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

Geoff Cottrill

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being C-suite at a company is not an inherent designator of notability, especially for a company that isn't even in the Global 2000. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE industry reporting of the movement of executives, not WP:SIGCOV of the subject himself. Other coverage is in relation to who his daughter is or is WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Advertising, and Golf. Longhornsg (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Rybin

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN on their own, suggest redirecting to Kino (band) as a plausible WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Russia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to Kino (band) per WP:ATD Unilandofma (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Santiago y Calderón

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

This article only cites one source, the site to which this source leads is broken and does not open. The subject of this article is also not notable, i was unable to find any reliable/notable sources for Francisco de Santiago y Calderón. This article fails WP:PERSON. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Ballard Shut

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

Article is pretty obviously written by the subject or their employee (it was written by Timkatent (talk · contribs) and that is the name of the label she is president of). It includes a lot of citation templates but if you look at the sources it's more padded than me after Thanksgiving dinner.

Self reference
About her father/doesn't mention her
Doesn't mention her
Doesn't mention her
CD sale site
ReverbNation page (user edited, social network site)
ReverbNation page of her label
Self-published page of her internet radio show
Doesn't mention her
ASCAP top-level site (I know this will come as a tremendous shock but it doesn't mention her)
Doesn't mention her
CD sales site
Youtube
Youtube
Youtube
Youtube
CD sales site
CD sales site
ReverbNation again
Article she wrote
Doesn't mention her
Random blog (not even archived on the wayback machine)
Listing of articles she wrote
Article she wrote
Blurb from an article she wrote
Wikipedia article
Same list of her articles again
Article she wrote
Article she wrote
Top level of the website for "Modern Soul Sauce Radio" (which she might have hosted)

Yeah. None of these are WP:SIGCOV about her, or even remotely close. It's a compilation of her mid-2010s internet presence. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. None of these sources qualify toward any applicable guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first, we wondered if the motion to delete was possibly AI-generated, but then we noted the cold, sarcastic, and insensitive nature of the review that instantly distinguished author 'Here2rewrite' as human. Page in question is no more "padded" than either of the "editor" user pages listed in the Deletion discussion and predates the WP:NBIO guidelines by many years. 2601:280:5980:9C50:7D4D:F4DB:737:710E (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully we don't allow AI here, it would be better if you could use your own account rather than a random IP address, that also helps with the discussion. Who is "we" in this case? Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you cease the personal attacks and the false statements. NBIO has been a guideline since 2005, long before this promotional autobiography was created. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gnews only brigs up Tim Ballard news items, not related to this person. The only RS are the 22-29, but it's columns this individual has written, so not independent. I don't see any mention of this performer in RS otherwise that we can use. Very likely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. The article is in bad shape any way, and is probably a candidate for WP:TNT even if suitable sourcing was found. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Nichols

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria for a biography/entertainer due to the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources / WP:BASIC. The article is based on primary or unreliable sources. Frost 12:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured this would end up at AfD. When I was making the article, there definitely wasn't much there in the way of sources despite the channel having 10+ million subscribers. I'll save a draft of this article in my userspace in the event he becomes more notable. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Alaska. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Nowak

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

There isn't any significant coverage for this Australian scientist. Fails WP:BASIC SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nowak's position as an elected member of the Australian Academy of Science, a honor at the national level, meets criteria #2 of WP:PROF. She is also highly cited researcher, meeting criteria #1 of WP:PROF. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with DaffodilOcean on one minor point that does not affect notability. Fellowship in the Australian Academy of Science is a pass of WP:PROF #C3, not #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DaffodilOcean's confirmation of her being elected fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, WP:PROF. Oronsay (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gail King (disambiguation)

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

No longer disambiguating anything legitimate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Disambiguations. UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Singh Rana

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

“This individual does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. They are neither a politician nor a public figure of significance. Being a small-time criminal convicted and serving a sentence in a murder case does not establish notability. There are millions of individuals worldwide who face incarceration, and this alone is not a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia.” Spider1217 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spider1217 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This person Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless I'm missing something huge this seems like an extremely significant crime and the coverage appears to be reasonably in depth. A search found more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:CRIMINAL straightway. As the primary perpetrator of the assassination of Phoolan Devi, a prominent national figure in India, there's a wealth of SigCov readily available online. The argument against the subject's notability is completely off-base, as the volume and quality of sources documenting the incident and its impact easily fulfill GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: i think the subject passes WP:CRIMINAL. Baqi:) (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not convinced the nominator's rationale is correct at all, especially considering she is a well-known bandit/politician (just look at the legacy section on her). Definitely passes WP:CRIMINAL, specifically perpetrator point 1. Procyon117 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Holland

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

At Template:Did you know nominations/Phoebe Plummer, I argued that this BLP does not meet the independent notability standards of WP:CRIMINAL; the article creator disagreed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Environment, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps more input from others here. It was a protest, and in some ways exactly the result they were looking for. She was sentenced to prison time. — Maile (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that Maile66, but is that relevant to the notability criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Manna

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woja Emmanuel

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

two concerns, 1st: Subjects notable only for one event (kidnapping) which covered by one sourced that he worked for, i.e., Eye Radio. 2nd: the main contributor to the article seems to be the person himself as they uploaded 3 different images of the topic of article while claiming they were theirs, see [Woja Emmanuel pictures at commons]. yet the editor did not delcar any conflict of interest, so this article may also falls under Wikipedia:Autobiography. Not to mention multiple instances of failed verification and the use of self-published articles. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article was rejected 4 times as a draft before the editor decided to move it to the main space regardless. Below is the rejection comments:

Self published articles shouldn't be used as reference. Also interviews are also not considered as reliable sources to approve. Add 3 reliable sources per WP:RS. Please see WP:THREE.
Articles published by the subject and his organizations, as well as interviews can not be used as sources for a BLP and should be removed. Currently it seems that the only claim to notability is being kidnapped, which means that the subject falls under WP:BIO1E and does not qualify for an entry on Wikipedia. At best this belongs in some list of kidnapped journalists in South Sudan, if such list exists.
Not enough coverage to establish notability.
Also possible WP:COI at least on photos.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samudra Gupta (poet)

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

Fails WP:GNG. A single source sited couldn't help in establishing notability. Nothing to be found upon searching through Edward Betts. Garudam ^Talk! 22:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Poetry, Bangladesh, and India. Garudam ^Talk! 22:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its Bengali-language page bn:সমুদ্র গুপ্ত (কবি) has three sources. One of them is significant which is "Samsad Bangla Charitabhidhan", a biography encyclopedia. And the subject has reliable sources such as Amader Shomoy, Kaler Kantho, Daily Kalbela, Daily Azadi, Jaijaidin, Sahitya Barta, Daily Star (2) etc. So it is clear that it doesn’t fail WP:GNG. Mehedi Abedin 23:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wonder why the article is the subject to deletion discussion. It is created in 2008, in that time the Wikipedia guidelines were not broader and more specific like the present. If I am not wrong in this case we don't delete them because they were created before the more strict rules were passed. Could someone tell me if I get it right? Mehedi Abedin 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should not be a reason. And no, this has nothing to do with the age of the article. You should go through WP:BEENHERE & WP:STONE. Garudam ^Talk! 00:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehedi Abedin: Garudam is correct, the current policies and guidelines always apply. No article is grandfathered in for having met the rules when it was created. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the Bengali-language biographical encyclopedia that Mehedi Abedin mentions above, Samudra Gupta has several paragraphs in the Bangla Academy Dictionary of Writers and an entry in Who's Who in Bangladesh Art Culture Literature (1901-1991). I've used the former and a couple of newspaper articles to expand the article slightly. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article somewhat, and Worldbruce has expanded it. The subject is a nationally recognized poet, and sources show that he meets WP:GNG. Offline sources would be more than online sources as he was most active before the internet age in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Daily Star and the Bangla Academy Dictionary of Writers are strong sources passing WP:GNG, with support from Two Circles. Apart from that provided references collectively offer robust pass to WP:SIGCOV going beyond trivial mentions. In short, the subject is noteworthy individual in the realm of Bangladeshi poetry.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Nicholls

