Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Vicky Zahed

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails our notability criteria – doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Ratekreel (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Ratekreel (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 1 and 7 are RS and are about this individual and some of their handy work, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Reference no. 1 and 7 are fine. Baqi:) (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. V. S. Rama Rao

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

Unsourced since January 2009. The only source I can find for him - at least in english sources - is IMDb, which is not considered RS on its own. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? per WP:CREATIVE (added 2 refs to the page); but I cannot confirm all his credits. Can someone access newspaper/print sources in Telugu? -Mushy Yank. 16:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Suggestion: redirect and merge into a paragraph in Telugu_cinema#Cast_and_crew #Art direction as ATD?[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Arts. -Mushy Yank. 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan White (DJ)

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

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio DJ and a spinoff article about his purported "television show" that may or may not ever have actually existed, with neither article properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media personalities or their shows.
As always, broadcasters are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage and analysis about them to establish that they've been externally validated as significant by somebody other than their own public relations agent -- but the BLP is "referenced" to one deadlinked unreliable source, one discogs.com directory entry about somebody else who isn't Alan White and one glancing namecheck of Alan White's existence in a newspaper obituary of somebody else who also isn't Alan White, absolutely none of which constitutes support for the notability of Alan White.
And meanwhile, the "television show" article is actually serving primarily as a coatrack for a largely reduplicated summary of the BLP, and not actually saying even one word at all about a "television show" until the very end, when it finally reveals that the "television show" that's posing as the article's nominal subject is "currently in pre-production" -- except it's said that since the day the article was created in 2011, and the article has never been updated since then with any evidence that the show ever actually started airing. And it's also based entirely on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about either Alan White or the "show" present there either.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting a headache on this one trying to locate sources. Too many people named "Alan White", and several active in music.4meter4 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Connecticut, Georgia (U.S. state), Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hall (publisher)

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

Nearly all of the listed sources seem to be connected to the subject. No indication of notability, and additional searching found nothing. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self published author, can't find any sources to back up claims of being "best selling" according to WSJ or USA today. WP:PROMO, not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nilsson

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

The article only has one (unreliable) source. No indication of importance besides directing one feature film, as all the rest of the credits are small projects. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Denmark, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added sources. A couple of ~500 words long Swedish articles with Nilsson and her work as the main focus, a couple of Danish reviews, one Danish article about her not wanting to be connected to All About Anna anymore. Perhaps not impressive but, I think, enough. As the article states, she's created two feature films (All About Anna, Sverige er fantastisk), but perhaps equally important – based on what I've found when looking for additional sources – is her work with radio plays for national Danish Radio. The focus on movies rather than radio plays seem a bit unbalanced. /Julle (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY+WP:DIRECTOR+WP:GNG, so that only cleanup is now necessary, not deletion. (Thanks, Julle!) -Mushy Yank. 00:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: If available please provide any in-depth sources to bolster the case for notability. But, with the provided sources, while there are some mentions in reputable sources, they do not pass WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

Even you are not satisfied with the coverage present on the page, she does meet WP:DIRECTOR easily. -Mushy Yank. 22:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank How? — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She directed a very notable film and coverage attests of that. -Mushy Yank. 18:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, there seems to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and an editor has worked on adding some to the article per WP:HEY, so more cleanup and improvement can happen, but AfD only concerns itself with the notability part, which seems satisfied. Raladic (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Baqi:) (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:DIRECTOR based on the notable feature film that is also blue-linked. --Shiv989 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Brown (American football)

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

This is a partial hoax. It looks like there was a Keith Brown who played college football at Rhode Island but he never signed with an NFL team. He just had a tryout in 2006. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, American football, and Rhode Island. – The Grid (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything to support a article here. Fails WP:GNG and appears to be a likely hoax. Let'srun (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Chauhan

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

Subject was twice declined in AfC and also fails NACTOR, as the subject has not had significant roles in notable films or shows. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the WP:OR added by User:Saurang Vara who denies any COI despite being familiar with the subject's personal information. The subject's role in Chhello Divas does not appear to be significant and none of the other films have substantial content to be considered when evaluating Mayur Chauhan according to NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say his 3 roles in productions that have a page on this WP are not significant? And why should Karsandas Pay & Use be considered non-notable? I found some coverage about Saiyar Mori Re too. He seems to meet WP:NACTOR, -Mushy Yank. 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned films do not meet WP:NFOE/ WP:NFILM. Karsandas Pay & Use has two reviews, one from TOI with an unknown critic and another from an unknown website. Saiyar Mori Re has no reception section and Samandar (film) has two local reviews! From a WP:BEFORE search, none of these films have been distributed outside Gujarat. Just because these films have articles on Wikipedia does not mean they are notable in the first place to be used as evaluation criteria for Mayur Chauhan. Either way, there is zero coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a critic writes for a national publication such as Times of India he is considered nationally known as per discussions at WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discusisons on What is a "nationally-known critic"? and "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India aren't closed and there is no consensus either. Let me know if I have missed any archived discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has relatively moderate significant coverage for his films Saiyar Mori Re, Samandar (film), and Karsandas Pay and Use. As the lead actor in all these projects, the combined coverage is sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the coverage though? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ as a blatant hoax by Rsjaffe. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 03:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rmr. Ragulvarma

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

I couldn't find any information about this individual through Google searches, which makes me inclined towards this being a hoax. None of the references cited in the article appear to mention the person, and the content seems to be copied from the article on R. S. Munirathinam. Since the article was accepted via AfC, initiating a deletion discussion might be the most appropriate action. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search for this 'politician' amounted to a waste of time as there are no hints about them in search result. This article at best is a hoax. And if it is not a hoax it also has to go because it is unsourced and cannot be verified. Mekomo (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unsourced because an IP user removed content some time ago. You can review the edit history to find the sources that were previously included. Hitro talk 11:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might this be a hijack, rather than hoax? The version which was accepted at AfC said this person won elections in the 1970-80s, whereas the current version says he was only born in 1999. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Electoral Performance" section appears to be directly copied from the article R. S. Munirathinam, including its references. None of the references in this version mentions him either. They have just created Draft:P RAGULVARMA. Hitro talk 12:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of a series of hoax articles by SP/MP, based on K. Venu (Tamil Nadu politician).

