Nye and Herbert Kelman (during her program at Harvard University). She also contributed with a piece at the notable Project Syndicate. 196.75.127.190 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The work is notable on the Arab Spring, especially from a Moroccan woman. There is also significant work in decolonizing international political economy, critical security studies, and a unique theorization of the concept of dignity. 196.65.226.219 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The scholar is recognized as a distinguished professor which is notable based on her origin/gender/age group (for representation) and her pioneering research in dignity politics (coining the concept of dignition=dignity+recognition) during the 2011 Arab Spring. Her scholarship is uniquely interdisciplinary and varied (including in several languages). She has notable editorial contributions and was reviewed by major scholars. In addition to academia, she has been referenced in the press as her work deals with protests around the world. The sources are reliable, independent, and verifiable. 196.75.109.181 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jingyi Jessica Li

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

Promotional biography. Article author has moved this to mainspace after several declines at AFC, and has resisted re-drafticiation, so here we are at AFD. The only independent reliable source cited is for a listing on Innovators Under 35's regional China sublist. The rest of the citations are written by the article subject. I have looked and not been able to find better sourcing. One source is not enough to hang WP:GNG on, and they do not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NPROFESSOR, so I think this one ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Biology, Medicine, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her citation record (h-index over 30, 13 publications with 100+ citations) looks OK for WP:NPROF#1 (maybe a bit borderline) but I would say that her Overton Prize and recent Guggenheim Fellowship (I just added that information to the article) count for WP:NPROF#2. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Overton Prize and the Guggenheim Fellowship both contribute to WP:PROF #2 ("highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"). After receiving the Overton Prize, there was an extended article on her in the journal Bioinformatics [58], which also contributes to notability. I did a little tidying up to make this less resume-like and more appropriate for Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. While the awards are relevant, they are all early career to at most mid-career, so not the type of major peer awards for WP:NPROF#C2 IMO. When I look at her citations, I think we need to ignore the first (consortium) source. With just the others she has an h-factor of 33, which by comparison to some of her co-authors such as Peter J. Bickel, Steven E. Brenner or Kai-Wai_Chang is not that impressive, it is not a low citation area. (The first two are more senior, but Chang is not.) I am not impressed by just having a few articles with > 100 cites, my benchmark is more > 1000. Perhaps I am harder to impress... Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NPROF#2a; the Guggenheim Fellowship is limited to mid-career (and later) academics (not students, even postgrads) and is even listed as an example for prestigious awards. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Popescu (author)

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

Seems like a pretty random guy, with no in-depth coverage, just some self-generated, promotional profiles. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not a vote (yet) but I don't think the article title is sufficient to differentiate this Andrei Popescu from possibly 1-2 other academics with the same name. I am having a hard time finding information about the crypto Popescu compared to the mathematician Popescu. Moritoriko (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the method would be to search in conjunction with his books. Geschichte (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In my searching I have found the textbook but it is pretty recent so nothing shows that it is notable (yet). Looking at his and other finance gscholar profiles he seems to be in the low-mid range for cites, primarily buoyed off two papers. As for business profiles everything I saw is connected to him or not good enough source wise. comment: the following is not part of my delete opinion but the author is currently under sock investigation as part of a multi-year promotional sock-farm. Moritoriko (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Somaiya

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

Not a notable manager and CEO. I don't see the sources to pass WP:Anybio. Cinder painter (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources. Darkm777 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can identify only one reference for consideration [59]. If you own any other substantial coverage, please provide it; I may be inclined to support a Keep. B-Factor (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable profile, Most of the coverage is non-reliable.Almandavi (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like there's stuff out there if you search with google.co.in instead of google.com.^[60][61] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: He heads not only a business but also an eighty year old charitable organisation running several educational, healthcare organisations which are doing good work for the benefit of society and underprevilaged. Further, references give from Times of India, Economic Times, ThePrint, ANI, BusinessWorld and Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers are quite reliable. KhrushchevN (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to AfD guidelines, votes should be made by choosing one of these options, "Keep," "Delete," "Merge," "Redirect," or another relevant choice. Please avoid saying "Do not delete", Instead, use "Keep" to support keeping the article. Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks KhrushchevN (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete:~~ I have furtrher developed the article with additional reliable references. KhrushchevN (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree with B-Factor and A. B.. There seems to be more information and sources available. . I believe the article can be improved. Let me try working on it to improve the article.--Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have worked on improving the entire article by adding more relevant details and credible citations, have made sure it aligns well with WP's policies. The subject meets WP:ACADEMIC as he is the Chancellor of Somaiya Vidyavihar University and head of multiple educational institutions, which satisfies the guideline that states, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." He also qualifies under WP:ANYBIO for receiving the Order of the Star of Italy, a major international honour. So, keep. --Vikram S Pasari (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate recent revisions to article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Thanks @Vikram S Pasari for further developing the article. 14.142.143.98 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same reason as previous relist, but I'll hand out a round of pings this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 00:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinder painter@Darkm777@B-Factor@Almandavi@A. B. This article has changed significantly since it was nominated. It would be helpful to hear your thoughts on the current version and any new sources added. Toadspike [Talk] 00:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – Samir Somaiya meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There is sufficient coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources that establish his significance in academia, industry, and interfaith work.

Academic & Institutional Notability: He is the Chancellor of Somaiya Vidyavihar University, one of Maharashtra’s first private universities, and has led major academic and research initiatives. His contributions are covered in mainstream media such as The Times of India, Scroll.in, and The Indian Express, as well as institutional recognition like Harvard Business Publishing’s case study: "Godavari Biorefineries: From Waste to Wealth" co-authored by Prof. Forest Reinhardt.