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable producer, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Previous AFD in 2010 ended in Keep but editors there provided no proof of significant coverage either. Sources provided and found in Google are mere mentions of subject, while the series produced are certainly notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dilovan Kovli

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

Contested PROD, which was removed by a user with only 15 edits (and who's likely a sock of the author). Reliable sources are clearly lacking, and notability still needs to be established for this subject. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Iran, and Iraq. – The Grid (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator, does not show notability --VViking_TalkEdits 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons listed in my PROD nomination. The editor is shooting themselves in the foot if they really are socking to remove a PROD tag (they themselves are allowed to do that) and their other contributions reek of WP:UPE. Passenger pigeon (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for an aspiring artist. Is not in any permanent collections, has not made a life changing contribution to the arts scene, or any other artistic notability requirements we look at. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Even if we could verify his identity, it’s far too soon. Also, claims to have been a student at Columbia University but never exhibited in New York? Even stranger: there’s an AI-generated LinkedIn profile that talks about his activities at Harvard under Columbia, a personal website that doesn’t open, and an Instagram account with 9 followers. Bearian (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ai generated Linkedin profiles are a new one for me... Not surprising I guess, the way things work now. Oaktree b (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify any of the things he is said to have accomplished; this would be A7able if it weren't for the fabricated claims of notability. Passenger pigeon (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Bailey

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

This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. The entire article is basically about WP:ONEEVENT which itself doesn't have an article as it's questionable if the event itself is itself would pass WP:EVENTCRIT (enduring significance seems questionable). The person doesn't appear otherwise notable on its own. Suggest deletion as the only other part in this article are actually just about LGB Alliance, not the person, so they are mere sidenotes that don't justify the BLP article. Raladic (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sexuality and gender. Raladic (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGB Alliance - the WP:BLP1E argument is, and will remain, persuasive unless it can be demonstrated that Bailey has some other noteworthy accomplishment. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename to "Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and others" and rework it into an article about that case, which is independently notable, and which the court of appeal will hear it again next year I believe.Void if removed (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1E says :We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

1. There is biographical information in this article which is properly sourced.

2. Bailey has been mentioned in the media other than in connection with the discrimination case.

3. The event is significant, and her role in it was significant. If she wins her current appeal, this will be even more significant.

Alternatively, rename per Void if removed.Sweet6970 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:CRYSTAL because she has not, as of now, won her appeal - if she wins her appeal then its still a single event - the appeal of her ongoing litigation against Stonewall being part of said ongoing litigation - and, as for her media mentions, are any of them not about her anti-trans activism with LGBA or the lawsuit? Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the extract from WP:BLP1E which I quoted above: for WP:BLP1E to apply, then all 3 conditions have to be met. Since the legal case is significant, and her role in it is also (obviously) significant, this case does not come under WP:BLP1E. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of the legal case is highly questionable being honest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case is clearly significant. There have been several successful employment claims since the Forstater and Bailey rulings where Bailey has been cited (eg. Meade vs Westminster City Council), as it goes a little beyond Forstater in providing examples of what is to be considered protected speech. It also establishes and protects slightly wider beliefs than Forstater.

It also, most significantly IMO, wanders into the area of inducement to discriminate under s111 of the EA, which Bailey lost at the EAT, but will now be heard by the court of appeal on the grounds that:

The grounds have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.

So this will set significant precedent.

So it has been subject to significant coverage in popular mainstream media, is cited in other cases which have also received significant coverage, and although we cannot use a WP:CRYSTALBALL, when it reaches the court of appeal, whatever the outcome it will also establish precedent in an important area of equality law. Void if removed (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This will set significant precedent" is WP:CRYSTAL though. You cannot know that ahead of the fact. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't convinced when I first saw this but, after thinking about it, I think I do agree that something should be done. It doesn't feel like BLP1E, because the 1E has dragged on for far too long, but it probably is 1E nonetheless. Of the two options, I think making an article about the case might have a slight edge over merging it to the LGBA article. It isn't the LGBA's case, at least not directly, and handling it as a case encourages us to cover it like we would other cases, with a focus on the claims, laws and judgements rather than personalities, sideshows and fundraising. It might help to attract other editors who have experience covering legal matters. The case is quite complicated. I wasn't even aware that there was a further appeal. I thought that the last unsuccessful one was the end of it. Most people who have heard about it have heard very one-sided reporting. (I dare say that a fair few people must be confused as to why she was/is appealing a case that she had spent ages telling everybody that she had "won".) It would be good to detail it correctly so that readers can understand what the various parts of the case are, which bit she won and which bits she lost. I don't outright oppose the merge idea but renaming the article and bringing it up to standard as a legal article seems the better option. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal is mentioned on her website [1], but as far as I am aware, it has not yet been mentioned in the media. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think turning the article into a rendition of the case is the best compromise, it is the most significant ruling in this area alongside Forstater v CGDE, and although it's not been covered in the media, the grounds on which the court of appeal have agreed to hear it are significant. Void if removed (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much weight is being given to speculation about what might happen in the appeal case here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, speculation about a potential future violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, either the event is already right now significant and if the article was renamed to focus on the court case, the case needs to pass WP:EVENTCRIT, in particular Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes.... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

So aside from suggestion the article be moved to be about the case, the editors arguing for it, also need to actually provide evidence that it passes the eventcrit. Raladic (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A legal case that has been covered by many of the UK's largest newspapers isn't a routine news event, and no crimes have been alleged here. Astaire (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I said it already is notable, with reasons (extensive ongoing media coverage and analysis, and citations in other cases). Once it is ruled on in the court of appeal it will be even more notable. Deleting the article of an already notable case that is certain to become more notable is unjustifiable. Void if removed (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:crystaball. There is no certainty on future increases in notability, please stop pretending there is. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said it already is notable

This is the important part of what I said. I don't need a crystal ball. Its already notable and there's no grounds to delete it. Void if removed (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The strange obsession of the UK press toward trans people does not confer notability to a routine court case. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing WP:CRYSTALBALL about a case which is going to the Court of Appeal. The result will be legally notable, whichever way it goes. A case which goes to the Court of Appeal is, by definition, not a ‘routine case’. And there is no ‘strange obsession of the UK press toward trans people’ - the case is not ‘about trans people’ it is about discrimination. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or alternatively rename to focus on the legal case, per Sweet6970. The case has been widely covered in UK press, with The Guardian calling it a microcosm of the wider debate about transgender rights [2]. Oppose merge or delete. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the article is primarily about the case. The case is not "significant" enough for BLP1E to not apply; there is some dispute regarding whether an article about the case would be deleted. There is no evidence of other coverage of her. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGB Alliance; she's only notable for activism as a part of that. The court case, which alleged that she was discriminated against for her position in that group, is downstream of that. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy LaGrone