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RAGULVARMA PRABHU/Archive, Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU, DEEPA RAGULVARMA, Draft:DEEPA RAGULVARMA, PMK RAGULVARMA, Draft:RAGULVARMA PMK, User:RMR2004/sandbox and Draft:RAGULVARMA RMR. Falls well within CSD criteria of A7, G3 and A10, or G5 if anyone fancies reopening the SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A complete mess aside from the issues mentioned above. Procyon117 (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I decided to do some digging and found this, which appears to be the election results from the 2021 Gummidipoondi legislative election, and there was no candidate with the name "Rmr. Ragulvarma." This contemporary source appears to corroborate that. This is a hoax. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 16:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iam the grandson I claim my grandfather so please remove the An editor has nominated this article for deletion 2409:40F4:3047:8247:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete just another hoax from this user. KylieTastic (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Couldn't find relevant source on google to keep thisChikwendummesonma (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Women in the military#Russia‎

Natalie Tychmini

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some brief mentions in various websites, but they all seem to have about the same level of coverage here, woman fought as a man, was found out and went home. Without much more, this isn't what we are looking for, notability-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Women_in_the_military#Russia, where some other WWI examples are mentioned. Or create a new List of women serving in the military disguised as men, perhaps including fictional (ballads etc) as well as real examples. PamD 08:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Women in the military#Russia: Though received a tangible award of Cross of St. George for fighting,but not enough significant sources Kaizenify (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alexandre Oliva

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources I could find about him are tied to the FSF, GNU, or make passing mentions of his name in routine coverage that is almost entirely about Linux-libre. Since notability is not transitive, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was dePRODed on the basis that he received a "prestigious award". This "prestigious award" is given by the FSF, which is an organization that the article and the PROD rationale makes very clear that he is a part of. Regardless, this was dePRODed without the addition of independent sources, so this goes to AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing for this person found, there is an author Alexandra Oliva, which isn't this person. I don't see any acceptable sources used either, as the nom explains. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oliva clearly meets items 1. and 2. of WP:ANYBIO ("has received a well-known and significant award" plus "has made a widely recognized contribution ... in a specific field"). The fact that he is part of the Free Software movement does not diminish the merit of his award in any way. It just stands as proof that his life-long contributions were acknowledged by his peers.

He is cited as reference or acknowledged in several books in a period spanning almost three decades:

Fourth International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems - Proceedings, by IEEE Computer Society (1998)
The International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, by Mohamed G. Gouda (1999)
Unix backup and recovery, by W. Curtis Preston (1999)
Windows to Linux Migration Toolkit - Your Windows to Linux Extreme Makeover, by David Allen (2004)
Backup & Recovery - Inexpensive Backup Solutions for Open Systems, by W. Curtis Preston (2007)
Actor-network Theory and Technology Innovation - Advancements and New Concepts, by Arthur Tatnall (2011)
Cybersecurity - A Self-Teaching Introduction, by C. P. Gupta, K. K. Goyal (2020)
Coding Democracy - How Hackers Are Disrupting Power, Surveillance, and Authoritarianism, by Maureen Webb (2021)
A Propriedade Intelectual do Software - análise histórica e crítica, by Rodrigo L Canalli (2021)
Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), by Yash Pratap Singh Narwaria, Dr. Maulik K Rathod, Anindita Dutta Roy, Tanmay Agrawal (2024)

He was one of the co-founders of Free Software Foundation Latin America [1] in 2005, and still is one of its board members [2]. As a promoter of free software, he has given dozens of lectures in Brazil (this governamental site lists just a few) and abroad. —capmo (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgements or mentions in books are not a measure of notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Do not throw random citations and random lectures at us and hope that one or two of them sticks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The award that you keep citing is tied to an organization Oliva is actively part of—it is not an independent honor and does not count at all towards notability. His membership in the Free Software movement does not establish notability either, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown absolutely nothing to demonstrate that WP: ANYBIO is met, but even if you did, the guideline very clearly states that "meeting one or more [of the standards] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Show me significant coverage from sources that meet WP: RS, or this content doesn’t belong here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Oliva also meets item 3. of WP:ANYBIO, having an entry at the National Library of Brazil [3]. —capmo (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quit bludgeoning. This is not a "standard national biographical dictionary". It's a database of authors (who might have authored books that are preserved in the National Library?). Either way, it's certainly not biographical, because the page only contains the title of one work, and it's certainly not standard. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, please come back to us with reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Or don't. You seem to be ignoring this request (or anything I have to say, for that matter), so I don't really know why I'm still entertaining any of this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided is from the Brazilian National Authority Control, maintained by the National Library (Biblioteca Nacional, the bn in the link). Even the entry on Machado de Assis, one of Brazilian greatest writers, returns just a couple of lines [4]. What I'm trying to say with this is that in this case, length is no parameter for the subject's importance. Being in the list is enough proof of notability. —capmo (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill activist, writer, and graduate student . Bearian (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made up in one day award? This is ridiculous! It's the FSF Free Software Awards! Dozens of people and organizations (including Wikipedia itself, what an irony!) have been granted it. Are you going to propose the deletion of their articles too? —capmo (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been explained over and over again, in the PROD, AfD rationale, and multiple delete votes: the FSF award doesn’t establish notability because it’s from an organization that the subject is a board member of. Your behavior is rapidly devolving into bludgeoning. I'm asking you kindly to WP: LISTEN to us or let the discussion move forward. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're falsifying the facts to reinforce your arguments. He received his award in 2016; he only became a board member of FSF in 2019! I'll quote below a paragraph from the announcement so you can get your facts straight:

A longtime free software activist and founder of FSF Latin America, Oliva brings decades of experience in the free software movement to the FSF board. In the community, he is held in especially high regard for being the chief developer of the GNU Linux-libre project, a version of the kernel Linux that removes all nonfree bits from the kernel's source code, enabling users around the world to run fully free versions of the GNU/Linux operating system, and is a program of vital importance in the cause for software freedom. For his deep commitment and tireless work in free software, Oliva was the recipient of the 2016 Advancement of Free Software award given annually by the FSF. Aside from being a contributor to the GNU Project since 1993, Oliva is an accomplished public speaker and author on the importance of software freedom.

I really don't see the purpose in deleting an article on someone that's clearly notable in his field. You ask me to "listen" to you, but you don't seem to be willing to do the same. Please do what you kindly suggested me and just let the discussion move forward. We already know your opinion, let's hear from others, please. —capmo (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the very first sentence of your quote says that he founded FSF Latin America, which existed all the way back in 2005 (cite). He was affiliated with the FSF when he received the award, so the award does not count towards notability and the article should be deleted. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, accusing someone of "falsifying facts" because they disagree with you isn't funny. I was hoping you'd be willing to discuss this civilly, but those hopes seem misplaced. I'm telling you now, drop the stick. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOURTEEN EDITS in a row? Have you ever heard of the Preview buttom?? ;) You seem to be taking this too seriously, try to relax a bit! Now regarding your other question: FSF and FSFLA are "sister" organizations, completely independent from one another. Again you were proven wrong in your assumption. —capmo (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how this works. You don't get to accuse people of acting in bad faith and then pretend like you did nothing wrong by telling them to "relax" with a winky face. This page with FSFLA's constitution says that they "act in joint concert with the other FSFs (Free Software Foundations) to promote and defend Free Software". They're not independent. Again, thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (writer)

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

WP:PROMO, not a pass for WP:BASIC. No reliable source in the article, nor ones I could find online searching for "Michael Cohen"+"UFO" to try to avoid all the references to Trump's personal lawyer, gives significant coverage to Michael Cohen. Instead they only cover his paranormal/aliens output and give him a trivial mention (e.g., in this piece, "Those who smell a hoax point to several suspicious aspects of the video, including the fact that the man who posted the piece, a paranormal enthusiast named Michael Cohen, has been involved with several other videos of UFOs and other phenomena that are of questionable authenticity.").