Industry Recognition: Samir Somaiya has received the Platinum Jubilee Distinguished Alumni Award from the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers (IIChE) in 2023, and was named among The Economic Times’ Most Inspiring Leaders in 2022. These are neutral, independent recognitions from authoritative bodies: Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers The Economic Times

Cultural & Philanthropic Impact: He and Amrita Somaiya co-founded Kitab Khana, widely acknowledged in Scroll.in as one of Mumbai's most influential bookstores. The article Scroll.in, 2022 offers neutral, in-depth coverage, including both achievements and challenges.

International Engagement: He serves on the boards of global interfaith organizations such as KAICIID and Religions for Peace, and has spoken at UN forums. These roles are publicly verifiable through their official sites and covered by Vatican News and Free Press Journal.

Balance of Sources: While a few sources originate from affiliated institutions, multiple reliable third-party sources (e.g., Scroll.in, Indian Express, The Hindu Business Line, Economic Times, ANI, IIChE, HBS Publishing) provide independent coverage, satisfying WP:GNG and refuting concerns about promotional bias.

Overall, this article documents a person with a sustained, verifiable, and significant impact across several domains. Any neutrality concerns can be addressed through editorial improvement—not deletion. KhrushchevN (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source "Godavari Biorefineries: From Waste to Wealth" opens to hbsp.harvard.edu, which contains no relevant information. The Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers source link does not mention Samir Somaiya significantly. The Economic Times link, when opened, shows unrelated information with no mention of Samir Somaiya. The Scroll.in source from 2022, when accessed, refers to "ISL: After two losses, East Bengal get going with win over NorthEast United," which is unrelated. All sources are unrelated. SachinSwami (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:ANYBIO and WP:HEY. Fade258 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment much better now. The Order of the Star of Italy is a major argument to keep. Cinder painter (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMAN, this article demonstrate notability as indicated in WP:GNG. I can see significant coverage: [62], [63] and [64].CresiaBilli (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have WP:SIGCOV at all, the three sources cited by CresiaBilli barely mention him in passing and one is clearly a profile at a University page and not independent coverage while the other source are not in depth. He does not pass WP:NPROF#6 based on his appointment at a private University as he does not have a "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." While the higher levels of the Order of the Star of Italy are notable, he did receive the lowest rank of Knight per his own communication of which several hundred are handed out each year so I dont think that is notable. --hroest 14:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The Times of India focuses primarily on university initiatives with minimal direct mention of Samir somaiya [65].Indianchemicalnews.com centers on his appointment with a neutral tone but lacks details on specific achievements or challenges, making it informative yet incomplete[66]. Indiansugar.com, linked to the Indian Sugar Mills Association, an authoritative body, mentions Samir Somaiya’s presidency in 2008-09, affirming his professional leadership[67]. Economic Times focuses on his opinions rather than personal achievements, making it neutral but limited due to the absence of other aspects of his work[68]. Asian News International highlights his role in religious dialogue but lacks in-depth analysis or details, and its press release basis makes it promotional[69]. Religions-Congress.org emphasizes his positive contributions and promotes the organization’s goals, rendering it somewhat promotional[70]. Johnson.Cornell.edu focuses on his academic and professional achievements but, written from the university’s perspective, has a positive, slightly promotional tone[71]. New Woman centers on his philanthropic work with a positive tone due to the magazine’s nature, omitting challenges or criticism[72]. Scroll.in discusses Kitab Khana and Samir-Amruta Somaiya’s contributions neutrally, balancing achievements and challenges, making it one of the most neutral sources[73]. Connect2Dialogue.org focuses on his religious and academic contributions but, written from the organization’s perspective, is somewhat positive[74]. Chinimandi.com focuses on an award with a neutral tone but lacks details on Samir Somaiya’s specific contributions[75]. iiche.org.in, tied to the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers (IIChE), an authoritative body, mentions Samir Somaiya’s 2023 Platinum Jubilee Award but lacks in-depth analysis[76]. The Free Press Journal focuses on award recipients with a neutral tone but lacks specifics on Somaiya’s contributions[77]. qimpro.org emphasizes his achievements and promotes the organization’s goals[78]. iiche.org.in is fact-based, listing award recipients, making it neutral[79]. Somaiya Vidyavihar University, affiliated with the university, emphasizes his achievements, making it promotional[80]. Indian Express focuses on Amruta Somaiya but mentions Samir Somaiya in the context of Kitab Khana’s establishment, with a positive and neutral tone[81].Some sources (e.g., Indian Sugar Mills Association, IIChE) are neutral but raise questions about website reliability. Others (e.g., The Times of India with minimal mention, Economic Times with limited scope, New Woman, ANI, Somaiya Vidyavihar, KAICIID) feel promotional due to their positive tone. The Free Press Journal is neutral but lacks contribution details. Scroll.in and Indian Express are similar sources and among the most neutral, balancing achievements and challenges. Other websites appearing in red are not reliable. Among these, one source is reliable. If someone adds another reliable source, I will consider revising my opinion after reviewing it. -SachinSwami (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Kay Duncan (via WP:PROD on 9 June 2025)
Tamara Oleksiyivna Grinchenko (via WP:PROD on 8 June 2025)
José Manuel Vargas (via WP:PROD on 7 June 2025)

Actors and filmmakers

Mark Luz

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

This was originally a WP:PROD, with me stating "Unnotable WP:NACTOR which has been mostly unreferenced for years." This was then deprodded by Kvng who then said "consider addressing Template:Pinoy Big Brother contents comprehensively". I don't exactly know what he means by this, but if the argument that he is primarily known as Big Brother contestant, then this falls into WP:NBIO (as we don't have a reality TV-specific policy, unless WP:ARTIST comes into play), and this will just be a rehashing of the Big Brother content and would just give WP:UNDUE weight on a non-BLP activities of a biography. As stated on PROD, this has been unreferenced for years, considering the 2 references used fail WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in mentioned references and all the roles he had played was special appearance or guest only rather than significant role or main. Fade258 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NACTOR, he clearly did not have multiple notable roles in TV or movies. --hroest 16:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hernandez

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

nonnotable actor --Altenmann >talk 14:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is unsourced and roles relevant to WP:NACTOR are minor; Endorse nomination WeWake (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Safier

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

Contested disinfected BLAR; a before search shows only non-RSs and 'meet Courtney Stodden's husband'-style articles. Laun chba ller 16:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I invited the community to fix up the article at WP:CLEANUP a year ago, but nothing constructive could be done. Except for the wedding stories, none of the sources are about the subject matter. In fact, before the nominator removed most or the content, it was almost all about what collaborators had achieved elsewhere. BOTTO_(T•C) 16:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Outside of getting married, there are no stories about this person. Flushing the diamond ring down the toilet seems to be about all the coverage there is outside the marriage items. Just not enough for notability here... Mentioned in several articles used for sourcing, but nothing extensive about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides this being a completely producer involved in a situation comedy situation, we run into the recurring problem with autobiographical material here: it almost always involves original content that we have never done. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Shammi Thilakan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage and most sources are non-bylined churnalism, mentions, or otherwise unreliable. Previously deleted A7 and G11 under Abhimanyu S Thilakan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marco (2024 film): Appears to fail GNG. Also WP:TOOSOON for NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Pradeep

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudip Pandey

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is may not notable according to WP:NACTOR and does not meet the requirements for WP:SIG in reliable, independent sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Asia, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep despite the earlier deletion. The coverage of his death seems to just barely qualify him. Pinging Zuck28 who added Pandey to the List of Bhojpuri actors in January. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the nominator has a very low understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. They’re just nominating random articles created by me as an act of retaliation because I nominated a few of the articles they created about non-notable subjects. Their rationale for the AFD is unclear as, why they believe it should be deleted, anyways I leave this matter for fellow editors.

Thank you for pinging me.

Zuck28 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Tripathi

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actor. Fails Wp:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No lead roles no significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This article is notable according to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines such as WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Kherkatary

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jesus Kherkatary

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies of living persons (WP:BIO). There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The references provided are mostly self-published or unverifiable (such as IMDb, Instagram, FilmFreeway). There are no news articles or third-party sources that establish the subject's notability. The content appears promotional and fails the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Therefore, deletion is proposed. Akash Boro (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have corrected the formatting and naming of this nomination. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of wp:SIGCOV. Just a single source is available. Zuck28 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kimmelman

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

Promotion for non notable filmmaker. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Laundry list of awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I respectfully disagree with the assertion that international awards are not significant. The Cannes Film Festival, in particular, is an industry benchmark. Emmy awards are notable as well. The international honors Ken Kimmelman's films have received reflect the high regard in which his work is held. Meanwhile, I see that 1) the article needs updating; 2) I'm happy to add more reliable sources to support the notability of this filmmaker; 3) there are too many awards, and they are listed chronologically, which makes it difficult to distinguish the most significant, so I will revise, edit and update.Trouver (talk)

Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:COAT, WP:SPAM, and WP:MILL. We are not a soap box, and this page slips in advocacy for aesthetic realism with unnecessarily large number of references to the same. It's spam masquerading as references. Getting into Cannes Film Festival Short Film Corner is surprisingly easy: my partner got in with a film produced with less than 5 figures. As the wealthiest man in the world is out to ruin us financially, we don't need to stray from our very limited charitable mission into advocating other world views. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Chozick

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

Non notable filmmaker / actor. No notable productions as filmmaker. No good roles for NACTOR. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A few lines in Variety is not enough. Awards are not major. Just showing at festivals is not notable. Sockfarm creation. Prod removed cause it's apparently Anglocentric to nominated an article on an Anglo for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Japan, and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On one hand, I hate sock farms, but on the other hand, he didn't merely show up but won something. I'm always "torn" about how to !vote in such situations. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has appeared in a major role on one of Japan’s highest-rated television programs for over a decade, which is a marker of notability among others. If you don’t read Japanese, it may be difficult to understand that the subject is a foreign figure who is well-known in Japan, hosting television programs and receiving coverage in major newspapers and magazines. For those interested in understanding Japanese entertainment and media in English, preserving articles like this adds depth and cultural diversity to Wikipedia. In addition to Variety, he has also been featured in Time Out and a few other English-language publications, but there is much more in Japanese. Wata78 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Roberts

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notableacademic / actress. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No good roles for nactor. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arguably notable as a scholar. What do folks think? Bearian (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be her most likely claim to notability. Some decent citation numbers but also down in a cast of many for the best of them. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if she is notable as a scholar, the entire article is about her acting (which I will not evaluate). DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshya Chawla

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable photographer. Sources consist of passing mentions, spammy advertorials, or self-published material. Not a single reliable source provides WP:SIGCOV on the subject. See also WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Noteworthy that two different SPAs have removed the COI template on this article. Yuvaank (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Photography, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable photographer, Citations consist in this article are enough to demonstrate notability of the subject. Meets WP:BASIC. [82], [83], [84], [85], and [86].CresiaBilli (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CresiaBilli: Can you fix your link by adding https:// before www.? Thanks Agletarang (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in-depth about he subject in reliable sources. The references provided by CresiaBilli demonstrate why WP:NEWSORGINDIA exists. Three of the four are churnalism (same topic, same photograph, and almost the same date). Clear press campaign to promote the subject which is also being attempted with Wikipedia based on the edit history. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The individual clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Wikipedia isn't a platform for showcasing personal career achievements or work portfolio like a resume WP:NOTCV. Charlie (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources over several years. A dedicated profile in the 2019 Bloomsbury book Young India: The Heroes of Today^[1] provides in-depth coverage, while feature articles in The Asian Age (2019), Times Now Hindi (2024)^[2], and DNA India (2025)^[3] focus on his career. HuffPost (2015)^[4], The Indian Express (2015, 2017)^[5]^[6], Vogue India (2022)^[7], and The Wire (2025)^[8] cover his notable projects and industry impact. The 2017 WeddingSutra award nomination further supports recognition. While Times Now Hindi and DNA India may raise churnalism concerns, their focus on Chawla’s career, combined with Yuva Bharat, Vogue India, and others, shows sustained, independent interest. I agree weak sources (e.g., TOI Mediawire) should be removed and am revising the article to remove resume-like language (e.g., CAT score) for neutrality. Cleanup, not deletion, is warranted.KKM2025 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Thorp Lundahl

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

Purely WP:PROMO and resume-like. Amigao (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been augmented and expanded to include personal and family information speciifically related to Robert Lundahl's public and well vetted fimmaking. There are 54 citations, many from news outlets including the LA Times, KCET, Cascade PBS, Salem-News.com, East County Magazine (7 million readers). His films have aired nationally in over 80 cities on PBS stations, distributed by Zeiden Media. He has received an Northern California Emmy® Award and have been vetted also by and may be referred via IMDb (Internet Movie Database), and Bullfrog Films. His radio documentaries may be heard weekly on KPFK Los Angeles, tackling Southern California Environmental Justice issues and water controversies. He has worked with Native American leadership including Mojave Hereditary Chief Reverend Ron Van Fleet, Chemehuevi Hereditary Chief, Matthew Leivas, Sr., UFW United Farm Worker and La Cuna de Aztlan Chicano leader Alfredo Acosta Figueroa (Yaqui/Chemehuevi) relative of Joaquin Murrietta, Jose Maria Figueroa, (Figueroa Boulevard), Governor of Alta California, who freed Native, Indigenous people from the Mission system that enslaved them, Viejas Kumeyaay Chairman Anthony Pico, relative of California's first Governor Pio Pico (Pico Boulevard) and Native American activist and linguist Adekine Smith (Klallam). Lundahl's research and the importance of his films is exceptional and necessary to our collective understanding of a relavant history today as immigration "crackdowns" and fedral assaults roil our cities.

Please remove the nomination to delete. Thank you! CottonsPoint (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adeline Smith (see Wikipedia) Misspelled above CottonsPoint (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. CottonsPoint needs to read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and then take the article through WP:Articles for creation. The article is simply not up to Wikipedia's standards. I honestly cannot determine whether the topic is notable as this is, today. Lamona (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's much misunderstaning about the Native Indigenous experience. There is a tendency to expect to "Westernize" it. There is a lack of familiarity with key individuals, it's literally and metaphorically another world from the American consciousness. Ludahl, I think he would say by invitation through friendship was placed in a position of being Executive Directof of a Native 502 (c) 3 in the state of Washington, under the Direction of President Linda Wiechman (Elwha Klallam) which led him to take action on behalf of the Klallam Community to address an act of desecration of tribal canoes laid up on the beach out front of the Red Lion Inn in Port Angeles. By agreemment with tribal mambers, aka friends, Song on the Water, the film was made as a collaboration. That film the second, following Unconquering the Last Frontier, was made possible because Lundahl had worked closely with Klallam elders Beatrrice Charles and Adeline Smith. powerful women who had testified in the Boaldt Decision (Think Fish Wars, Marlon Brando, Sasheen Littlefeather,) ect in addressing American genocide documented in his films.

He is the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Coast Salish Tulalip Tribes Film Festival, for that reason. Editing will continue to add the above. Respectfully, thank you for your comment, "I honestly cannot determine whether the topic is notable as this is, today." We believe you. It may be a matter of experience and exposure with this difficult subject. However that does not mean the subject of the article is not "notable," whatever that means in a Western context. It also does not mean it should be "Deleted" which reads like a similaar act of violence against Native people. Best to try to enlarge your mind across barriiers of culture which have resulted in so much pain and destruction of people and the environment important to us all. Gratefully for your better understanding.

Hoyt,

Cottons Point CottonsPoint (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipediaafdwatch/comments/1l6etko/wikipediaarticles_for_deletionrobert_thorp_lundahl/ CottonsPoint (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made CottonsPoint (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments here have nothing to do with the problems with the article. Wikipedia articles all follow a particular style and follow a series of policies that are designed to guarantee a consistent level of quality in the article itself. This article follows none of those policies. It is quite possible that once it does there will be no question about notability, but as it is today it does not fit into the Wikipedia style. If you haven't familiarized yourself with the pages I suggested, then you are unlikely to create a successful article. It does appear that this is the only article you have worked on. New editors are encouraged to take their first articles through AfC as a way to get help with learning the Wikipedia style. It's that simple. Lamona (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity. I lean towards this meeting WP:GNG but it is absolutely not (yet) ready for mainspace. — tony ^talk 01:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

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

No sources. Only external link is IMDb. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth noting that the article title probably should be Stacey Gregg (the page with that name has been deleted a few times previously). Don't think she was ever known as Stacy (without the e). She was also known for roles in the US as Stacey Maxwell, eg in The Virginian, The Monkees and Batman. In the UK she's known for roles in Crossroads https://www.newspapers.com/image/893742133 and playing Sandy in Grease alongside Richard Gere eg https://www.newspapers.com/image/840906998 There's a few more hits at https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22Stacey+Gregg%22++&region=gb-eng worth checking the British Newspaper Archive as well, see also this two-page articles from the TV Times in 1971 (page 8-9) https://mcmweb.co.uk/tvtimes/1971/Nov%206th%201971.pdf Piecesofuk (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guil Lunde

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

Per LastJabberwocky's prod: "Lacks SIGCOV in independent sources." Reywas92^Talk 16:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing to be found for this person. The Dubbing Wikia is about the best that comes up in Gsearch... One source used in the article that isn't linked to a book online, so I can't check. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searched the usual before places, just found one mention in newspapers.com (no context or background about subject). Zzz plant (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalani Hilliker

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears to be famous for being famous, but a WP:ROTM actor, dancer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as it lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent references to the subject and some of the references is self-published source and unreliable. Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Speedy decline. Last deletion end of 2024 and nothing has happened since that time to show notability. Sources are promotional, non-bylined (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous voters @Wikibear47:, @Star Mississippi:, @Mushy Yank:, @Saqib:, @GrabUp: --CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
acknowledging the ping, and thanks @CNMall41

Unfortunately I do not have the on wiki time to do sufficient research to cast an opinion here and don't anticipate that changing in the next week. Will weigh in if I can and appreciate the heads up. Star Mississippi 01:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)m[reply]

Keep. Aina Asif meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on new coverage since the 2024 deletion. Her lead roles in Mayi Ri, Pinjra and Judwaa have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources like The Express Tribune and The News International. The article has been rewritten with a neutral tone and now includes bylined, non-promotional references that address the original deletion rationale. As creater, i have of the article written the article in neutral tone. Behappyyar (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out said sources? I find a few bylined articles that verify a role, but nothing about her. WP:NACTOR is not guaranteed for having roles as there is NO inherent notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR clear says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is significant sources about her acting in notable dramas. Behappyyar (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the entire thread as it is misleading not to do so - "Such a person may be considered notable if:" (my emphasis added). So....notability is not inherent here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Thank you for the clarification. I understand WP:NACTOR is not automatic notability. However, Aina Asif has received significant coverage in major Pakistani media outlets — not just for her roles, but for her rising status in the industry.

For example:

The Express Tribune published a feature on her Mayi Ri role and social impact: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2434576/mayi-ri-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction
The News International highlighted her performance in Pinjra in an article discussing child-centric storytelling: https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1002289-raising-questions
Reviews and interviews on platforms like Galaxy Lollywood and Dawn Images also cover her work in detail.

These are independent, bylined, and show non-trivial coverage, meeting the threshold for WP:GNG . I’m happy to continue improving the article if you feel more sourcing or clarification is needed.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided are either broken or lead to the homepage so I cannot review. Reviews and interviews are not considered significant for purposes of establishing notability. Interviews are not independent and the reviews must be of the actor, not just mentioning the actor with a review of the work. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the error. Here you go

[87] as rising star, [88] as a cast, [89] for his early drama roles, [90] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ref 1 - Intervew, Ref 2 through Ref 4 - unbylined paid-for and/or churnalism which is the same as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of this can be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Not even remotely notable. This article has been deleted twice yet somehow different users mange to restore the same version again and again. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just because someone acted in two more drama serials doesn't mean that they are now notable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibear47: I understand your concern about repeated recreations. However, this is not a re-post of the previously deleted versions. The article has been significantly improved with 'reliable, secondary, and bylined sources'. It now documents Aina Asif's lead roles in critically discussed serials like Mayi Ri, Pinjra, and Judwaa, with extensive media coverage that was not available at the time of earlier deletions.

The current version avoids promotional tone, uses a neutral narrative, and cites national publications like The News, Express Tribune, and Dawn. This supports a claim of notability under WP:GNG and shows growth since her earlier career stage.

I'm open to feedback and improvements but believe this version no longer qualifies for speedy deletion or a G4 tag.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the current version, how do you know what the deleted version looks(ed) like?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the references—because when the page was deleted, those references weren’t available at that time. Behappyyar (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to show the sources that support either?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is some coverage from reliable sources that establish notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask what I have been asking everyone (which still has not been answered with the exception of one use providing unreliable sources)......what "coverage from reliable sources" are you referring to that "establish notability?" Note WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Sorry, I was being lazy before.

Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News: [1] Khan, Asif. "Aina Asif: a rising star". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 2025-06-06. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This was incorrectly cited, so I have fixed it. It is a reasonably sized interview with the subject in a national newspaper, reliable source.

[3] "Aina Asif clocks four 'incredible years' of acting with gratitude note". jang.com.pk. 2024-11-18. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

Another important national newspaper, minor article about the subject.

[11] "Tuba and Aina Asif reunite". Daily Times. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This is a space filler but in a minor national newspaper.

Then we have 2 articles in the Middle East press about the series, but do mention Aina Asif as a star of the serial.

[6] "'Highest form of abuse': Pakistani drama 'Mayi Ri' shines light on child marriage and beyond". Arab News. 2023-08-02. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

[13] Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News:

Further the subject has 4 notable series ( Hum Tum , Pinjra , Baby Baji & Mayi Ri ) credited to her in the article, that alone justifies notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) this is an interview, not independent. 3) Unbylined churnalism crap (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 6) She is listed in the caption of an image in the article, nothing in the article itself about her. 11) Another ubylined article which is basically a short about something she said on Instagram. 13) Interview, again not independent, and only mentions her as having the role - nothing "about" her so just verification. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have no thoughts about this, but considering that this AfD will be relisted soon rather than being closed as keep/delete, I will leave some thoughts on this topic. Pakistani-based outlets often have dubious reputations as sources to be used on Wikipedia so I might !vote soon if time allows, but there is a number of sources here that could interest some users. But I suspect that these sources would fall under the "no byline, promotional, mentions, unreliable etc..." category. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit:, You are correct about the sourcing. I looked at a lot of these before giving up as you can see here and here that the bylines and promotional tone would fall under the same policy as WP:NEWSORGINDIA which I would argue applies to the entire subcontinent, not just a country. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was what I expect the sources to come up with. I am concerned though with the two WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote from some random users. The sourcing brought up by the first user speaks for itself; the sources often look exactly the same as the other "byline" articles as you claim. I am not am expert in determining the validation of the Indian/Pakistani sources, as they tend to masquerade promotion into their own articles. I will probably make my last decision tomorrow. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple significant roles in notable films and enough media coverage is available as sources. Zuck28 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR says "may" be notable. Having multiple roles does grant inherent notability. As far as sources, many have already been discussed. Can you point out which sources (outside NEWSORGINDIA) that would show notability under GNG?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more media coverage which, I found with a simple Google search.

1 2, 3, 4, 5. Zuck28 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aina Asif plays significant roles in many notable television shows. Also this actress is famous and meeting WP:GNG. Deriu And (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Leigh

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR with no major roles. First billing in Frankenstein vs. The Mummy isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage for an actor with this name, hits on anyone with this name. Largely unsourced article, with nothing we can use. No coverage, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the only film he's ever starred in. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She. But redirecting to Frankenstein vs. The Mummy#Cast ("especially Ashton Leigh who brings a lot of energy and sincerity to the part of the young archeologist" says one review) might be a good idea (she has 107 credits listed on her IMDb profile; 71 on TV Guide; most are minor roles but some could count for notability: Gothic Harvest, Big Shark, for example?). Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can’t find coverage of the subject’s acting in independent secondary reliable sources. Maybe that’s why there is no prose in this article. 19:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete as per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Madigan

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

Fails WP:NBIO. IMDb and interviews do not establish notability. GTrang (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He directed Fight or Flight, a notable film that received independent coverage. WP:DIRECTOR, a notability guideline, indicates that "This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if: [...]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". The page can therefore be kept per the guideline.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Ayton-Kent

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

A young actor making her way on stage and in film, but yet to break through with starring roles in major productions. There are many citations, but these support the a play or film, and Ayton-Kent isn't the focus of them. WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough good roles for NACTOR. As Jo Eaton-Kent they had a significant role in The Watch ("But Eaton-Kent is excellent and the character works on their own terms." Lloyd, Robert (5 January 2021), "The colorful world of 'The Watch'", Los Angeles Times) and in Don't Forget the Driver [91]. Also on stage in A Christmas Carol: A Ghost Story [92] (As Joni Ayton-Kent in the televised version [93]). On stage Treasure Island panto got multiple reviews ("Although every character’s performance was terrific, Joni Ayton-Kent's performance of four characters stood out for me." Lloyd, Robert (7 December 2022), "Hall for Cornwall's Christmas pantomime Treasure Island is 'ansome!", Falmouth Packet. "while Joni Ayton-Kent is an inspired (and quietly revolutionary) choice for the joint female leads of Billie Bones and Benji Gunn, getting the crowd involved with some lung-busting Freddie Mercury-inspired 'day-ohs'." Trewhela, Lee (12 December 2022), "Treasure Island - the panto that's still not quite a panto with Cornwall as its star - When In The Ghetto is rewritten as In The Kernow, you know you're in panto land", CornwallLive.) Prince also got multiple reviews (Iftikhar, Asyia (21 September 2022), "The Prince review: Abigail Thorn's debut play reinvents Shakespeare with a queer, trans twist", Pink News. Gaian, Kestral (20 September 2022), "The Prince review; Abigail Thorn's wonderful debut as playwright", Trans Writes. Marcolina, Cindy (20 September 2022), "Review: THE PRINCE, Southwark Playhouse", Broadway World.) The Welsh debut of Revolt. She Said. Revolt Again. aslo got coverage and they played a major role. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the complete analysis by duffbeerforme is correct. Here is my counter analysis: [94]-This is not even the passing mentions. You can not find her name. [95] - Again i am unable to find her name here. [96]- This is only credit of minor role, no in-depth coverage. [97]-She played a minor role among four characters, No Independent. [98] - A minor role in the same play 'Treasure Island'. [99] - This is the review of a play where she has a minor role. Not a reliable source. [100]- Again this is the review of a play where she has not major role. [101] - Review of the same play 'The Prince' not reliable, no in-depth.CresiaBilli (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with your first claim of RadioTimes, "You can not find her name." Quote from the source: "Where have I seen Jo Eaton-Kent before? Don't Forget The Driver is Jo Eaton-Kent's first major onscreen role, after a walk-on part in The Romanoffs. They are also due to star alongside Anne-Marie Duff and Arthur Darvill in Sweet Charity at the Donmar Warehouse". There is two mentions of their name it that quote alone. It says their role in that show is "major". Second, Standard, you claim again unable to find name. Quote: "I’ve seen countless stage adaptations of the novel but don’t think I’ve ever heard the lovely Dickensian words spoken here by Jo Eaton-Kent’s Ghost of Christmas Past:". There is their name. Third, BBC, verifies their role (credited to that name) as the Ghost of Christmas Past, a role that I would argue is significant. Four and Five, Treasure Island. How is The Packets review "No independent"? How do you justify saying a minor role when sourcing says they played four roles. Both reviewers thought they were important enough to discuss (and single out for praise) plus at least two of the characters they played are considered major characters in the source material (Billy Bones and Ben Gunn). Six, how is Pink News not a reliable source? Reading the review it seems like a significant supporting role. Seven and Eight. With six that's three reviews of a play (which would make it notable) where they play a significant supporting role (does not need to be The main role). Regardless of your personal opinion on the stage roles they still have multiple significant screen roles, The Watch and Don't Forget the Driver. Which is good for NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, she is also now starring in the European production of Hadestown at the Royal Theater Carré in Amsterdam, which just appeared on the Eva Jinek talk show on Dutch television channel NPO 1. Campvamp69 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we please get an analysis of duffbeerforme's sources from someone who is not closely connected to the subject?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom this topic is WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per duffbeerforme as subject has enough discussion in independent secondary reliable sources of her roles in multiple stage performances and shows to meet WP:NACTOR #1 although not GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the argument is laid out pretty clearly by the commenters above. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for this person. Yes, she is working professionally, but I don't see anything really notable -- no Olivier Award nominations, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, If you mean the analysis by CresiaBilli then could you revisit as their analysis is straight out wrong in parts. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean yours and theirs, as well as my own analysis of her career and the sources. If you see significant coverage, then you should amend the article to set forth clearly in the narrative facts reflecting that coverage, as well as facts about her career that show all her Tony and Olivier awards, starring roles in West End productions, etc. It appears that her only appearance in the West End was a 2-night concert in the relatively minor role of Elena in If/Then. It is very clear that her film career is trivial. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR does not require Tony and Olivier awards or West End productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR requires:

1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2. The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Based on what the article says, she has not had significant roles in any notable stage performances or films. Her film roles have been trivial, and her significant roles have been in less notable stage productions rather than in, say, long-running West End productions. She has certainly not made any unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Now, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR requires:

1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

Funny how you keep missing one out. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you keep failing to add it to the narrative discussion in her article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TV shows are in the Filmography table and The Watch (TV series) is noted in the body of the article. Nnev66 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NACTOR is met through roles in Don't Forget the Driver and The Watch (TV series), verified through sources listed above by Duffbeerforme. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen (singer)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, no indication of notability outside of being in her group. orangesclub 🍊 00:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, and Philippines. orangesclub 🍊 00:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per my argument to Maloi ROY is WAR Talk! 22:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bini (group): Per my arguments at the Maloi AFD discussion. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Gwen (singer)" is an appropriate redirect. There may have been several more notable singers named Gwen that are for more notable. Either this is kept (either as a standalone article or as a redirect assuming info on this article is not there at the main Bini article) or deleted, no redirects. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Second choice is to list this person under Gwen (given name), then redirect Gwen (singer) to Gwen (given name) or have it deleted altogether (will consider WP:RFD on this at a later time). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is passed in WP:GNG given to Maloi as demonstrated the significant coverage of Vogue Philippines and it is technically outside of Bini. She's also a housemate of Pinoy Big Brother: Otso and have importance on that, given to that in the Gwen (singer) § Media image as it is really passed in GNG. This is like a similar of WP:IDONTLIKEIT you just overlooked that her Media image section is obviously have somehow passed in WP:GNG. This is might be another relisting week.ROY is WAR Talk! 00:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you use the word "technically" to further emphasize it is indeed connected to Bini (LOL).

We don't create articles on contestants of reality TV shows aolely based on their participation on said shows, either, so I dont know why you'd bring that up. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am explaining to you that she is passed on WP:GNG together with WP:SIGCOV stating all her featured notable prestigious magazines like Parcinq, Billboard Philippines, and Vogue Philippines. All of them are demonstrating the significant coverage and in-depth on her fashion. You are trying to gaslight the facts and my arguments that she is notable at all. And besides, I noticed that you participating only when have a AfD (not a assumption but a observation) on Maloi and Gwen and given it is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and SIGCOV is the major criteria of GNG that's why she's passed.

This is a summary for passing significant coverage of Gwen, for participating this AfD)

Billboard Philippines: Gwen was featured on notable magazine of Billboard Philippines where she talks about her life and being a housemate on Pinoy Big Brother: Otso.
Vogue Philippines: She featured also in this notable magazine with her fashion stating of Vogue writer Bianca Custodio describing her Gwen's fashion "60's mod-inspired" and "the girls take a break from their usual image, donning bobbed wigs of varying shapes and cuts."
Parcinq: Parcinq is a Philippine magazine and Gwen was featured in this magazine as a cover pf the magazine. Gwen also shares on her life on this magazine with Parcinq describes the fashion of Gwen as "Black symbolizes death, darkness, and the mysteries of the universe." ROY is WAR Talk! 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these are WP:INTERVIEWs then these are most likely fail WP:RS and therefore fail WP:GNG regardless if such activities make her surpass WP:BANDMEMBER. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. All of them are passed in WP:RS since it was a reliable and have significant coverage with Gwen's fashion with given sources. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't read WP:INTERVIEW? Even if this person was interviewed by the Times of London about her life and career, it would fail WP:RS. Reliable sources, while also considers who published it, considers how it was created. Interviews arw autobiographical.

With being said, Billboard was indeed an interview, while the other two were fashion editorials with an interview interspersed on it. I can figure fashion editorials can be used as WP:RS if somebody else reports on it. All of these are primary and fails WP:RS.

Again, competence is required. If an article is primarily based on interviews, and on ABS-CBN and Youtube, it has no place here. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already read it earlier (LOL). It is clearly passed in WP:RS it is notable magazines like Vogue Philippines and Billboard Philippines they have high credibility on this magazine or company so it is a reliable source and passed on WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV . They are not a "cheap" magazines whatsoever and they are Professionally edited publications, and independent. It is not merely trivial or promotional, it also applied on WP:NBASIC which is passed also. It really matters who publishes it, is it unreliable or not? In this case, Billboard and Vogue and Parcinq are reliable (highly on Billboard and Vogue since they are the top reliable). Also, it is not a uncontroversial claims. The interview are usually primary sources, but when conducted and published by reliable third party sources with highly reputable source, they are acceptable.

Again, this is my last argument on this and it is clearly will go over and over on this, and obviously clearly mentioning ABS-CBN and YouTube, Vogue Billboard PH and ABS-CBN, YouTube are different (LOL). ROY is WAR Talk! 07:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not if the source is cheap or not (hence the Times of London analogy); it's whether or not the source is the subject herself. You clearly haven't read WP:INTERVIEW. The closing admin should take notice of willful ignorance of the arguments being presented to you. I guess we won't need another relist. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEW § Who, what, where Is this a reliable source such as a broadsheet newspaper, respected magazine, reliable broadcaster or news outlet that specializes in interviews? In this case, Billboard PH, Vogue Philippines and Parcinq are reliable.

Also on WP:INTERVIEW, independent or non-independent of the subject matter, it is clearly demonstrate that Billboard PH and Vogue Philippines are independent, this is a most likely a WP: IDONTLIKEIT argument, I gave you all my arguments but you insisting that Billboard and Vogue are not reliable. The issue of "willful ignorance" as might be a attacking me. Is that there's no policy basis for excluding a well sourced, editorially controlled interview published by an RS from notability consideration. This is not applied to Gwen, this is all applied to all musicians also that interview like New York Times, Original Billboard and Original Vogue if you exclude that, half of WP:BIO wouldn't exist. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's from the Times of London, Vogue Italia, Billboard USA, or Yes Magazine; WP:INTERVIEW#Independence states "The interviewee may or may not be independent of the subject matter. In some cases, the interviewer is also not independent. For example:

Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source."

In other words, a person talking about oneself in any publication or medium (print, TV, internet) fails WP:RS. As per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability: "Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability."

Now, you could argue there may had been some synthesis on those three articles, but if we're really basing the notability of this person, aside from being a WP:BANDMEMBER, it'll take more than these sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, somehow are accurate but it doesn't mean you cannot use it. The interviewee may or may not be independent of the subject matter. In some cases, the interviewer is also not independent. this applies to the statement made by the subject, not the entire interview article.

On WP:INTERVIEW: It is okay to use interviews to source some facts. Interviews may sometimes be the best or clearest sources, especially for biographical or personal information and as I said it is clearly independent, have significant coverage, and reliable since it was editorially controlled. and Billboard Philippines and Vogue Philippines are the one who interviewed the subject and it is not a conflict of interest. Independent sources are more generally reliable than sources that have a conflict of interest or are otherwise involved in the subject. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To explain further, "source" in interview is the interviewee (the one being interviewed), not the one doing the interview (the journalist in behalf of the publication). This is explained in "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source." If the article is about the life and times of the interviewee, then that leaves wiggle room for secondary sources.

To reiterate, it doesn't matter if the publication is what you'd consider" high quality".

Remember, encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so it should have filtered the secondary sources, which should had done the same with the primary source. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By now, the article has been culled of her activities with other Bini members. The article now boils to:

Her auditioning for Star Hunt Academy (I think that thing was not called "Star Hunt Auditions"), but then the next sentence says she auditioned for Big Brother first(?)... so which is which???
A section supposedly describing activities since 2021 but only starts in 2024 on a social media incident where she asked for privacy. Then the rest of paragraphy is reactions soup.
Her being WP:INTERVIEWed in Billboard Philippines... I guess the word count increases if you add the name of the interviewer?
Her fashion sense.
Her being an ABS-CBN talent being one of the best dressed in the ABS-CBN Ball... and more fashion sense and no actual modeling.

FWIW, none of these merits inclusion in a BLP article. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Elizabeth Dulau (via WP:PROD on 18 May 2025)