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

The article has no actual independent sources, and there is not much beyond routine coverage of this artist. He seems to be more notable for being a Tuskegee airman than an artist. (Update: that appears to be a different Roy LaGrone). Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and United States of America. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not to be confused with the artist Roy E. LaGrone (Q112123883) ~~who needs a page (which I will start after dinner).~~ This Roy LaGrone fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathangi Ajithkumar

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

This playback singer fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC. Coverage is unreliable non-bylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources (example), trivial mentions (example), and/or tabloid coverage disallowed for notability per WP:SBST (example). Nothing qualifying turned up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bayme

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

Delete or redirect to American Jewish Committee as WP:ATD. Not notable under WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE in the context of Bayme's work for AJC. Academic work and standing is not significantly impactful. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Judaism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found multiple reviews of his books on JSTOR but they were all co-edited volumes: Yitz Greenberg and Modern Orthodoxy, JSTOR 48733587; Rebuilding the Nest, JSTOR 352754; American Jewry's Comfort Level, JSTOR 25834912; Facing the Future, JSTOR 42941514, The Jewish Family and Continuity, JSTOR 23450196, JSTOR 42942533. If even one reviewed book were authored it might push me over to a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudheer Dara

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

I tried to fixed the page, but i failed to fix the notability. He is an ulelected politician, fails WP:NPOL. Looking at WP:GNG, some articles including ABP News [3] looks like advertisement as it is published in Brand Wire section. Other article and citations also needs to be checked. Taabii (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Medicine, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taabi,

I edited and updated content and media sources; please check and remove that tag.

If there are any issues, please inform me.

Thank you. Narasingprasad (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baqi:) (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has multiple made up in one day awards for a run of the mill doctor. Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES as an unelected candidate. Also, we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naufal Ahmad

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

There aren't much to establish notability. Likely doesn't meet WP:BASIC. There are these: [4][5][6][7] but they seem to be routine press releases and I'm not sure if they're reliable. Frost 15:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator. Upon searching, reliable sources (WP:RS) are not readily available, and there is also a lack of significant coverage. Baqi:) (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Prager

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

No independent sources found since article creation in 2006. No indication of notablity. Hipal (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here: notability, and sourcing.

I would Keep on the basis of notability. This would be on the basis of his role in founding Revision3 (we have articles on the other two founders). Being the son of Dennis Prager is certainly interesting, but doesn't convey notability. I'm sure his prominent parent was a help to his career, but I don't see it as crucial enough for a "famous son" article.

Poor sourcing would still be a reason to delete, so I'm neutral on that one. Although I'd be surprised if it can't be improved to an acceptable level. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And who told you that sourcing and notability are two separate issues? A lack of quality sources implies that the subject isn't notable. It doesn't matter whether the other founders have articles, because they're not the subjects of this AfD. I also don't see why I should care about what companies he's affiliated with, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, atrociously poor sourcing, and I can't find anything better out there either. I will reconsider if somebody with better search skills than mine should turn up one or two secondary reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject. Bishonen | tålk 22:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I seconded the proposal to delete because of the poor sourcing. Just because one or two founders of a company are notable due to significant coverage, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all of them are notable. I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target article. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP: GNG, can't find good sources either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Revision3 article. Suitable alternative to deletion and the article subject is already mentioned there. Pavlor (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saidullo Abdullaev

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

Non-notable BLP. StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Uzbekistan. StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There’s no allegation of notability. He’s been on a couple of boards. That’s WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Gonzalez

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

The subject fails the notability guidelines for WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF. The sources cannot establish that the subject passes the General notability guidelines. The first source is a Linkedin page, the second source is an interview and the last source is a personal website. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, and United States of America. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been corrected with plenty of external sources. The point of this entry is partly to bring light to a highly accomplished & important figure. 2601:195:C480:DFB0:5166:6B4B:96EF:DC75 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the article does nothing to suggest notability but its last line, membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (the much stronger of the two AAAS's) is an automatic pass of WP:PROF#C3. This was present in the article as nominated, but I'll give the nominator a pass for missing it because I missed it too the first time I took a look at this. The linkedin source is bad but the academy's own profile of her [8] is adequate to establish notability for this criterion, as the specific criterion notes 3b make clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Thank you for your thoughtful gesture. I noticed the AAAS nomination but the three sources provided initially were either primary source or social media link. However, I noticed that the article has been improved with a lot of sources, though majority of them are still either primary or unreliable sources. However, the main important one, the AAAS source is not accessible from my end. Please, ping me when you confirm it is accessible and I am going to withdraw my nomination. Thank you. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you would have trouble accessing it; it's not a subscription-only link. That said, notability is about the subject, and the sources that exist anywhere, not about the article and the sources given in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein, and I've added the AAAS to the lead to clarify her notability.Pam D 09:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. What a great team effort to rescue this! Bearian (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Dunszt

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

Non-notable businessman, fails WP:NBIO. CoconutOctopus talk 22:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Hungary. CoconutOctopus talk 22:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is one notable in Hungary. Jomajor8 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable business man in Hungary, (Redacted) knows that too as he is from there, he is just putting this delete notice to all my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomajor8 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person with a non-notable company. Canterbury Tail talk 17:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shammai Zahn

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

Contested draft, bringing here for resolution. Sourcing appears insufficient for biographic notability. Star Mississippi 22:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Germany, and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 22:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It clearly fails WP:GNG. A thorough search didn’t yield anything substantial, and the available sources are not reliable (WP:RS) either. Baqi:) (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Nagar

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

I know this is recent, but this fails WP:BIO1E and could easily be merged (or redirected) into Adolf Eichmann#Appeals and execution. Info here is mainly about the execution itself. E_F⁵ 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. E_F⁵ 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems fine with the sourcing used. coverage going back to 2011 at least in RS. If this was stub article, it might be a different decision, but we have quite a bit of info here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of older reliable sources, and looks to be a decent starter level article. Carlp941 (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that another editor has removed the name of executioner from Adolf Eichman's page. We can't have it both ways. If this article is to be deleted on the basis that the info can be in Eichman's article - then the article on him should actually include that information. Carlp941 (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sourcing/coverage seems solid and article isn't a stub. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well sourced, Notability is not temporary. –DMartin 06:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The German article has also been proposed for deletion, but the deletion was cancelled after valuable sources were being added. --Khatschaturjan (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Joris

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

Artist that doesn't appear notable. Can't find any indication that this person is an important figure in the arts, or played a major role in a significant or well-known work. A search of google and linkedin indicates that the creator of the article is or was an employee of the subject. William Graham ^talk 16:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Arts. William Graham ^talk 16:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely promotional gobbledygook. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding reliable sources for the claims made in this article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I don’t see anything currently on the page’s list of sources that would suggest significant coverage. This is as close as I could find on a WP: BEFORE search. If you find more, ping me. Bearian (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Faiyaaz

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 09:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 09:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tahmid Bhuiyan Tamim

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 09:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 09:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of people who died in the July massacre and protect since creator has been undoing prior similar redirects. Star Mississippi 21:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per my nomination. GrabUp - Talk 09:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Dalal

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

Participating in a reality show alone does not make someone notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. If this were the case, countless individuals in India could potentially have articles created every day. This situation clearly falls under WP:BIO1E. At present, I do not believe the subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG. Additionally, WP:TOOSOON also applies in this case. The claim of “winning several medals for India” is vague and unexplained without any source. Zuck28 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zuck28 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has won numerous medals, and there are plenty of sources for this information. You should strive to keep your eyes open so that the Wikipedia article isn't removed needlessly.