That UFO Digest and similar are not reliable sources hardly needs explaining. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FRINGE. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t publish these sorts of stories. Bearian (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per non. However, the "Jerusalem UFO Hoax" seems possibly notable, with widespread reliable coverage. However, very little coverage mentions Cohen with regards to that sighting, and fails BLP1E. TiggerJay (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Hue

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

Relying on self-promotional press releases without significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Pridemanty (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one good album review here: [5] He also gets a decent brief critical nod in this Pitchfork review on another artist's album on which he was a guest performer. If a few more decent references are found he could be notable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SEVEN pieces in NME - New Musical Express? You're already a shoe-in. Bandwagon's got editorial oversight, it's an RS. Engadget? We're at WP:GNG, folks. Hue's notable in any colour. See what I did there? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above that together pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bangon na, Bayan!. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Reyes Zobel

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meet WP:BIO fails in WP:GNG. Royiswariii Talk! 01:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Journalism, and Philippines. Royiswariii Talk! 01:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his bio at GMA lists a bunch of awards he has won, including a Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (aka Golden Dove Award). That is a significant media award in the Philippines and would meet criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST. If we can find an independent source for that fact, the article should probably be kept.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found a source for the KBP awards yet, but he was inducted into the Eastwood City Walk of Fame this year. I've added that to the article and some other info with sources. Hope that helps. D-Flo27 (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still failed in WP:BIO and WP:BLP, doesn't have any sources even still have a recognition on Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (if it's true), It doesn't meet the BLP or just redirect again on Bangon na, Bayan! as what did on first afd. I don't know why need to keep this or create this with a lack of information about a journalist. Royiswariii Talk! 08:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The subject simply does not meet the criteria laid out at WP:NBIO and wp:gng. Here's what I found:
- [6] is mostly an interview so fails wp:independent although it contain some depth.
- [7] is the only valid source that contribute to notability.
- [8] has mentions, doesn't speaks of the subject that much.
- [9] is the user receiving an award that isn't prominent and thus can't meet a criterion listed in WP:NBIO
- [10] is not an independent source.
To sum up, the walk of fame cannot attribute to notability unless shown by valid reliable sources. I am also in favor to deletion if redirection fails. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to Redirect. Royiswariii Talk! 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ibrahim Fayad

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

From what I can tell this individual does not meet WP:NBIO. The article had two sources, but one was completely unrelated to this man at all and was instead about The Crown (TV series). The only remaining source is simply a link to his ResearchGate account. I'm not getting much of note on a BEFORE search, although it does seem to be a fairly common name, so someone else might have more success. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, and Egypt. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. If he actually founded all the things the article states he did, then I think he'd be notable, but I agree sourcing is a problem. He seems to have published as "Ibrahim M. Fayad" or "I. M. Fayad", and there are publications that match his areas of expertise on GS. ETA: It seems to have received a variety of edits from new editors over the past few years (tagged Newcomer edits), which have been of variable quality; I think that's where the spurious The Crown reference originates. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a notable physician in Egypt. He has an entry in this Arabic-language encyclopedia: [11]. Generally we include anyone with an entry in a published encyclopedia under WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a user-generated source, ostensibly "verified" by "specialists", but anyone can submit articles. It's not RS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage for a good doctor. It’s literally his c.v. written four ways. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delia M. Sosa

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

This individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC, which presumes notability only when multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I have reviewed the sources in this article in the source assessment table below:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPDjc9-xVc NPAF via YouTube	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. The remainder are bridges between speakers at that event.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly independent and clearly non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (1)	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. There is no independent content here.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Everyday Trans Activism Podcast	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is a raw audio interview of the subject. There is no independent content here	~ Per WP:ABOUTSELF for the response of the interviewee. As for the remainder, this appears to be a WP:SPS inasmuch as "Parents of Trans Youth" appears to be a one-person organization, and the founder is the one interviewing and publishing.	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (2)	Seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	Why not?	Seems to contain a reasonably decent amount of independent prose to be considered significant coverage.	✔ Yes
Tufts School of Medicine website	This is a profile by a University PR department of own of their own students.	This is a university PR blog; WP:SPS ain't good enough for facts about living people	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
[https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2023/ama-gender-affirming-care Endocrine Society Press Release	This is a press release	This is a press release	There is not so much a mention of Sosa by name in the piece.	✘ No
Them	Seems independent to me	For sake of argument	There is one sentence of independent coverage of Sosa in this piece; ther remainder is a quote of the article subject's.	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	✘ No
MedPage Today	Why not?	Why not?	Sosa is quoted in the piece, but there are (generously) a mere 2 sentences of independent prose about Sosa in that piece.	✘ No
USA Today	USA Today is an indepenent WP:NEWSORG	WP:GREL per WP:RSP	While Sosa is quoted thrice, there is very little independent prose about Sosa; WP:NBASIC requires that coverage that contributes towards notability be both secondary in nature and independent of the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have also conducted an online search to see if there are additional sources about this person. I was able to find a nomination form for a medical student association role (clearly non-independent), and an interview on the website of The Broad Institute (Sosa appears to have been employed/had a role at the Broad Institute at the time, so the source is non-independent). As such, I don't see multiple sources contributing towards notability here.

Because this individual appears to fail the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC, I believe this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the medical student association role then. However, I was under the impression that their work with the AMA/Endocrine Society meets the notability guidelines. Tunasaur (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independent sources, and as nom points out the AMA source doesn't even mention them. This may simply be too soon but it is hard to tell because we don't have such basic information as educational dates. (I have a vague memory of having already seen this at afd but checked the delete log and didn't find it.) Lamona (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. What's the best way to revert to draft? Can keep it just in case more press comes out and it meets guidelines in the future. Tunasaur (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of draftification is to hold an otherwise notable article that does not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards. As such, I don't really see a valid reason to draftify this; the subject isn't notable and we can't peer into a crystal ball to see what the future holds here, and I don't see a particular reason why coverage would be expected to arise in the next six months or so. If future coverage does wind up establishing notability, then the article could be refunded to the draftspace and submitted through Articles for Creation at that time—but that doesn't mean we should indefinitely keep a draft up on a non-notable WP:BLP subject. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The source analysis is convincing and I was unable to locate any WP:SIGCOV; although I am impressed with Sosa's scholarly publications at such a young age (this article in the National Library of Medicine is one example). I believe they are likely to be notable in the future, but it is currently WP:TOOSOON for an article.4meter4 (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Utkarsh Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:NACTOR, so fails WP:GNG. One ref, questionable, was added after the previous AFC decline, and it isn't WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page was previously deleted, created by sock account, and created again by IP likely same sock and after AFC decline, it was submitted for AFC review again by sock account User:Aloo92. From 14 srcs on the page, 8 are unreliable sources and the other 6 have no significant coverage on the subject to pass WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I came across this page on AFC and was about to reject it after seeing the record of the previous 8 deletions and the poor references cited. But, after some web research(which I do for all pages I reviewed), I found some reliable sources, (i.e: [12], [13], [14], [15],[16] and [17], I believed it met WP:NACTOR and convinced me to grant it a chance for improvement and a notability banner is all that's required, let's wait for the votes. ANU^writes