Please take another look at the source that is related to the prose content provided at wikipedia page. Super Dud (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dud, Kindly elaborate about those “numerous medals”. Name the medals, competitions, organisers, opponents, platforms, team he represented, dates and venues of the matches?

These plenty of the sources doesn’t verify the claim, merely it mentions that “the subject claims to have certain number of medals”. Without any specific details about these medals.

Secondly, I would suggest you yo use professional language and avoid personal attacks, otherwise you can attract a block.

Even after taking multiple looks at the page, it is not clear how you think the subject passes the Wp: Notability criteria of Wikipedia.

Zuck28 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't see my brief attempt to convey the main idea as an insult, leave the rest of the work to the administrators.

I have personally attached a summary of how many medals were won by the subject and in which event as a citation on the said subject page.

Now clear your confusion by reading that information carefully.

Thanks, happy editing. Super Dud (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the points put by nominator.-Adamantine123 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Baqi:) (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crispy Concords

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

Non-notable YouTuber. Some minor coverage in gaming-adjacent sources, but the coverage I could find was either not in-depth or took the form of listicles - Nothing enough to meet WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best source I could find is the Dexerto source, number 7 now in the article. Dexerto is a marginally RS and not really used for BLP [9]. So we just don't have enough sources for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to locate reliable sources to establish notability. I found this, but as I said. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As much as I love watching this guy's TikTok Bingo videos, I don't see GNG being met, sadly. E_F⁵ 01:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anson Tsang

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

Non-notable poker player. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hong Kong. UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. All coverage is sourced to poker stat databases and other poker news sites merely covering the events subject has taken part in. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this book titled I Am a Gambler: The 73rd Industry that Disrupts Your Traditional Views on Gambling (Chinese: 我是牌手──顛覆您對賭博傳統看法的第七十三行業) published by https://www.red-publish.com/ that profiles him on pages 107–116. I found a few paragraphs of coverage in this article from Card Player. The other sources I found were sponsored sources from natural8 like this Chinese-language article and this English-language article. I think the book is a reliable source. His notability hinges on whether Card Player is also a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Andrian

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

Non-notable poker player. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. UtherSRG (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jans Arends

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

Non-notable poker player. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Netherlands. UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan LaPlante

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

Non-notable poker player. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Minnesota. UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability. Kablammo (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hall (poker player)

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

Non-notable poker player. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Seiji

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

More non-notable poker fancruft. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqa al-Qibtiyya

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

Per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC; lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, consists mainly of incidental details and the available sources provide no appropriate depth or independent analysis to establish notability as per the former. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Dance. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep, coverage here [10] and [11] Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two more for fun [12], [13] Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage"; the coverage in these sources is nonsignificant, per WP:SIGCOV. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the first famous belly dancer. There are plenty of information about her. I do not understand why she should not be notable. Of course, most information would be in her native language. But that is a common scenario about a notable person who has before the age of internet not been very well known in the English language.--Aciram (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being the "first famous [blank]" does not inherently equate to WP:NOTE and a stand-alone article. Per the latter, the individual must be significantly documented in reputable, secondary sources that provide more than just biographical data; incidental mentions or superficial coverage, even if in multiple sources, do not meet the threshold for notability, see WP:NBIO. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not look at the other language versions? One of them is of substantial length. Many notable people do not have substantial coverage in the English language. Nonetheless they are notable. If people need to be substantially covered in English language sources, many hihgly notable people who where mostly written about in their native language would not be here, but they are; and should be, since wikipedia does not require English language sources. That is one of wikipedia's advantages: to spread knowledge. Being the first internationally famous individual of her profession, as well as the first individual of her profession that is individually known at all; as well as being a legend of her profession and continually referred to whenever the history of belly dancing is mentioned, is certainly notable. --Aciram (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such versions are provided and meet the criteria of WP:SIGCOV then it would be fine, but the currently provided Arabic source consists of a short piece on a webzine, which is not of substantial length or coverage, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Zuhur book listed in article as well as Ibrahim book noted by Oaktree b provide WP:SIGCOV of the subject, especially given the time in history when she lived. Citations provided in books can likely be tracked down for more info, as well as additional sources identified from JSTOR search. I’ll do that later this week. Nnev66 (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in Zuhur's book consists of a single, brief paragraph, which is not WP:SIGCOV, as per the latter. The Ibrahim book mainly concerns Copticism and scarcely makes passing references to Shafiqa, and thus also does not constitute significant coverage as described by the former. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ibrahim book has the more coverage (2.5 pages) with different information than in the Zuhur one. It references the book "Midnight in Cairo" by Raphael Cormack as does a book review reference I found by Richard Spencer in The Times which I added to the article. I plan to go to the library to see what other information is in the Cormack book but won't get over there until the following week. Nnev66 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the above, the Ibrahim book centers on Copticism and the coverage in those two and a half pages consists of passing references to the subject, amongst other subjects, which does not constitute WP:SIGCOV per the criteria outlined in the guideline. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ibrahim coverage (which is available in the Google book preview) gives information such as the subject was a belly dancer born to a Christian family in Shubra, there are documents that trace the subject back to Cairo's music halls and nightclubs although there are no documents indicating which religion she identified with, that she studied with a belly dancer named "Shawq" (spelled "Shuq" in this article), that a local historian noted the subject escaped form husband wearing nun's clothing to get to the dance hall, that her family disowned her after observing her dance at a wedding. There is discussion about the subject's "Copticness" and whether it was just part of her stage name or if she had more of a relationship to her religion or community. It notes she was the subject of a 1963 film by Hassan Al-Imam which contributed to Egyptian memory of her. This article summarizes some information about the film including that she was expelled by her family, had a baby with a man not her husband, builds her wealth but something happens (not stated) that leads to alcoholism and loss of wealth and she becomes a nun. The author of the article describes how he tried to trace some of the information in the Cormack book and from the film. So this is more than passing reference to the subject, especially as I noted above, given the historical period when she lived. Some of this info above should be folded into the article but I'll wait to see the outcome of this AfD. I'll be at the library this Monday December 9 when I can hopefully find the Cormack book and see if there's more information to include. Nnev66 (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see the above; the coverage in the book is still in passing and incidental, which does not constitute WP:SIGCOV as per the second criterion of the latter. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The topic is not notable enough and therefore the article fails WP:GNG. Skitash (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Polgar

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

Page`s notability might not meet Wikipedia's standards due to a potential lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahaman

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources provided do not demonstrate that the subject meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or the specific guidelines under WP:SNG for Academics. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Bangladesh. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are mostly column writings by the subject themselves (More likely a biography). other references are not enough to establish the subject as Notable.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Portal cbnbd.com is obscure, with no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. The tone of the article there ("Deprived of his father's love, this bright child of Varuakhali grew up with poverty as a blessing. Like a forest, the human society continues to grow above all the surrounding barriers ...") does not ring of reliability. The Japanese piece is tagged as a paid article, and the other three sources are written by the subject. Searches of the usual types found nothing better about this Mizanur Rahaman. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Here

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

Non notable YouTuber with noting close to notability requirement. Majority of the sources are primary to his YouTube videos and websites announcing events. Wanted to put it up for CSD A7 but thought that bringing it here for general discussion will be better Mekomo (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Mekomo (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in RS that I can find, most of the sources used in the article are primary or in non-RS. Don't quite seem to have notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Quickly fails on WP:A7 citing YouTube are not reliable sources. Royiswariii Talk! 22:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, Most of the sources in the article are unreliable. Baqi:) (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GNG. E_F⁵ 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lowery

AfDs for this article:

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

See previous AFD. Still not notable. UtherSRG (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Arizona. UtherSRG (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV outside poker sites. Many of the references were clearly reference stuffing. The author seems to be on a crusade to write an article for every poker player who has ever won a tournament, but really, these people aren't WP:NOTABLE outside a very narrow field. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the Wikipedia General notability criteria (WP:GNG). Baqi:) (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBIO, all sources are to poker stat databases and poker sites covering events this personality has taken part in.- Ratnahastin (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. Nearly all sources are his finishes. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Hill

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

No signifigant coverage in any reliable and secondary sources. There are only sources briefly mentioning awards that Hill has been nominated for. No biographical details. Sebbog13 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Visual arts. Sebbog13 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets 4C of WP:CREATIVE "won significant critical attention" as an Oscar nominee, for his notable work on Top Gun: Maverick, starring Tom Cruise. He was also nominated for a BAFTA Award for Top Gun: Maverick and a Primetime Emmy Award for his work on Stranger Things. He definitely has reliable and secondary sources on him [14]. His oscar nomination sources [15][16][17][18]. His emmy nomination sources [19]. There are biographical details where he leads Method Studios along with two other people [20][21]. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the information and links provided above by User:MoviesandTelevisionFan. — Maile (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless I'm mistaken an Oscar nominee attains notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was told to AfD it on the discord. - Sebbog13 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were told? Does that mean you don't really want it deleted? Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan C. Clark

AfDs for this article:

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

The article fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO criteria. It relies heavily on a single primary source, which is not considered reliable for verifying notability. I did a google search and found no significant independent coverage of the subject in third-party sources per WP:SIGCOV. The subject has not made any notable contributions or achievements that would justify an article. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one source available reference that loaded biography of subject. The whole summary is that the subject is only known for an incident.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 20:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Article creator tried doing the same with Emily Jane Hilscher. Procyon117 (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since Hilscher got redirected, I also wouldn't be opposed to a redirect either. Procyon117 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Begich (author)

AfDs for this article:

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

All of the sources I tried to verifty appear dead links, and this has only just been created. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Alaska. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment It wasn't actually just created. It was created in 2011; "kept" in 2011 AfD; merged to HAARP in 2013; the merge/redirect was undone 26 Nov 2024 (probably why so many links are dead). Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd as it had the new article tags. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems to be his notability seems to stem from 2 books. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to merge since everything relevant about him is already at the HAARP page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked over the article when my watchlist notified me the old merge/redirect had been undone (26 Nov 2024). I don't see reliable sources that demonstrate notability to meet WP:BIO. Seems like a WP:ONEEVENT situation, and everything relevant to that is already covered at HAARP conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reverted the redirection because it took place unilaterally after a "keep" result at AfD, and one person on the talk page objected to it being redirected with no discussion or consensus so it should have been reverted at the time. I'm fine with the redirect to HAARP being reinstated, but figured that this should happen after a discussion rather than on the whims of one editor. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I ran IAbot on this, with the results "Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead." Running IAbot to rescue broken links as part of the AfD process is usually a good idea. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- whilst I didn't originally have a position here and only restored the article for procedural reasons, having had a search it appears that there are several sources independently covering Begich and particularly his business ventures with his son (I have added some to the article), which is probably sufficient notability to be worthy of an article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of which appear to be in the article. IN fact (according to the article) all he has ever done is published 2 fringe books, appeared on some Frine media shows and stood as a fringe candidate in elections. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that among the cited sources, most are actually about Begich's father or his son. If he only gets passing mention in stories about other people and things, that is a pretty good indication he's not notable on his own. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be only notable for his relationship to well-known Alaskan politicians and for his promotion of HAARP. If he's already covered in the HAARP article (and presumably mentioned in his brother/father's articles), then that seems adequate to me. EasyAsPai (talk)
Delete for the reason noted above, already sufficiently covered in the HAARP article Conspiracies theories section. It has to be further noted that Nick Begich is only the co-author of Angels Don't Play this HAARP. The other author is Jeane Manning, who has a longer list of published books. 5Q5|^✉ 13:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now with father uncle 2 brothers & son all having links and who knows what else he may be up to.71.105.190.91 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jadrolita

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

Fails the general notability criteria. Sources are unreliable content farms such as this. Citations from reliable sources are not independent of the subject. Most are majorly interviews or routine coverages talking about her recent mouth tumour. She is still in her early career. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Popular culture, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is BBC here unreliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, no. It is reliable but not independent in my view. If we can find more, I think it can help establish notability here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans While I agree we would need at least one more source, per WP:SIGCOV, why is it not independent? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I consider interviews to be non-independent sources. Don’t you agree? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEWS are iffy. What the subject says is dependent, what the journalist says and concludes (if anything), is independent _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Well, I’m still digging. I (we?) might find non-iffy sources with a more proper look (or not). Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some coverage - the BBC pidgin article is interesting. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, see above. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source from the article and a cursory search cannot establish WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: youtube.com@jadrolita gives message "This page isn't available" so I'm not able to verify the YouTube channel. Not sure if it's temporarily down, if the address is incorrect, or if the subject took it down. I couldn't find it by searching. Nnev66 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Ahuja

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

Fails WP:NM or WP:COMPOSER, I searched about the subject but didn't find much substantial information (WP:BEFORE). The Hindustan Times article stands out as slightly better and provides relevant insights about the subject. Baqi:) (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Delhi. Baqi:) (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:COMPOSER

Zuck28 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NMUSIC. No significant coverage on the career of the subject and any songs or albums that made it to the national charts. RangersRus (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:04, 4 December 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.

Shalini Passi

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meet WP:BIO. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is extensive coverage focusing on her role in the art world, her socialite status and her role as a main cast member on a Netflix series, which meets WP:ARTIST & WP:BIO. Vogue India and Economic Times - Profile are strong sources within the article both of which provide in-depth profiles of her career and influence. Additionally, LuxeBook, Architectural Digest and Lifestyle Asia solidifies notability. With these sources and a lot others available, the article is well-supported to pass GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG achieved per adequate sourcing and Mims Mentor's analysis above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 4 December 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. (non-admin closure) Kaizenify (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MV Ramana Reddy

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

Just mere mentions in the press. Article creator blocked as SOCK. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, the article creator, Coast Shine, is not blocked as a sock and actually has no blocks (a mistake, maybe strike that part of the nomination? thanks). Reddy is notable as the designer of a major monument, and the cites to that creation seem to meet GNG. Two books have been written about Reddy and his work, and he is the author of one book. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ARTIST criterion 4a: the Telangana Martyrs Memorial is surely a significant sculpture. Source 4 is also certainly not a "mere mention". The article creator isn't blocked though? Procyon117 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Procyon117, they have a clean block log. Mistakes happen though, no big deal. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A strong pass to GNG is Telangana Martyrs Memorial. While the other coverage's are not exhaustive, highlighting his impact in the regional art community and public memorial design, passes notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:07, 29 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.