Source 1 and 2 are not independent, source 3 has mention about subject quitting mtv show, source 4 and 6 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and Source 5 is passing mention about the subject about being first choice for the show. RangersRus (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's source 2 not independent in entertainment category? Reminder, it's ruled out as not entirely independent in politics because of it's Political Alignment with the current indian regime.^[1] Source 2 isn't the passing mention as it covers the subject who's quitting the show also source 5 covers two actors who were competing for some film role, the subject is among them, how's that the passing mention? (Reminder: Article titles usually tell readers what/who the article is going to cover/who's the subject). source 4 and 6 which are from the same website are indeed ruled as questionable in most cases but looking at it's discussion here, you have to choose what to source as it's still trusted by majority, also we are required to read any questionable context to see whether there's any sign of WP:COI, these articles (4&6) which are said to be of 2015 have some quality and reliable information in them plus less or no promotion. I still think the article should be kept. ANU^writes 12:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 4 and 6 are unreliable for all reasons and that is why by consensus it was listed under unreliable Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Generally_used_sources. You can discuss about the source on WP:ICTFSOURCES talk page. When I mentioned about source 2 not independent means that the article is not independent of the claims (interview) made by the subject himself. Sources are recommended to be secondary independent. Source 5 is just passing mention and nothing significant that is needed to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A WP:NACTOR pass with at least 2 lead/main cast roles (ergo significant) in notable productions; existing sources (some presented here) allow to verify it. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Maharashtra. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis. Note that in show "Kaisi yeh yaariaan" the subject was not a lead but played the character of best friend of the main lead.
Source 1 writes about the subject quitting the show by sharing subject's Twitter message.
Source 2 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
Source 3 is promotion and advertising the subject by sharing his Instagram.
Source 4 is passing mention.
Source 5 is passing mention about the subject being one of the contestant on the MTV Splitsvilla Season 8
Source 6 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
Source 7 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
Source 8 has videos of different episodes of a show "Pyar Tune Kya Kiya" and the subject was in episode 1.
Source 9 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
Source 10 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
Source 11 is not independent with interview of the subject talking about his role in the upcoming TV show.
Source 12 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
Source 13 is dead 404.
Source 14 is linked to jio cinema and suppose to show overview info on fuh se fantasy web series but quickly jumps to another screen but nothing significant on the subject.
Source 15 does not even have an entry about the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two or more roles with verification of those roles is not what WP:NACTOR means. Two or more roles give us the presumption that there is significant coverage (not just verification). The coverage here is all churnalism, unreliable, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The serried history of this article, its recreation per nom and nom's source analysis are pretty damning. A search reveals nothing else of any great note out there, so if this is the sourcing we have, it's simply not enough. Time to SALT as well? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fundación Vía Libre. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Heinz

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

I don't think this passes WP: N. I found one book that makes several mentions of Heinz (by Anita Say Chan), but everything else I could find is either not independent of the subject or references the subject in passing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some secondary sources with coverage. [18], [19], [20], [21], Whether this amounts to WP:SIGCOV is up for debate. To me it is borderline.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found [1] when doing a WP: BEFORE. [2] looks like a trivial mention. No comment about [3] and [4] as they are in a language I cannot read (though other people are more than welcome to translate those passages and make comments about them here). HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one. A possible WP:ATD would be redirecting to Fundación Vía Libre.4meter4 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with your proposed ATD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fundación Vía Libre: as a considerable ATD per above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. asilvering (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iida Yoshitake

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

Article has remained unsourced for 18 years. No indication that sources exist or that this person is notable per guidelines. Original creator of this article was banned and confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Japan. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you search in google books under his Japanese name ("飯田義武") there are lots of scholarly Japanese language military history publications with hits. In just reading the text with the "Found Inside" snippet views, I think it is likely there is WP:SIGCOV of this person in those sources. Unfortunately, they are all snippet view books/journal articles. If an editor with access to Japanese language academic publications were to participate, I think it likely this would be a rescuable article.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only one with preview is this. I struggle to read Japanese with vertical writing but this only has one mention so... This one may not count as WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ja.wiki article is much more substantial and has three offline references. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google Books when you search his name in Japanese reveals a good amount of sources talking about him. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "sock pocket"? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Miminity, and 4meter4, google books throws up lots of snippet views of sources (annoyingly though not in sources my uni sign in gives me access to to be able to comprehensively quote). He’s a fairly well known figure in the period (I’ve been to the island he helped invade, and the local history museum had like a whole video presentation about his part in the battle), and I’m honestly surprised I couldn’t turn any academic stuff up in English. As per Mccapra, the Japanese wiki has sources listed, so taken all together, there’s a strong presumption that sufficient sources in the world, which is the applicable standard, whether or not they are cited in the article as currently written.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Preston Arsement

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

Fails WP:NBIO, nothing really significant just a series of "he did this" or unreliable sources. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Source three is likely a RS. the rest don't seem to be... Source six is about his wife. This [22] is a brief listing, I don't think we have enough to confirm notability needed for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple sources, in here and available. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources to make this article bigger 73.216.182.68 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oaktree b is right, there's not enough in here and no more out there. Lacks WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you know there are a lot of sources about him, so we should keep the page 73.216.182.68 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bust out, then. 3 good sources - pony up... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete- ready to change mind if good sources are found Chikwendummesonma (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kelleher

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

No independent coverage of this individual that I could find (some interviews, but interviews are primary sources and fail WP:SECONDARY, and self-published coverage). Article has been tagged as unsourced since January 2024. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Poetry. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found for a poet with this name, an obituary and stories about a drowning. I don't see critical reviews of any of the works listed either. Otherwise, article is all primary sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can prove to myself that his books exist (looking up in libraries), but that is about all. I can find issues of the Yale Review that list him as "michael kelleher is director of the Windham-Campbell Prizes". It turns out that is a position in the Beinecke library. But I find no biographical information about him. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's possible he may pass WP:NAUTHOR. I did find one solid book review in google scholar. See: [23]. There is also some WP:SIGCOV in this journal article. This gets us partway there. He does teach English at Yale, and I have found a descent number of publications, but nothing that would make me think he could pass WP:NACADEMIC. He does oversee a pretty major poetry prize whose recipients are awarded a $175,000 grant (completely unrestricted which means the recipient can spend it however they want). That is the biggest prize money I know of attached to a poetry award. He's clearly a well known figure in the poetry world.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that he teaches english. His page on the Yale site lists him only as being in the Beinecke library, and the page for the English department doesn't list him. I found listings for some (all?) of his books of poetry in the Yale Library, but the few I found in WorldCat showed up in very few libraries - <50. In scholar, he has writings but almost no cites. I don't think he meets either NACADEMIC nor NAUTH. Lamona (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Stava Stensnes

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

Subject is not notable as a chess player. No chess titles, no tournament wins, rank 1479 in Norway and 198485 in the world. Quale (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found passing mentions of him in Norwegian press, but nothing that rises to the level of significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as a chess player. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Norway. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hobby player, WP:TOOSOON at best. Geschichte (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Torres Carrillo

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources Demt1298 (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Football. Demt1298 (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of significant (any?) coverage from reliable sources. Seems like the only sources that exist are football databases. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:FOOTYN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 08:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McLean (broadcaster)

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

I could not find coverage to meet WP:BIO. Only 1 other article links to this. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I searched and was unable to find meaningful coverage of this individual. Left guide (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he was also known as 'magic' and 'mago' and there is also a Australian footballer called Michael 'Magic' McLean, which confuses things. The broadcaster was clearly liked and admired, but there's not enough coverage out there to pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are many similar names that make confusing and difficult to search but was able to find one more source here[24]. If this is added I think it could pass minimum notability given that the subject is deceased. Mekomo (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Horizontal or vertical, he has to pass WP:GNG, and a short obit in a radio trade title won't do that... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Stewart