Dick Simon (entrepreneur)

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

Accepted at AFC in 2015, but standards were somewhat less exacting then. Simon is presented with many references, but appears to be a WP:ROTM businessman dabbling in psychedelic drugs. Much of the rest appears to be wealthy persons hobbies. The references, especially the more authoritative ones, seem to be what Simon says, not what is said about him. Sample checking the others shows them to be of a similar nature. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 26 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!} 08:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Lun Eve Lin

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

Contested draftification. Autobiography of a lesser known fashion designer. Clear COI issues, and a lack of notability is also evident. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Taiwan. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. Just looking in the external links she has been the feature in stories by the BBC and Elle. For a fashion designer those don't at all seem trivial. I don't doubt there may be COI issues, but the sourcing already in the article as a cited reference or in the external links seems to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards re-draftification for now. Coverage might not be strong enough for WP:N.-KH-1 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, or WP:TBT, or face my brutally honest editing / stubification. This is not only a COI, but a clearly unfinished piece. That’s acceptable on LinkedIn, but WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC) I’m not saying that a new article has to be perfect, but come on. Bearian (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "新銳強勢發聲 Fresh Voice of Now / Eve Lin 設計師：林鈺倫" [Fresh Voice of Now / Designer: Lin Yulun]. Elle (in Chinese). 2014-08-18. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "『Back to 18』承擔下秋冬主題，不同形式的「跨界」，以成熟心理反向叛逆，是18歲的任性加上30歲的理智。推開配合和妥協，經典的襯衫從此不再安安靜靜，迷上了摺紙藝術的Eve Lin，秋冬用雙手摺出喧譁的幾何圖形，送到印度刷印網版製印花，生產屬於自己的布絲、雪紡，不走數位印花如照片般的高解析，而是透過手工的粗實形成感情豐富的復古風味。"
  From Google Translate: ""Back to 18" takes on the theme of autumn and winter, with different forms of "cross-border" and rebellion with a mature psychology. It is the willfulness of an 18-year-old combined with the rationality of a 30-year-old. Pushing aside coordination and compromise, classic shirts are no longer quiet. Eve Lin is obsessed with the art of origami. In autumn and winter, she folds noisy geometric shapes with her hands and sends them to India for screen printing to produce her own fabrics. Silk and chiffon do not use high-resolution digital printing like photos, but create an emotional retro flavor through the roughness of handwork. Now she knows more accurately what the rules of the game are for her."
2. YenLin (2015-11-03). "設計新世代 Young Powers／林鈺倫女性主義的男裝結構" [Designing the New Generation: Young Powers / Yu Lun Eve Lin: The Feminist Structure of Menswear]. men's uno男人誌 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "畢業自英國Central St. Martin的林鈺倫Eve Lin，2010年於英國倫敦自創同名品牌，受到英國男裝歷史文化以及製作技術的薰陶下，將極簡卻帶有女性優雅風格的想法，巧妙地套用在男裝的剪裁上，襯托出整個設計的質感以及她所追求的風格。"
  From Google Translate: "Eve Lin, who graduated from Central St. Martin in the UK, founded her own brand of the same name in London, UK in 2010. Influenced by the history, culture and production technology of British men's clothing, she skillfully applied the idea of minimalism but feminine elegance. The tailoring of men's clothing brings out the texture of the entire design and the style she pursues."
  The article notes that she was born in 1984 in Taiwan, received a master of fashion design at Central Saint Martins, was an intern at the Alexander McQueen studio in London, started a clothing brand called Eve Lin in 2009, and is a lecturer at Shih Chien University's department of fashion studies.
3. "台湾时装国际市场展风采" [Taiwan Fashion International Market Exhibition] (in Chinese). BBC. 2010-03-05. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "我最近在伦敦市中心的一个画廊（The Coningsby Gallery）就参观了来自台湾的女时装设计师林钰伦的时装展。来自台湾台中市的林钰伦从童年习画转而学习时装设计，去年取得在伦敦中央圣马丁设计艺术学院硕士学位，并成为该学院2009年唯一一位来自亚洲的女装硕士毕业生。早春之际，林钰伦受母校邀请，从台湾飞来伦敦参加新锐时装设计师秋冬女装作品展，她的时装展题为“All About Eve”。"
  From Google Translate: "I recently visited a fashion exhibition of Taiwanese fashion designer Lin Yu-lun at a gallery in central London (The Coningsby Gallery). Yu Lun Eve Lin, who is from Taichung, Taiwan, switched from painting to fashion design in her childhood. Last year, she obtained a master's degree from Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design in London and became the only Asian graduate of the college's women's fashion master's program in 2009. In early spring, Yu Lun Eve Lin was invited by her alma mater to fly from Taiwan to London to participate in the autumn and winter women's fashion exhibition of emerging fashion designers. Her fashion exhibition was titled "All About Eve"."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yu Lun Eve Lin (traditional Chinese: 林鈺倫; simplified Chinese: 林钰伦) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Gursimran Kaur

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

A sad story, but has no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability (one local follow-up story after the initial wider range of news reports). Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Fram (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's sad but there are several isolated industrial incidents such as this. She was not notable before her death and her death has not received sustained coverage or forced significant reform to be eligible for an entry. Mekomo (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a notable article and well-cited and I agree with @Zachary Klaas This is a national and international story about work conditions leading to a burning death in an oven. QalasQalas (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's disturbing this is even being debated. Nation-wide story in Canada. Reported on by CNN. That's enough for notability. It's also hard for "significant reform" to be forced if Wikipedia erases its entry on said nation-wide and international story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Of India is following this as well. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/no-foul-play-in-death-of-gursimran-kaur-walmart-employee-found-in-oven-canadian-police/articleshow/115433459.cms - why do you suppose this story about an Indo-Canadian might have been of interest to people in India? Saying the story is not notable suggests certain groups of people are not notable for their interest in the story. (Trying to say that with as much assumption of good will as possible.)

People also picked up the story. https://people.com/walmart-employees-family-traumatized-after-body-mysteriously-found-in-walk-in-oven-8737147 Being in that magazine is usually considered a slam dunk for what's considered "notable". Why not in this case?

There's also an indication that South Asian immigrants in Canada continue to follow the story - a news story from two days ago says the family is retaining legal representation and that the Maritime Sikh Society is "deeply upset" by the recent police findings. https://desibuzzcanada.com/post/police-say-no-foul-play-suspected-in-indo-canadian-woman-who-died-in-walmart-oven

Comment I have removed three sources from the article. Two were unreliable or deprecated per WP:RSP. One was about a completely unrelated subject. I have not yet analyzed notability more generally. Toadspike [Talk] 09:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes the event got coverage in Canada, it's basically an industrial accident. Other than passing away, there isn't much more to be said about the individual. The event isn't terribly notable either; workplace deaths are rare but not unheard of... Could be re-created if it's found to cause changes in labour/safety laws. I hate to use the ROUTINE, but this was just a non-notable person that passed away in a workplace incident. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in perspective, there were 220 deaths in the workplace, in Ontario, in 2022. [22]. Industrial accidents happen and most are not notable. This event happened in another province, but it's one in a list of many. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. An article would be justified if e.g. the tragedy led to workplace safety reforms, if it had broader effects for the Indian community in Canada, etc. - but not currently. Astaire (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omran Daqneesh

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, lack of WP:INDEPTH, WP:BLP, and no WP:LASTING. Absolutiva (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Absolutiva (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe this should be Keep. Prominent newspapers and news channels have extensively discussed the subject in detail. The coverage significantly (WP:SIGCOV) highlights the individual's identity and contributions, making it relevant and noteworthy for further consideration. Baqi:) (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes kindly provide proper rationale and sources which you believe satisfies the GNG and SIGCOV criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage past 2017, nothing that I can find either past that date. Could be a few words in an article about the war in Syria but nothing of lasting notability. He was featured in flurry of media, then faded away. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson (filmmaker)

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

after doing BEFORE, I am having a hard time to find any sigcov about this producer at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find the mention of the subject in all sources referenced in the article and before search did not bring anything useful for the sustenance of this article. This producer fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Falls WP:GNG. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 10:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This would come in at number 10 at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia for longest extant hoax articles if proven to be a hoax.

Jolielover (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to suggest it's not a hoax. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep.As the person in question (see my response below @Bearcat, before I learned how to use Bold) I can tell you it's not a hoax. As much as the name takes some time for me to explain every time I meet someone new. Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't a hoax, for the record — unlikely as it may seem, it's the real name of a real person in the Canadian film industry, who does have a legitimate notability claim as the producer of a Genie Award-winning documentary film. (Remember that such awards go to the producer of the film, which means he was personally a recipient of that award.) Also, he was born in the 1970s, so he had the name first and The Other One came later, so it wasn't his parents trying to be funny.
While the article was obviously in poor shape at the time of nomination, it actually is salvageable with better sourcing; the key (aside from the obvious need to use much more specific search terms than just his name alone) is that because his strongest notability claim happened 20 years ago, it wouldn't Google well and will have to be recovered from archives like ProQuest and newspapers.com. But I've searched those, and there are viable sources with which to fix the problem, so I've cleaned it up significantly. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Keep, and thanks to @Bearcat for the rigorous research. I am the person in question who's getting debated about RE: deletion (and yes, this is my real name and I did indeed come first, which is getting sadder to admit by the decade).

My latest documentary is referenced at the link below - The MAD World of Harvey Kurtzman, produced by Intuitive Pictures. We are in production now and are due for release in late 2025/early 2026.

Thanks for your interest.

Link to Telefilm Canada funding announcement: [23]https://telefilm.ca/en/telefilm-canada-funds-the-production-of-20-feature-length-documentaries-in-the-english-market

Link to DOC-NYC Voices of Canada Industry Roundtable 2023: [24]https://www.docnyc.net/industry-roundtables/ Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. Real person. Real producer -- who also has been busy directing ("Brasilia: Life After Design" , love this title). I heard this filmmaker on a CBC interview -- he had a sense of humor about his name, saying "it could be worse." 130.208.129.144 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. Passes WP:ANYBIO as the winner of a Genie Award.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cihan Erdal

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

WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, Turkey, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure getting arrested for your beliefs is notable. Certainly doesn't meet academic notability. Coverage is about the arrest, but I don't think that's enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice there is some book coverage in google books by some major academic presses. For example: [25], [26], [27] The diversity of the sources and prolonged coverage over a couple years suggests that the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Cihan Erdal would pass WP:NEVENT. Perhaps repurpose this an event page instead of a WP:BLP?4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that these sources are enough. Erdal was cited as a contributor in the second source, so it's no independent. He is also cited in the "acknowledgments" section of the third source, so the same thing applies. The first source appears to mention him only very briefly. Badbluebus (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Muslim Sahil

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

Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Islam, and India. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV sources were found. While the India Today article provides some information about this YouTuber, it is insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Multiple in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources are required. At present, the subject does not meet notability guidlines. GrabUp - Talk 18:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 2, and 5 appear to be non-trivial independent RS'es. Above !voter misstates the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: The 2nd source, Delhi-Magazine, is an interview filled with quotes from the subject. I really don’t understand how one can label this source as independent and also state above voter misstates when labeling an interview as independent. Regarding the 3rd source, The SportsGrail, I really don’t think it’s a reliable source; it looks more like a blog. GrabUp - Talk 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interview that is editorially overseen by a reputable source is sufficiently independent. Wikipedia's trend in the other direction--to deprecate all interviews--is wrong and I reject it. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources and do not count towards notability because they consist only of the subject’s statements. There is nothing in the article written by an editorial team—just sayings or quotes. Additionally, the article cites a Hindi interview by Dainik Bhaskar, which Delhi Magazine merely quoted, with no editorial input from Delhi Magazine. GrabUp - Talk 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said I disagree with the cited essay. Regardless there remain two sources, so GNG is met even if INTERVIEWS were a guideline or policy, which it's not. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the simple fact of being a Muslim against Islam you can maintain and improve. I added several important sources. Jinnllee90 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the analysis by Jclemens.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article includes a source from NewAgeIslam.com, which does not seem particularly reliable. It is authored by a staff reporter rather than a credible or identifiable individual. Another source from India Today appears more trustworthy and credible. Additionally, the article references some interviews, which qualify as primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) but lack sufficient corroboration. Beyond these, no other highly reliable sources are present. Baqi:) (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved since the nomination, I can see more RS'es that are sufficient to warrant a standalone article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is an RS? Taabii (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

chatbot-generated post

- Sufficient Reliable Sources (RS) and Notability

I support keeping the article about Ex-Muslim Sahil as it meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The article has been significantly improved, with the inclusion of multiple reliable sources (RS), making it a viable candidate for a standalone Wikipedia entry.

1. Multiple Reliable Sources: The references, such as those from India Today, Times of India, and other independent media sources (including Ref 1, 2, and 5), provide substantial coverage of Sahil's contributions and presence in media debates, specifically in relation to his views on Islam. These sources fulfill the General Notability Guideline (GNG), showing significant attention from independent entities.

2. Media Appearances and Coverage: As seen in the HW News article, Sahil has appeared on major Indian news platforms, such as News Nation, discussing his transition from Islam and critical views of religious practices. His role in such public debates adds to his notability and supports the presence of coverage beyond personal social media channels.

3. Improvement and Editorial Oversight: The article's significant improvement, with better coverage and more authoritative sources, showcases its merit for a standalone article. Per HistoryofAryavart, the inclusion of these diverse sources adds credibility to the article’s claim of notability.