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

The subject is not notable: the article was created by the subject himself (COI violation) and the sources are either unreliable or questionable, with LInkedIn and Spotify being used; there is one source that is reliable in some cases, Apple Music, however here it is not, it is a podcast that probably features the subject talking. Some of the sources, like this one, were written by the subject himself. 750 h+ 08:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 750 h+ 08:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this violates WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Sources in the article are unreliable some of which are interviews, and some are written by the subject himself. Mekomo (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, possibly speedy. COI violation. Article also violates AUTOBIOGRAPHY as per Mekomo, and might violate BLP policy. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charlotte Sartre

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources that shows notability. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bibliographies. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - Doesn't entirely establish notability. Needs better sources and better info. Too many red links, suggesting that not notable
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the subject of a number of profiles including Las Vegas Weekly, Jezebel, and Paper. She's also discussed in several academic sources as seen from a Google Scholar search: [25]. I think there is enough to meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a mix of moderate and trivial mentions, from databases or entertainment platforms that focus on her work rather than her broader impact. However, given the combination of in-depth interviews, mainstream coverage (Stern), and critical industry coverage from Las Vegas Weekly, Adult DVD Talk, the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, California, and Nevada. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Not seeing a keep on sources now there. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 7-Zip. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Pavlov (programmer)

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the 7-Zip article may be a suitable alternative to deletion - the subject of this article is mentioned there. Pavlor (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pavlor that redirect to 7-zip is a good idea. ServiceAT (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Doherty

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; only seems to have passing, three-sentence at most mentions in occasional articles. Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV at all. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NBIO and WP:GNG are not met. Effectively all of the coverage (in the article and that I can find) is of statements by the subject. Rather than about the subject. To the extent that the subject is mostly only mentioned in passing in the sources within the article. I also note that the WP:BLP bar (already a high bar) is even higher for articles about children. While this higher bar perhaps no longer applies, even a biographical article about an adult would require reliable/verifiable sources for the text about the subject's date-of-birth, role with ISSU, planned participation in a 2021 European Youth Parliament event, etc. There are no sources AT ALL for this text. Nor can I find any publicly available material about it. To the extent that I cannot fathom what the author was relying upon for these statements. (I also note that the author added several inline references in places where the sources do not mention the subject or otherwise support the text - suggesting that the author appears to have been relying on first-hand knowledge rather than what's actually in the sources...) Anyway, absent actual/verifiable/reliable/biographical sources (of which the subject is a primary topic), I cannot recommend anything other than deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, People and Women. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as done previously and lock it to prevent repeated disruption. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Golf, Internet, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG with multiple references focusing on her:

These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That 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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.

None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g 🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g 🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom., Iggy pop goes the weasel, Traumnovelle, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets GNG. See my comment above. C F A 💬 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do feel that those opting for redirect are really failing to see the huge differences between this AFD and the previous one in July.

1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).

2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.

3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).

In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a poorly-written article about a person whose accomplishments I find unimpressive. Sources obviously pass GNG. Is there a BLP issue, or some other urgent concern that makes GNG unsuitable here? Or is it just a politics thing? jp×g 🗯️ 02:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Not seeing any sources that are notable outside of Donald Trump, until she becomes notable by herself I can't vote keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)

In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [26] [27] [28] [29], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.

The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.

But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.

Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g 🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:

The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.

For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.

For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. (Redacted) Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.

1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.

2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[30]] and [[31]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the family of Donald Trump. It doesn't need an independent article. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Notability is not inherited. This is, at best WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per some of the keep discussion above. It clearly passes WP:GNG and this is way different from the previous deletion discussion in July with more references. Kaizenify (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. The new coverage is still entirely connected to her grandfather. Notability is not inherited. I don't doubt at some point this may change, but so far it hasn't. It's WP:TOOSOON for an independent article. FYI, telling us how many followers someone has on social media is a clear sign that someone is scraping desperately at the bottom of the non-notability barrel.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likely TOOSOON. Playing golf isn't notable, there is coverage of a speech given, but being social media star in 2024 isn't notable alone. We've had a flood of coverage since the event, but nothing before. I'm not sure this person is notable for what they've done; outside of the Trump name, what have they done to be notable. She's a "potentially notable" influencer, so nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You see the name, you want to know who it is. It's as simple as that. Cyber rigger (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we keep it, it's logical that Barron Trump should have his own article. Lucafrehley (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a public figure and meets Wikipedia notability requirements to have her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.77.187 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Akpobome

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. She has not been discussed in reliable sources independent of her. All of the sources cited in the article are interviews she granted to newspaper outlets. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG here. Sources are not providing the substantial coverage that we need for a subject to qualify for a standalone page. There is also no inherent notability as the director of Heritage Bank. I am not opposed to redirecting to that target. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am, funnily enough, opposed to a redirect. Fails WP:GNG signally, the article is typical promo/UPE, IMHO, and deletion is the best course. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I’m not even sure her husband is notable. Bearian (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. I don't think he is either. I will definitely look at the article about him and review the sources available online. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources present and in a search for more does not meet the general notability criteria and there are no other criterias to warrant an inclusion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (non-admin closure) Kaizenify (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Singh

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh, I disagree. Based on this alone, we have an elected politician passing WP:NPOL and a pass the popcorn moment, to boot. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my mistake, someone completely changed this article which was earlier about a minister of Bihar. Even I have edited it before. See current version, I have restored the orginal version. The version I nominated for delition was about a non notable politician of the same name. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make more sense to rewrite the article to be about the elected politician??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, we need to get present one deleted. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was about an elected representative and minister in Government of Bihar, Santosh Kumar Singh means this person File:Chief Minister Nitish Kumar with minister Santosh Kumar Singh (cropped).jpg. However, a new user changed it to current version and made it an article about a non notable politician of the same name, File:Son of Shri Prem Shankar Singh.jpg this person is an officeholder of a small regional political party and not elected to any constitutional post, even a local body. Therefore, I nominated it for delition.Adamantine123 (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close - The article was hijacked and turned into a biography of a non notable individual. Clearly passes WP:NPOL and @Adamantine123: should at least check the revision history before nominating, these nominations are a waste of time for the community. Dympies (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz has reverted it into non notable version. It was me who added the picture of Santosh Singh the labour minister, which helped me to identify later that it was highjacked. You should also mention that it is not notable in present form. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not misrepresent Liz's edit here, she only reverted your disruptive revert which removed the afd template while the discussion was still going on. As per the latest revision the subject is clearly notable having been elected to a legislative body [32]. Dympies (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Golovanov

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

Lack of notability. I looked for sources in both Russian and English and was unable to find anything about this person specifically, and the page has been tagged as lacking sources for two years. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Russia. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather common name that comes up with many individuals, none appear to be a religious figure... Article now is sourced to primary sources. I don't see notability, this appears rather to be a CV. Lack of sourcing and unclear notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: SOAP. This entire page is about how the Pope refused to promote him to bishop, exarch, or Monsignor. He’s exactly the sort of careerist that Pope Francis preaches against. We’re not here take sides in religious matters. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing NBIO or GNG. No actual assertion of what he might be notable for either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Suharto

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

Already in the main article of Suharto features the all the awards and honors that is featured in this separate article of the list of awards and honors he received. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Indonesia. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. मल्ल (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK. He was the grand Poobah and dictator of his country, so of course he was going to get every single medal awarded by his country, and even a few from his friends and supporters. This list borders on Propaganda and hagiography. Bearian (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was the President of Indonesia, and every Indonesian president is automatically awarded the highest class of all medals and decorations. Therefore, listing all of his national medals seems unnecessary. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Paulsen

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Created in 2006 and has never had a single source. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Photography, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tagged for notability since 2012, there are Kai Paulsens out there, but no Norwegian journalist, photographer, and computer collector Kai Paulsens. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this photojournalist per lack of sources since 2012. There are a number of similar names that come in Google search results but not this very subject. Narrowed the search with his photojournalism career but still not good came up for him. He fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Perry (computer specialist)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brent David Fraser

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added some references to this previously-unreferenced BLP of an actor. These are passing mentions, however. I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Washington. Tacyarg (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the nominator, I was unable to find any significant coverage of Fraser, just cast listings and brief mentions in movie reviews. The closest to any biographical information was a Seattle Times movie review that added "Bellingham-raised" to his name (because it's local). (ProQuest 385333344) Not a notable actor at this time. Schazjmd (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note, often credited as the shorter name Brent Fraser. Satisfies NACTOR with significant roles in Wild Orchid II: Two Shades of Blue (as Brent Fraser, and Dead & Breakfast. (When I am able I will add sourcing that verifies that). Mentions in reviews is an important part of judging actors. They act in things. That's what they are known for. That's the sort of thing that should be in encyclopaedias. Who'd they play and in what. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I’m hoping for the promised citations, but not holding my breath for a week. Bearian (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally managed to get some sources onto the page. then there is also [33], [34], [35] and [36] (last has a quote from New York Times). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the many added sources on the article and the links to dedicated articles above I think there is enough for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shradha Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NBIO, most of the references are extremely poor or straight up paid articles about her company. [37][38] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Lullipedia (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she won a made up in one day award for an up and coming but ultimately run of the content creator. Sources are the usual deprecated ones that are actually advertising. Bearian (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The Fortune Under 40 is probably the strongest source; the remaining ones are either definitely PR (the BBC one is sponsored by a hotel chain) or possible PR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed bin Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa

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

Fails WP:NBIO - political appointment with no notable history. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bahrain. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without a convincing source analysis from the nominator, I am not seeing a valid reason to assume WP:SIGCOV isn’t met.4meter4 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both references are essentially the subject's CV. Not WP:IS, not WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For better or worse, the consensus is that diplomats are not notable absent evidence. Appointed officials need significant coverage and aren’t automatically notable. There are two sources, both of which appear to be primary sources. Bearian (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, sources not appropriate for a biography. Writing and speaking about sex and sexuality does not in and of itself confer notability, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Photography, and Sexuality and gender. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also fails WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST possible conflict of interest too, with editor saying they "do advocacy work for indie authors and creative commons artists" Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI in my comment below. Merely because I do advocacy work for authors on my monthly blogposts about indie authors has nothing to do with the issue. Also, would you prefer wikipedia articles about authors be written by editors without opinions about authors? Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree totally on fail of WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST (self published content and all) and also on potential of COI. Also now have Kneecap's 'Fine Art' back in my head. Sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI issues in my longer comment below. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the self-published content issue already here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the only kind of coverage I could find [39], I don't think we have enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is an interesting article I didn't see before. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.

I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.

Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.

1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.

2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.

3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."

4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.

Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.

That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.

One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).

I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?

Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.

By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [40]

These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sourcing to back up these claims, "because, trust me" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a general statement which does not apply to this article. I think everything in the article is properly sourced. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is enough here to close as Delete but I wanted to allow some time to respond to the argument of the article creator. They claim the sources are sufficient so a source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Ref 1 Salon.com. is an interview, not independent

Ref 2 Sexual Freedom Awards is a primary source
Ref 3 Seattle Erotic Art Festival. is a primary source
Ref 4 Eros During Times of Social Change is an interview not independent
Ref 5 is a primary source written by Steinberg

Ref 6 is a commercial link to purchase his book

Ref7 can’t access this but a foreword is unlikely to be significant coverage
Ref 8 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
Ref 9 ditto
Ref 10 ditto
Ref 11 ditto
Ref 12 ditto
Ref 13 ditto
Ref 14 interview
Ref 15 interview
Ref 16 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source

Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things regarding primary sources.

Ref 6 links to public statements made by several other notable people about Steinberg and specifically his book which appeared on the promotional material related to the book (which are copied on the author's own website).You can easily view it in these same quotes in the opening pages for the Kindle ebook. Based on my experience as a publisher, it is very rare that people are misquoted in blurbs and other promotional material. Publishers take these things very seriously; they can get sued! Whether these statements are sufficient to establish notability -- I'll let others decide. What's significant is that a lot of people -- several of which are already on wikipedia -- have made statements about this person's writings.

With regard to interviews, it's a pretty standard way for a journalist to write about any author. Often the preface by the interviewer will try to contextualize a writer's contributions (that was particularly true in the Salon article). (Ref 1) Wiki specifically allows the use the self-published sources as long as 5 conditions are met See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and as I mentioned before, some well-vetted articles on authors on Wikipedia make use of actual quotes by the author often. One time I counted the number of times author John Updike was quoted in the wiki article about him, I think the number was 18. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert J Nagle, we're not worried about people being misquoted when their statements are being used in blurbs and promo material. We're concerned because they are blurbs and promo material. We don't base notability on these types of thing because they're not independent. (See WP:INDEPENDENT.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aniqah Choudhri

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline as significant coverage by reliable, independent sources is limited. While Aniqah Choudhri won a notable poetry prize and has some publication credits, the article lacks substantial third-party sources that provide in-depth coverage of her life and career. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Poetry, and United Kingdom. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The necessary sources are not there. We get a review in a reader-created, online text; routine announcements by booksellers, such as this; the Tribune "about" page on our subject in her capacity as a journalist in its staff; a couple of articles written by our subject, here and here; and so on. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 4c of WP:NAUTHOR as the recipient of two poetry prizes. That is enough critical attention as an author to pass that WP:SNG criteria in my opinion. Also the verifiability issues are over-stated here, because the non-independent sources being used are doing so in compliance with WP:ABOUTSELF. It would be better to have more independent coverage, but that is not necessary when an SNG is met. 4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, poetry prizes are a dime a dozen, as surely you are aware. Winning ten prizes in poetry mean next to nothing if the awards are not important/notable enough. In my neck of the woods, they have monthly competitions in short stories and poetry, but I assure you none of the winners merits a Wikipedia article. End game: Without sources supporting independent notability, we do not have an article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 02:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His books have been reviewed in major publications. He is also well known as an activist. See coverage in this article in the Guardian: No water for poor people: the nine Americans who risked jail to seek justice Thriley (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, here are a couple book reviews from SAGE: [41] and [42]. Best.4meter4 (talk)
Keep: Would seem to pass AUTHOR with the reviews given above, needs a bit of a rewrite though. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the arguments above. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gramlich

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

I could only find one non-primary source talking about this person, so in addition to the other issues with the page I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Economics. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Subject holds a named chair at a major university, passing NPROF C5. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If consensus is that this named chair passes NPROF#C5, keep. However, I'm not fully convinced this chair at WSU passes. Specifically, Gramlich is the only person to have held this chair per the WSU Hoops Institute website. Personally, I'd lean towards delete unless other NPROF criteria (e.g. evidence of impact in the academic field) are shown in some capacity. Cyanochic (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The named chair part of PROF has been a bit muddied by the creation of a legion of, shall we say, second-tier named chairs, some of which I don't feel qualified to assess for prestige. Not my field but the GS profile is fairly healthy, with top citations 316, 204, 159, 148, 131 and a further two >100 (all fairly sparsely authored), but the h-index is only 17. Perhaps someone who knows more about citations in this field, and about chairs in the US, could weigh in? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: Academicians do not get all the media releases, but the subject having been a chair in a major university could easily pass for C5 WP:Prof; also has lot of cited publications in his field, which shows he has contributed much enough to the body of work. Kaizenify (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see there's debate as to whether his named chair at WSU is of sufficient prestige, but I'll note that Gramlich has held two named chairs, one at WSU and another at the University of Southern Maine. I think that's an NPROF#5 pass. He also passes NPROF#7a given that he is frequently quoted as an expert in major media outlets (see the Wall Street Journal, New York Times x2, Bloomberg, the Economist, and Cascade PBS). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Harpreet Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the page- Most of the jathedar has wikipedia pages and He remained the head of Akal Takht the highest seat of Sikh Community. Wikiravidas (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "he is certainly notable" does not carry any weight. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments should focus on policy-based reasons and the quality of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep as the BLP of the subject passes GNG. The nominator should have done a BEFORE. — Mister Banker (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Mister Banker has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

Mister Banker, can you be more specific as to which sources help establish GNG? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE who is the appointed head of the highest temporal seat of Sikhs and to whom India's second highest category security was granted by the Indian government (The Economic Times, Times Now). He has also received other coverage over the years. See: The Quint, The Quint, NDTV, ABP LIVE, Business Standard — Mister Banker (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, therefore not usable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Have you even read what NEWSORGINDIA says? You need to show how this coverage falls under it. Simply saying it does, just doesn't cut it. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Mister Banker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two sources only talk about granting Z security to him[43][44] and his refusal, they do not provide any other information about him. The rest of the coverage you are talking about is only due to his controversial statements over the years[45][46], this too is only about the statement he made , this source is only reporting his statement on his wife's arrest at the airport without providing any additional coverage about him, none of these sources have in-depth or significant coverage of his life beyond rudimentary attention to his controversial statements. My rationale still stands, he is only getting occasional news worthy coverage only due to his statements not because he is independently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you have agreed that WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't apply here and that he is notable enough that the media seems it worthy to provide coverage to his statements which can be added to the article to let the readers know about his stance on socio-political matters. — Mister Banker (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lorstaking (talk)
Keep, from the sources it seems to qualify WP:GNG.Also, Akal Takht is the supreme religious authority in Sikhism and we have wikipedia articles for the head and members of such religious authorities.Adamantine123 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "he is just notable, we all know this" are not worth much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed with @Adamantine123. Also there are cited enough reliable sources to support the BLP' article to meet GNG. MSLQr (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what are those sources that establish GNG? - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a clearly promotional text, lacking sources that would support the subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG, despite all the chaff. The plethora of SPA's curating it does not help much. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had little coverage for controversial statements, but that does not help in establishing GNG. Dympies (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same as what Adamantine123 said. In addition it also appears to be decently well sourced. S302921 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once more: Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "surely, there are sources" just do not amount to much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The keeps above fail to explain how the subject is notable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Singh is the primary subject in multiple news stories in national papers in India which span several years. This would seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV guidelines for proving notability through independent significant coverage. Newspaper articles are routinely used to prove WP:GNG at wikipedia; so dismissing newspapers outright as not relevant seems spurious.4meter4 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show the sources. WP:NOTNEWS is very clear on routine coverage. Vague hand waves won't work. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As one participant says here, if this subject is notable, then "show the sources". Making claims of notabiity without highlighting evidence, either existing in the article or brought to this discussion, are empty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are currently 11 sources in this page. I think that's more than good enough for this page. According to the second source on the page he was featured in Hindustan Times. (I would like to apologise for any formatting errors) S302921 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them address any of the concerns of the nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles." is not a good argument. We don't have articles for Every single number. He was referenced in multiple sources listed on the page and his page has plenty of content on it. S302921 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-check WP:OVERKILL. None of the sources crowding the wavelength address the nomination's concerns. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could argue that, but my point still stands. His article has plenty of information available to keep his page. S302921 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nom is right, there is some routine coverage of the subject's appointment as the jathedar of the Akal Takht in Indian media, of the type that the policy requires us to discount. WP:SIGCOV for the subject is missing. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Akal Takht is the supreme body of the Sikh religion, and Giani Harpreet Singh represented more than 25 million Sikhs worldwide. He is also a person responsible for imposing religious punishment on former Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab named Sukhbir Singh Badal, and due to this punishment, the deputy chief minister can't participate in any religious or social activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiravidas (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Jathedar does not make one notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per NBASIC and PUBLICFIGURE, sources satisfies the requirements for notable status. Furthermore, his appointment as Jathedar of the Akal Takht, a prestigious office in Sikhism, underscores his significance. ®asteem Talk 20:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read pages you are pointing to? NBASIC clearly states that BLP requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", not a single source has been provided that does that. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is not even relevant here, it pertains to mentioning well documented allegations in reliable sources if the subject is a public figure as opposed to WP:BLPCRIME which forbids it for non public figures. Being a jathedar does not make one automatically notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: We already have enough null & void arguments to last us a year. Could we please stop with the claims that our subject "is surely notable" or that "certainly, sources exist"? It has been registered quite clearly that the subject is well loved. Let's please allow the process to conclude. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Khalistan figure. The above empty indications of notability by "keep" supporters is unconvincing. Nxcrypto Message 06:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said above Giani Harpreet Singh represented more than 25 million Sikhs worldwide. He has numerous source on his page to keep it. S302921 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aoi House. On the whole there is not a consensus for any particualr course of action, but there does seem to ba rough consensus that this is not an acceptable stand-alone article. It's already been relisted twice and that hasn't resolved it, so this seems the most reasonable course of action at this time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Arnold

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating person again for deletion as this webcomic creator has not been active for a number of years and there are more notable comic creators that do not have wikipedia pages. There are even more notable people with this name that do not have wikipedia articles. Gomanga1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Webcomics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a very good deletion argument. मल्ल (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – The deletion argument doesn't hold water, but looking through the sources used in the article, I cannot find a single secondary source that says anything about Arnold except listing him as the writer. Nothing in my books eiither. I can't even find out where he's from or what his inspirations are based on these sources, there's not even an interview. Using exclusively primary sources for biographical information is a problem. Aoi House seems to be the primary topic here, with Vampire Cheerleaders also having only one review. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly does the Delete argument not hold water? You corroborate the argument by your take on sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have many articles on artists who are no longer active, that is normal for an encyclopedia. Gomanga's claim that "there are even more notable people with this name that do not have a wikipedia article" is irrelevant for a deletion discussion (WP:OSE) because it's fine if there are notable topics with the same name. The existence of those articles would just depend on whether someone has written them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking more participation. Considering a redirect outcome, which of the mentioned articles are being proposed as the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Per Maplestrip/Mable's suggestion above, redirecting to the Aoi House page as it is the author's primary series seems like it would make the most sense.

Gomanga1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gomanga1 has made few contributions in Wikipedia aside from the contested article.

Delete outright for lack of independent sources supporting notability. All proffered links are advertorials, trade magazines' routine announcements, and listings. Fails WP:GNG. Fails all WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Something isn't adding up here. If there is enough evidence for independent articles on two works created by the subject; there probably would be enough for WP:NAUTHOR to be proved to save this article. Three critical reviews are all that is needed to prove that SNG. Unless those two works are also not notable, I suspect there may be enough reviews in the Aoi House and Vampire Cheerleaders articles to prove notability here. Did anyone look at the sourcing in those pages?4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind merging Vampire Cheerleaders into this article, instead of getting rid of this article. But the problem remains that none of the sources say anything at all about the author. It would just be along the lines of "he created x from here to then, and created y from there to thus" and that's it... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Antunovic

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No significant coverage. My own searches yield nothing other than discussions of his involvement in cases and some interviews. Barring something extraordinary about his representation he doesn't inherit notability from the cases. Oblivy (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson.^[1] He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid.^[2]^[3] I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court.^[4] There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders.^[5] In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases".^[6] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest
^ Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since, despite the admirable efforts at discovery, subject remains bereft of sources confirming beyond doubt its notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Oblivy. Collectively passes WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. Fundamentally, this man is notable for his work as a lawyer. Excluding coverage of him for his work in cases, the primary aspect of his notability, seems like a spurious argument. Those sources are directly related to the primary reason he is encyclopedic, so they are pertinent to notability.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then the article needs a major rewrite to incorporate the sources (which were found, I think, by User:Cloventt rather than User:Oblivy) that supposedly establish notability. Muzilon (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muzilon WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and per policy at WP:NEXIST sources only have to be shown to exist and do not have to be present in the article. Feel free to add the sources to the article and work on it; but there is WP:NOTIMELIMIT.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gunnar Norberg

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability, this is more of a play-by-play of the person's life, career and death. Sources are pretty much is discussed in the nomination. I don't find anything esle. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another article on a non-notable mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a town of about 3,000 people. The sourcing is hyper-local or sourced to their own autobiography. The article is part of what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oaktree b, I don't know if you saw that someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit more in the article now, but I'm not sure if it makes this person notable. Being in the War, acting, politician. Seems like an interesting life, but this still feels like an extended CV, nothing really for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, this is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo, this ANI will provide more context:[47] (final ANI discussion), which led to the creator's site ban.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor who deleted some of the material, u|Left guide|Left guide, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sourcing, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions. The problems went on for many years before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read the thread over at ANI, what a situation that was. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions made to the article left it ungrammatical and were done very poorly, leaving a highly misleading picture of the article for reviewers at AfD. Let people review the article with the sources, and we'll see what the result of the AfD really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlands_in_the_Eighty_Acres#History: mentioned there; merge necessary content if possible. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re dir can always be created later, but deleting it first gives a level of protection against surreptitious resurrection by COI editors, a real concern with articles around Carmel-by-the-Sea topic demonstrated by multiple block evasion attempts by a certain editor. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, which is all that counts here, not the state of the article as it currently stands, nor how it got here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with immediately preceding comment. Tim riley talk 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete If notability is not met, it is clearly a problem- However. Even if GNG is met, if WP:BIO fails, it violates the BLP policy. Passing mention references aren't that acceptable either. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep - a perfectly notable subject Jack1956 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m confused: does the article even claim that he was notable? He was the mayor of a small town. In general, that does not establish notability on Wikipedia. Llajwa (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Critically fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:SIGCOV. There are multiple independent book sources from reliable academic publishers, and newspaper articles with in-depth significant coverage. I'm not seeing a valid policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" as arguments. Can we get a source table? And what's this about violating BLP policy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. With no prejudice against renomination. That page should not have been blanked. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Wynkoop

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

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there: delete. Athel cb (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something now@Athel cb:. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, California, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep: ~~and restore immediately the content!~~ This is not how things should be done. On top of this, Wynkoop is a notable architect. I understand the nominator has good intentions but this is a procedural keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I have restored the content. While BLARing and redirecting the page could have been acceptable (maybe not the best solution, but procedurally acceptable at least), the mere blanking of the page was disruptive, especially as the one !voter here does not seem to have looked at the history of the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:
fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability
Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "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;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.

Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.

Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "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;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny. McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I changed my vote to a normal notability Keep; but I am not convinced by the validity of nominating a blank page because (see nom’s rationale) it is blank...AND, precisely, the 1st D !vote before my SK procedural !vote did not seem valid to me BECAUSE the page was blank. (See vote’s content).. ,,so that, according to your very comment, a procedural K vote seemed.... perfectly valid. ........ Anyway, I changed my vote to avoid long debates about now side issues...Mushy Yank (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Weak delete’’’ - he was clearly an accomplished and successful architect who designed at least two beautiful houses - the photos are lovely. The majority of the text is antiquarian chuff, but that could be pruned if there is a core of notability here. But none of the sources shows real notability. Llajwa (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse merging some of this content into the Butterfly House article, as another editor suggested. Llajwa (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know this is part of the Greg Henderson cleanup, but I think Wynkoop clearly passes WP:ARCHITECT criterion 3 as someone who created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work (i.e., the Butterfly House, which must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and passes that criterion with WP:SIGCOV in Architectural Digest, the Arizona Republic, the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. No prejudice against cleaning up or trimming the text. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 Is there a need for two articles, though? We have one on Butterfly House. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, because a biography of the architect isn't appropriate to include in an article on the building. This is not really an edge case; this is an unambiguous pass of criterion 3 of ARCHITECT/CREATIVE. This criterion doesn't provide only a presumption of notability; instead, such a person is notable (emphasis added). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally known for my deletionist tendencies, but WP:AUTHOR, which is the same guideline as WP:ARCHITECT, is almost universally held to require two books each with reviews, otherwise it defaults to an article on the book that briefly covers the biography. If an architect were known for a single, extremely major building that took decades to complete, perhaps... but Butterfly House is the architecture equivalent of a single novel. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is for multiple reviews, not for multiple works. (Wikipedia has lots of articles about authors who wrote a single book; see Kathryn Stockett for example.) NCREATIVE literally says a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. That's the literal reading of the text. Clearly we disagree about whether it applies, but I stand by the plain reading of the policy. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is even if WP:ARCHITECT is met, WP:GNG isn't. SportingFlyer T·C 01:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where WP:NBIO requires a person to meet GNG even if one of the additional criteria is met. (It doesn’t.) The SNG provides alternative paths to notability for biographies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quote: meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Not meeting the GNG is an excellent reason not to have a stand-alone article on someone, especially if there's only one work they're considered notable for, as they can be discussed briefly in that article instead of having a stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the architecture guidelines met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local architect that designed non-notable structures. We have confirmation of this, but architects all over the world design things. These buildings aren't on the National Register of Historic Places, nor do they seem to have any special association with any historical items. The Butterfly House was never nominated for any sort of award and it's not a registered historic structure. We have simply a architect that designed interesting buildings, neither of which is terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

People proposed deletions

[1] ttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/

[2] Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest

[3] Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03

[4] "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03

[5] "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03

[6] "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03

[7] Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]