4. Social Media Influence: Sahil's presence in media debates and on YouTube further solidifies his influence, demonstrating his role in shaping conversations about religion. The sources cited, including news outlets like India Today and The Times of India, are crucial in establishing his media presence and influence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

- We want to keep the discussion among humans, and this preceding post looks like it was written by AI/language model. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources and do not independently establish notability. Article also does not meet the notability criteria (WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY), as most sources cited are either unreliable or fail to provide significant, independent coverage

- Cerium4B • Talk? • 13:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

chatbot-generated post

~~Keep~~striking as each commenter gets only one bolded not-a-vote. - I respectfully disagree with the "Delete" vote. While it's acknowledged that interviews can be considered primary sources, the outlets in question—such as India Today, HW News, and Times of India—are reputable, editorially supervised media organizations, which makes their coverage of Sahil's views valid and significant for establishing notability. These sources provide in-depth analysis of his public role and contributions to debates on religion, particularly his criticisms of Islam. Moreover, the article has been significantly improved since the nomination, incorporating multiple reliable and independent sources that provide substantial coverage of Sahil’s influence in public discussions. This expanded coverage, coupled with his media presence, fulfills the General Notability Guideline (GNG) by showing that the subject has received significant attention beyond self-promotion or social media. Therefore, I believe the article meets the notability criteria and should be kept. The combination of editorial oversight in the sources and the expanded media coverage makes this subject notable and worthy of a standalone Wikipedia entry.

@আকাশ নাথ সরকার:, @ExclusiveEditor:, @Saurmandal:, @Mr. Bishnupada Roy:, @Bharatiya: what you people like to say regarding this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this because, as has been pointed out, one of the keep commenters is using AI to generate their comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eyüp Can (journalist)

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

Fails on WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG and the references can't open. Royiswariii Talk! 07:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Turkey. Royiswariii Talk! 07:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally unsourced. The article in Turkish Wikipedia looks to be copied from this version. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some sources, so as per WP:HEYMANN. Baqi:) (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although, you added all the last sentence Eyüp Can has two children. need a citations and the article wasn't inline in encyclopedic tone. And you didn't remove the link rot of biography. As per Maile said, It's copied from the article of Turkish Wikipedia. Royiswariii Talk! 09:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Tan

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

Other than winning the national Miss Universe in 2006, nothing of note can be found on her since then. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, and Malaysia. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We certainly don't have to accept this because it is just an essay, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants) states that national pageant winners in the big four pageants (of which Miss Universe is one) are generally presumed to be notable. Meaning that its likely WP:SIGCOV exists. Given the year she won, it is possible the coverage was more offline than online as it was in the weird time period where everything hadn't yet shifted over even though the internet was up and running. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I tried doing WP:BEFORE through wikipedia library, and could only find two articles in 2007:
- Civic thrill for beauty queen: [New Sunday Times Edition]
Summary: About her purchase of Honda Civic.
- Celeb style [Malay Mail]
Summary: Interview about her fashion style.
– robertsky (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not surprised. The pageant would have not been covered in the UK or the United States but would have been covered in Southeast Asia. The best sources are probably offline (at that time; maybe digitized now?) newspapers in Malaysia, and I don’t believe most are available through The Wikipedia Library.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above two articles were accessed through ProQuest in The Wikipedia Library and are from the two of the major newspapers in the country at that time. – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they are both English sources which tends to cover a different type of content scope targeted more toward English speaking expats. I would expect better coverage in the Maylay language papers.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NBEAUTY. However, according to 4meter4, while she won in 2006 and media coverage may not have been as active at the time, it is likely that most of the coverage was offline. I have found a supporting reference here: China Daily, which cites Reuters as the original source.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:01, 28 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 14:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Weak, but the subject has received moderate coverage which is sufficient to support a stand-alone entry per WP:BARE. Also, the article is WP:POORLY.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:54, 27 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) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm keeping this based on WP:CREATIVE. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks for the sourcing applied; certainly more will be found. This is certainly an historic figure in the industry. I'm cool with CREATIVE in this case. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 4 December 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.

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]

The discussions are ended and there is a clear consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For argument's sake, even if the not-yet-closed discussion is considered as consensus for what you have claimed, there is still only one review in a national publication. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:36, 27 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]
Delete: i dont think the subject passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:18, 26 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!} 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: [28]. 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]
Here are two articles from the Daily Beast which detail Sartre: How Porn Made These Women Feel Empowered: ‘It Gave Me a New Sense of Confidence’ and The Rise of Video Conferencing Quarantine Porn. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An in depth article from Le Tag parfait, a french online magazine. Thriley (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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 [29] [30] [31] [32], 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 [[33]] and [[34]]. 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) — Cyber rigger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. We don't write about the grandchildren of Nicolas Sarkozy, Olaf Scholz, or even Vladimir Putin. --Tataral (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the articles focused on her by Daily Beast, Essentially Sport, ABC News, Golf Week, New York Times.XavierItzm (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Also should be even more prominent during the next four years. Her fame is global. She is covered in The Times of India for instance. Hektor (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not an unquestionably reliable source, see WP:RSP and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_447#RfC:_The_Times_of_India. In my own experience, its coverage tends towards the sensational. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources with sigcov – such as this Cut piece and especially this solid Telegraph profile published after the start of this AfD – demonstrate notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would appear that Kai has done little else to gather press coverage other than be the granddaughter of the incoming President (unlike her aunt Ivanka who is notable), only thing going for her in terms of notability is the instagram posting and social media influencer career paragraph, and thats not much. Considering we have First Daughters that are far more notable than her (Malia Obama comes to mind who is in filmmaking) don't have Wikipedia pages I struggle to understand why she does. Naomi Biden's wikipedia page got deleted for this same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfriendnow (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Gelasin (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. The content of this article could be shortened to a sentence or two that would fit well in the full family article. This individual's internet popularity is on the increase but right now it's WP:TOOSOON to tell if that will hold. Might warrant a standalone article eventually. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Having some subscribers on tiktok and youtube does not give notability. The possibility of being an influencer in the next years does not give notability WP:TOOSOON. User:GuzmanTierno 8:00, 29 November 2024 (GMT)
Keep: Meets WP:GNG as you can find sources as https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kai-trump-sanitizing-grandpa-trump-200345791.html and https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/13/kai-trump-age-parents-donald-trump-grandchildren/76259196007/ Shadow4dark (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is her own growing brand, she says she wants to stay out of politics and grow on Youtube separately. Osnelandrejr(talk) 07:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I would actually like to see a "Descendants" section in the Donald Trump article. People are interested in what his children or grandchildren are going to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Ashik Rahik (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made this article because Kai has used the fame afforded by her family, the most famous in the world, to garner significant attention among teenagers. There’s already been coverage, and there’ll be more as she does more stuff. The idea of Wikipedia is to make a place where people can find reliable information about things that are happening around them. Don’t cut it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpharomeo12 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her family being famous doesn't mean she needs a Wikipedia page. It's either delete this or merge it. Unfriendnow (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she passes notability -- famous family (like Kennedy family members) and media is covering her extensively because she is providing videos into meetings at Mar-a-Lago, etc that otherwise we don't have visibility into. Deleting now would be a big mistake -- it would have to be re-created from scratch in future years.. Danski14^(talk) 14:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it need to be re-created from scratch in future years? have other granddaughters of Presidents also had Wikipedia pages? Naomi Biden's was deleted and she had a historical wedding and was in the news, Finnegan Biden when she was in the news and attended the coronation making her and her grandmother the only member of a First Family to do so.

Why is Kai Trump so important and so different from those two? what has she really done? Unfriendnow (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely notable, and I really hope this AfD wasn't created out of a political bias toward her grandfather. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG due to sustained media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.160.78 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, she has lots of media coverage, speech at RNC, And there seems to be no good reason for delete.Editingwithcoffee (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has become a notable person and there's enough media coverage about her to satisfy WP:GNG. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously passes GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golikom (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of mainstream media coverage of her RNC speech and social media content. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions