Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

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

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

People[edit]

Isaac Oti-Boateng[edit]

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

Non-notable religious preacher. One reference broken, other to self. Orphan. Can't see why it would pass notability test. Seaweed (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moruf Oseni[edit]

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

Procedural nom following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 19 where consensus was that the speedy wasn't the right outcome, but did not necessarily find support for retention and the outcome was for an AfD to establish consensus. Note I have dropped the protection to ECP to allow established editors to improve the article if they feel so inclined as it didn't feel right to have a fully protected article at AfD. However if p-blocks or other solutions are needed, feel free to implement them. I have not protected the AfD out of hope that all editors will work productively. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @BoraVoro:, who has been fighting the relentless efforts from COI/SPAs to prematurely undraftify this page. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Paul Lewis Abrams[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as a failed judicial nominee. The sources in the article are all primary, and a search failed to find the WP:SIGCOV needed to establish notability. Recommend a redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Let'srun (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies: Per nomination, I couldn't find any sources on the article or elsewhere that were WP:SIGCOV. Subject is non-notable by himself. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as article creator, per the nomination. Safiel (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Pinnell[edit]

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

This fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. An article about a non notable sports journalist that died in the 1970s, which the article is strangely written like the person knew them. Doesn't seem much is readily available, if there is any, about them unless someone has access to old British Newspapers. GamerPro64 04:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Sports. GamerPro64 04:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Outlaw[edit]

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

Notability concerns. [1] is about him ... and contradicts the one fact in the article. I didn't find any other substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NBIO, no additional coverage found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure catching 13 lb fish is what we're looking at for notability. There are some interviews about this person, but those don't help notability, [2], this is typical. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lovekesh Kataria[edit]

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

The existing sources in the article are mostly routine coverage from and related to Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi TV series) season 3 show which makes it a case of BLP1E. Being a contestant on a Bigg Boss show does not inherently make the subject notable. A WP:BEFORE shows that the sources go back to 2023, but they are all related to the same show. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Delete due to lack of notability or claim of such — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira delete! 2403:6200:8851:9199:458:B9EF:9898:F8E9 (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The youtuber's work has not been significant and unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, No in-depth coverage. I have drafted this article earlier also. But the page creator is creating it again and again. (It will be considered as spam) And the page owner has also tampered with my user page. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E, not indepedently notable. Ravensfire (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These sources are only for one event and are not significant enough to establish notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and any other criteria. It appears to be a fan-created article following news coverage of the individual's participation in Bigg Boss. GrabUp - Talk 07:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Foolio[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs. No notable biographical details prior to his death. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Florida. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need every ganga rapper who have been shot dead. Not notable enough — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you actually do research you would now he has bean a notable artist in Florida since about 2018 2600:8805:D1B:7500:1322:CAB:414A:D0A0 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC) - — 2600:8805:D1B:7500:1322:CAB:414A:D0A0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass musical notability; coverage is only about his death. I gave up after 20 pages in Gnews trying to find mentions of him before his passing. Simply not a notable performer. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rapper is notable. Particularly within Florida. Jattlife121 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. Another no-name rapper whose death has made more headlines than his (non-notable) music. Dead rappers always make headlines no matter how obscure they are. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 22:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this article should be about his death? It got major coverage in many major outlets. Thriley (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rapper is notable. Particularly within Florida especially in Jacksonville and through the south. He has many notations in different news articles. Foolio is also is featured on Pimp of the Nation album by Natalac Featuring international recording artist sean paul, grammy award winning Project Pat, Three 6 Mafia Member La Chat, Pastor Troy, Ying Yang Twins, Keak da Sneak to name a few who all are very Notable rappers Yameka (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His death is certainly covered but his music and life? We need sources for these.@Yameka — Iadmc ♫^talk 06:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Artist is fails notability guidelines. There's barely any coverage I could find apart from his death. ~~I do think we could have an article about his death like @Thriley suggested, though.~~ DaCrashy (T.C.) 16:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ONEEVENT. --Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting how all the “keep” votes are repeating the “he’s notable because he’s from Florida” mantra, and verbatim to boot (“Rapper is notable. Particularly within Florida”). Florida does not represent the entire country. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 19:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt Hardy[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, History, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find pictures of this person and newspapers describing his trial and hanging from the time... I don't see much notability as there has been no discussion about this person since. Lack of sourcing other than news reports of the event don't help. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Uría Mendizábal[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spain. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mario A. Guerra[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Cuba, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Cloud[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions in journals from the 1800's [3] and [4] (apparently), but these are tertiary sources, so I can't vouch for the validity of each statement. I can't find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable, and is badly sourced. —Mjks28 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K. Davis (historian)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, United States of America, and Texas. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the unscholarly ring of some of his book titles I found thirteen published book reviews of four of the books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This military historian passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesunte Möngke[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Mirza[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Pakistan, and Punjab. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Hammad (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will reserve a !vote for now but this and this doesn't look like some ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:SIGCOV as we have in-depth coverage in at least two publications, i.e. BBC Urdu ([5], [6]) and Independent Urdu ([7]). Further references in Dawn ([8], [9], [10]). Some analysis of his work here ([11]). He is controversial like Martin Luther was during his lifetime which is ok. 2400:ADC7:5104:D400:6520:B74E:4354:AD86 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by Saqib meet WP:SIGCOV standards, with extensive reporting about him, sometimes due to his controversial statements and attempts on his life. If he is not notable, why is there so much coverage about him? Sources like BBC Urdu, as well as Indian and Pakistani news sites, report about him. In my POV the subject meets WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Minor portion of the article which are from non reliable sources can be removed. GrabUp - Talk 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr Ajay Kumar Singh[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, becoming an Mayor does not pass NPOL. Sources are not strong and in-depth so fails WP:GNG. Also I question the reliablity of LiveHindustan. GrabUp - Talk 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the amount of substance that can be written and the amount of sourcing that can be shown about their political impact — but this amounts to "he is a mayor who exists, the end", and is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mayor of an area with a population of 700,000 plus people suggests notability, but I don't find coverage of this person. If sources can be located, willing to revisit my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, becoming an Mayor does not pass WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ajay Kumar Singh (Uttar Pradesh politician): The mayor seems to be the same person as the member of the 17th Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Dr Ajay Kumar Singh is apparently some kind of doctor, and the member of the state parliament doesn't claim to be. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Nicholson[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Massachusetts. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially "he is a mayor who exists, the end" — but mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on WP:GNG-worthy media coverage analyzing their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's no content like that here, and the article is "referenced" entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with not even one bit of GNG-worthy coverage about him shown whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Primary sourcing from the town's website says he's the first Hispanic individual and the city's youngest mayor, which suggest notability. I can't find sourcing about this person, other than being appointed to a position in the fashion industry. Nothing for notability that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been updated to cite non-government sources, and explains some aspects of his notability such as his age at election and ethnic background both being historic in the city. -Joseph A. Rinaldi (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Read (activist)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Jonathan Pageau[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Canada. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we can agree that Jonathan Pageau is not world famous. At all. However within a specialist sphere of religious communities interested in orthodox and catholic art, as seen by treatments in various religious journals, the artist has received significant coverage. Hence the artist's thought and work is discussed in the following reliable sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Having become well aware of Pageau through both the religious and public intellectual worlds and watched/listened to him on various platforms, I am very surprised that this article is marked for possible deletion. The article itself and the discussion above show that there are numerous reliable sources establishing notability. This article should definitely exist, and of course it can always be improved, as all articles can be! Alex IslaCara (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi (name)[edit]

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

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

Keep: and replace the section within Preeti to a see also. Alternatively. split Preeti between the article about the name and the disambiguation links. Or replace Preethi (name) with a redirect. The article should not be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have no objection to redirecting Preethi (name) to Preeti. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert the recent addition of adding "Preethi" to the "Preeti" name page. Unless sources show these are the same name they should be treated as separate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most sources on the internet seem to indicate that Preeti and Preethi are related, though I'm not sure how many are reliable. In the instance that they are, I'd probably agree with Eastmain's proposal to redirect Preethi to Preeti. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reply - If this is the case, let's have separate pages for "Preity" and "Priti". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid concern although I'd say those pages are split because many more people have those names and there's a linguistic difference. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and replace text at Preeti#Notable people named Preethi with a {{main}} hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Preeti#Notable_people_named_Preethi. WP:CFORK. No need for separate page. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: I find this [12] and this [13] which I think is the same person that is the subject of the wiki article. Name or portions of the name seem to be very common, so it's hard to determine notability in sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Nanda[edit]

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

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

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

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

Diamond Tema[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bibliographies, and Webcomics. Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

François Thibaut[edit]

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

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [14]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carlos Malcolm (composer)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article currently cites two sources. I think this article provides significant coverage. The book Cuban Music from A to Z has a passing mention on page 65 and a one-paragraph description on page 129. I can provide the excerpt if needed. I think it could be given similar weight to a dictionary of national biography, where inclusion alone indicates notability. I also found this, a statement from a Cuban embassy, and this SPS (possible from a subject-matter expert), which don't count for much. This isn't a lot, but he's definitely a real musician who's composed some stuff and has probably had some musical impact. Toadspike [Talk] 19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More marginally helpful sources: [15] (kinda self-published, again might be a SME), this (not sure if it's about the right guy). Toadspike [Talk] 19:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Manyiel Wugol[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Basketball. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sudan and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG: The only potentially reliable source, the Herald sun article, does not mention his name. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant independent coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Changing to weak keep per the sources below. A couple of major Australian news outlets wrote articles on Wugol, which is good enough for me. I still think the article needs those references incorporated as in-line citations, not as a vague external link dump. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terry Long (white supremacist)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Politics, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that he doesn't pass NPOL or NBIO, but does clear WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in Atkins, Kinsella, Bartley, Sherren, and Perry and Scrivens, plus newspaper coverage. His notability seems to go beyond a single event so WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and RS guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens. Some of the books linked go into a decent amount of detail. A non insignificant figure in Canadian white supremacist groups it seems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't even see coverage in Canadian sources. What's used now seem to be trivial mentions. Lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted. Flatthew (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cartwright (poker player)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Michael Lodge[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Artur Ocheretny[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument in favor of keeping the article:

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

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

Another reason:

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

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

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

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

Calabar Chic[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sepiol[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World Championship win + bracelet win should merit inclusion. Now satisfactory backed up. PsychoticIncall (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PsychoticIncall: As I've asked in other AFDs, please read and understand WP:SIRS and then list WP:THREE references you feel are SIRS. WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability, not just assert it through non-policy means (which is what you are attempting). - UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Doreen Kyazze[edit]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The award from the EU seems notable [16] and [17]. I'm ok with the sources given. At least enough for BASIC Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, EU human rights award is nothing but a less major award. Though must have come from a notable form EU, but the article bearer was a nominee and was only once. How does that satisfy WP:BASIC? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find coverage [18], [19], [20] and [21]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oaktree b, the sources you listed all were independent of the Ugandan academic Spire or nearer to that. However, one nominated award is never enough for a career that isn't established. For example, a writer that has written extensively and appeared in reaserch paper may be considered even with the writing and more when nominated for an award like this. In this context, however, the article doesn't meet GNG of her career or any significant impact or SIGCOV of her advocacy ad work. Arguing about an award that is not even won is likely biased for me. It's simply a reminder! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Anthony Masake[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Zack Cooper[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [22] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

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

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

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

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Salman Muqtadir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [23] and [24] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [25], [26], [27], and [28]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.

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

Older articles about him also show his prominence.

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

Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is notable on YouTube as an influencer & content creator. but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia.--DelwarHossain (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable person. I agree with Ontor22. Yubrajhn (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

DELETE Not notable enough for Wikipedia standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After four consecutive AFDs, the article mostly survives on Wikipedia. Still, there is a stir among editors. Mainly his being a YouTuber, but he has also worked in drama and music which makes him notable under WP:ENT. Mafmes (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions[edit]

Academics and educators[edit]

Vincent Bastien[edit]

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

Cited sources do not establish notability, and could not find anything more convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in a Korean source [29] and reviews of a book he co-authored [30] and [31] Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Notable, sources, has written a book. --McSyl (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramil Hashimli[edit]

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

Delete. This is a promotional page create by Atakhanli (the user was blocked-the reason for the blocking was noted that the editor was engaged in paid activities.). There is no nearly enough RS about the subject to establish notability.--Correspondentman (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The {{subst:afd2}} formatting was not fully implemented here; I have fixed this. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Medicine, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see anything here that would satisfy WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Qflib (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Mangano[edit]

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

Draftify moved unilaterally to main space when unready. I think the subject might potentially have some notability, but the article is not written to show it, nor referenced to show it. Flagged as failing WP:GNG after arriving in mainspace by the editor who moved it to mainspace. Being charitable, this feels as if the move were in some manner accidental. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Not ready for mainspace. Other than one lawsuit in 2007 (which isn't mentioned in the article prose), the references seem to just be his published research papers. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. New enough for this to be a reasonable choice, sources inadequate for current content, but with some possible case for notability (possibly through WP:PROF#C1). That criterion does not require depth of sourcing for notability itself, but it does not eliminate the need for all claims in our article to be properly sourced. In particular all claims of having invented or discovering something important should be backed up by reliable independent sources that verify those claims; his own publications are not adequate for that kind of claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (the AFC reviewer who originally declined the submission). I do think the subject could meet the GNG, as there is some coverage (I have 1E concerns as it relates to the fact that a lot of the coverage will be primary in regards to the various lawsuits) but that is not demonstrated here and I have doubts that its demonstrated presently and the I have non-encyclopedic concerns about the article in mainspace presently. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hignell[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket writer. Article was previously deleted in 2007, but there is still no evidence of the subject's notability. – Pee Jay 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cricket, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. Suriname0 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on a quick search, doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I found this review of one of his books. Suriname0 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, History, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Suriname0 found a review of A 'Favourit' Game, reviewed by Jack Williams. I'll add to that a review of Rain stops play, reviewed by Robert Thorpe, doi:10.1256/wea.112.02. But I'm doubtful that [32] is sufficiently reliable, so that gives us only two reviews. I'd want more than that for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Janisch[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Autobiography translated from dewiki. Perhaps the subject is notable, but this is not the way to an article compliant with WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you @Joe Roe: for starting a discussion of deletion. There is currently a discussion because of a WP:COISELF problem: The article in its current form was created as a translation of the German article de:Maximilian_Janisch by myself, the subject of the article. COI disclosures can be found at the article talk page, as well as my user page. I agree that the process through which the article was created is unfortunate as I should have suggested it through WP:AfC. My apologies for this mistake. Nonetheless I will argue that deletion is not the appropriate reaction below.

I have suggested steps to resolve the COI problem at the article talk page. I will now argue that deletion of the article is not the right thing to do since none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met. Instead I suggest WP:ATD, specifically editing and discussion. It would be great to have other Wikipedians ensure that the article is written based on solid evidence and from a WP:NPOV.

I now provide reasoning why I believe that none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met.

Speedy deletion criteria are not met.
Copyright violations are not present.
Vandalism is not present.
The article is not spam, notability has been discussed in a deletion discussion in the German Wikipedia, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._Februar_2018#Maximilian_Janisch_(LAE), in 2018, when there were many less independent references about me than now. An incomplete list of such references can be found through a Google Search.
Content forks do not apply.
Article is well-referenced and satisfies WP:Reliability.
See point 4.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.

Best, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just my thoughts- the subject is clearly notable, with significant coverage in many locations, as per https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/dok/srf-dok-maximilians-welt-aus-dem-leben-eines-hochbegabten https://magazin.nzz.ch/empfehlungen/maximilian-janisch-ist-der-juengste-doktorand-der-schweiz-ld.1733390 etc. etc. especially in Swiss media- all reliable sources, all clearly about him specifically. Having read the article and considering the conflict of interest, I definitely think the article could be improved and could be considered a little too in-depth and perhaps overly supportive of the subject, but I definitely feel like the article should not be deleted. I would perhaps suggest that Mr. Janisch consider editing articles in other sections of Wikipedia rather than his own article? Doing this only makes these deletion arguments even more painful and difficult to reconcile.Spiralwidget (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I have edited the article significantly in an attempt to remove material that I consider unjustified or not cited in reliable sources. Among other points:

Removal of Scientist infobox, as currently Janisch is known for his child prodigy status and coverage associated with that; replaced with infobox:Person.

Removal of Masters Thesis title; not cited reliably and did not receive significant coverage. If one is completing a PhD, you would expect that to take precedence as the thesis in the infobox.

Removal of Bibliography- not cited, and none of the titles are notable.

Change to the opening paragraph; replacement of "mathematician" with "child prodigy" and inclusion of more relevant reasons why the subject has received coverage

Removal of mentions of advocacy for young people attending University; links with some of these organisations with the subject are not justified enough, and in addition this advocacy has not received significant coverage

Removal of his mother (unreliable source, unpublished, from 1992)

Removal of his CV and website as sources

Removal of German citizenship; uncited

Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries; no need to include dates etc.

Removal of personality traits section- not relevant.

Removal of weblinks.

Please feel free to revert, continue editing, etc. if you feel these edits are not warranted. Hopefully the article now has (close to) a neutral point of view. I thought it was important to do this, as if the article is deleted I have experienced that it becomes exponentially harder to justify the article in the future; I therefore would really recommend keeping the article in this edited form, or continuing edits if you feel they would be conducive.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Spiralwidget: I will answer to your edits here since I think editing the article myself would now be very much frowned upon. I would prefer continuing this discussion on the article talk page, however, so I have posted a copy of the text below there.

First off, thank you very much for your extensive work aiming at having the article be written from a WP:NPOV. Here is what I think of each of the edits:

Removal of Scientist infobox: Agree (it was not added by me).
Removal of Master's Thesis title: Agree.
Removal of Bibliography: Disagree with. The book Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik has been published in a very renowned venue (Annals of Mathematics Studies) and furthermore in the two years since its publishing as a preprint it has been quite influential in the field of mathematical fluid dynamics (see e.g. Google Scholar). We could also discuss the relevance of my autobiography. I feel that mentioning a book written by the subject of a Wikipedia article is routine and would be justified in this case.
Change of opening paragraph: Agree.
Removal of mentions of advocacy: Unfortunate but ok.
Removal of his mother: Strongly disagree. Her dissertation exists as a book, cf. Katalog für die Bibliotheken der Universität Heidelberg, you can order it here [33]. It was an influential work in its research area with over 400 citations listed on Google Scholar. Furthermore, mentioning both parents in the article about a "child prodigy" seems very reasonable.
Removal of his CV and website as sources: Agree.
Removal of German citizenship: Disagree, I am a German citizen. How would you suggest I prove my German citizenship?
Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries: Fine.
Removal of personality traits section: I very much agree with this (I took those over from the German article but they were not added by me).
Removal of weblinks: Fine, although I believe it is not unusual to have links to Webpages in Wikipedia articles.

--Maximilian Janisch (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.

I feel like I do have to respond here, though I do not think it is really too appropriate for you to respond to every point in this deletion nomination- it makes it feel like a negotiation between the subject of an article and Wikipedia editors et al. (with me as the metaphorical leading author). I think it is very hard to maintain a neutral point of view if you continue commenting on the deletion discussion thread. I will make it clear that the default in this situation is a delete, and you are not helping by being so deeply involved. With that being said, I think I should respond to the points you provide here.

Removal of Bibliography: Janisch was not the leading author on Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form would be my counterargument. I see his point on his autobiography, and it is in fact used as a source in the article already. I could see the section therefore being added.

Removal of his mother: I see the point that the dissertation was an influential work in her research field. However, I would like to see a source linking Janisch with Janisch before it is added back to the article- I would expect one to exist.

Removal of German citizenship: I would suggest that someone would have to find a third-party reliable source that states clearly that he holds German citizenship.

I also would express doubt that Janisch will be able to keep his hands off the metaphorical editorial cookie jar of editing his own article. Just my two cents. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my point-by-point reply came off as overly involved. I assure you that I am acting in WP:GF and am happy to use whatever venue you suggest to reply to content-wise issues related to my article (I'd like to do this on the article talk page) and will refrain from further interacting with this deletion discussion unless absolutely necessary --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's best. Let's be clear though: this is not "your article." Please see WP:OWN. If the article is not deleted. you should completely abstain from making any further changes to the article to avoid any further COI. Instead, post requests for edits on the article's Talk page and one of us will get to it. Qflib (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is only a graduate student and none of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied here. One could make a case for general notability under WP:BIO, but since this is a WP:AUTO case, the article is highly promotional in nature (I'd say a borderline G11 case) and notability is mainly asserted on scholastic/academic grounds in the article, I feel that 'delete' is the correct outcome here at this stage. If and when the subject makes substantial research impact, the matter can be revisited. Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This subject clearly and obviously does not pass WP:PROF. For someone this early in their academic career, I think significant international recognition of a major result (at the level of the Salem Prize, say) would be necessary to overcome the usual obstacles, that the work has not had time to accumulate recognition in the normal way (citations) and the researcher is too junior to disentangle their work from that of their academic advisors. The only case for notability is through WP:GNG and through media coverage of the subject as a child prodigy. All that said, I don't read German, the language of most of the coverage, so I don't feel comfortable making an evaluation of notability that way. I have some concern that the many sources may really all be echoes of a single story and that we should consider WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 and 15 are directly about the subject, in RS. I'm not sure what else is required, a rewrite perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I'm not contesting whether subject is notable either way (though David makes an interesting point above w.r.t. to WP:BLP1E). The argument for deletion is that this is an autobiography that would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have read the sources given in the article in German and French. I am knowledgeable about the education system in Switzerland. I confirm that Janisch had an absolutely extraordinary path through our schooling system. When he wanted to become a student at the ETH Zurich at an early age, he was not allowed to enter as a regular student due to a minimal age requirements of the ETH, of which I am an alumnus. Translation of a comment concerning Maximilian Janisch by Michael Hengartner, president of the University Zurich in 2018, quote: «I am glad that he had some more time for his personal development.» Hengarter is president of the ETH Board by now, the supervising administration of the ETHs in Zurich and Lausanne. It is exceptional that such a personality makes a comment about a particular student. ("Das Wunderkind an der Uni." In: "SonntagsBlick", October 14, 2018 (in German). Retrieved June 26, 2024) In my opinion, Janisch is an outstanding prodigy in mathematics who fulfills WP: GNG through WP:SIGCOV.--BBCLCD (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BBCLCD: May I ask what brought your attention to this discussion? – Joe (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting the academic notability standard and otherwise being only known for one event. Essentially, the problem is that if you cut out the puffery, nothing remains. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree WP:PROF does not apply to me. In response to WP:BIO1E please consider that news coverage about me started when I finished the final high school exams at age 9, der Spiegel, 2013, Die Welt, 2013, Tagesanzeiger, 2013. Then continued as me being France's youngest student Le Monde, 2015, Europe1, 2015, Tagesanzeiger, 2015. Then continued when I started the Master's at age 15 Sonntagsblick, 2019, and when I started my PhD at age 18 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2023. You may argue these stories are echoes of my high school exams, but considering WP:NOTBLP1E I find it hard to argue in favour of WP:BIO1E. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Zero pass of any categories of WP:Prof. No evidence of achievement yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Straightforward GNG pass, which trumps all special categories: as Maximilian Janisch points out in his latest comment above, there is extended coverage in multiple reliable sources (Blick being a possible exception) from 2013 to 2023. In addition, there are enough biographical details to write more than a cv. It's unfortunate that the article was written as an autobiography; I note that Spiralwidget has done some rewriting (summarised above) and may do more myself to make full use of the sources. But he's notable, so deletion and recreation is not appropriate, particularly since policy does not actually forbid autobiographies. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by Yngvadottir's reasoning –Tobias (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, although I think it is remarkably inappropriate for the creator to be the subject and for the subject to be participating in this debate. May this article wear the COI badge of shame for all time. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you mean the article "A major contributor to this article appears...", that should be removed if/when appropriate (though not by User:Maximilian Janisch). The talkpage cc, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the subject would not meet notability standards at all if it weren't for the subject's age. I do feel that this is an example of WP:BIO1E - the one event being the subject's age. Here, the press coverage for the student achieving at a series of young ages what would otherwise be nice, but non-notable, achievements (earning degrees, entering grad school) is the only thing that generates notability. Technically these could be viewed as separate events, although I personally don't see it that way - so that's GNG for you. Anyway, I hope that this subject's future is bright and many more reasons for their notability become clear in time. Qflib (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K. Davis (historian)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, United States of America, and Texas. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the unscholarly ring of some of his book titles I found thirteen published book reviews of four of the books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This military historian passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Magnani[edit]

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

Not particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
- Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [34] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [35] [36] [37] [38]
- Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [39] [40] [41]

Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [42][43] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [44] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTA AND WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet WP:NACADEMIC. All in all WP:TOOSOON. – Ploni^💬 00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. --hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like many good sources with significant coverage from 2019-2020. There is also a in-depth article from 2009. I think this establishes enough notability to keep the article. – notwally (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. BLP1E strongly applies here, and the subject does not meet any NPROF criteria. However, there is significant coverage in 2009, surrounding her name, that could be merged. Considering how often two sources with 3–4 sentences of routine, often non-independent or non-RS,[45][46] transfer coverage each, or even merely the unevidenced presumption that such sources exist,[47] [48] pass as "GNG" for athletes,[49] it's only fair that the far more extensive biographical coverage here would count for something. JoelleJay (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Thibaut[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carl Faingold[edit]

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

I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Stetina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [51] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Strong Delete. I suggest that, if nobody comes to support it, it should be considered as a prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This subject is not notable enough for an article. Qflib (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be notable through publishing works on how to play guitar, we would need in-depth published reviews of those works, and I don't see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep on a hunch (i.e., easily overruled). Coverage is basically blog and genre-magazine style, which needs a lot to add up to notability, but there is a lot out there (even discounting some that seem more like PR/Press-release interview type). Head of department (conservatories often don't have traditional academic ranks) but of a small department. Each part of his career adds up to slightly less than the relevant notability guideline, but together they peek just over the edge for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any non-blog, non-PR sources you would like to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is well known in the guitar community and among musicians for his instruction releases. The problem is that this article is poorly sourced so I can see why it attracts a deletion nom. I know that his Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy (2001) is quite popular. Yes of course, it takes more than good sales. His Fretboard Mastery was very popular too. He's had articles about him in various guitar mags both paper and online. The Guitarist magazine March 1993 is one. He had article beside Dominic Miller and Tony Zemaitis as you can see. The Guitar Noise website which is a huge go-to source for axmen and axeladies refers to Stetina as an "internationally recognized guitarist and music educator". There's others too but I don't want to get too caught up with this one. Further info below
* This is from the magazine, Modern Drummer, September 1993 - Page 106 SPEED AND THRASH METAL DRUM METHOD by Troy Stetina and Charlie Busher.
* And there's an article by Stetina published in Guitar One, Volume 9, No 2 February 2006 - Page 176 RETURN OF THE SHRED Come Together Two Essential Hybrid Scales
There's more but searching gets flooded with the dozens of releases he has had put out. Karl Twist (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two books on Amazon have about 200 reviews each. This one is ranked 16,000+ in Music Instruction & Study. By no stretch of the imagination are these "popular" books and they don't contribute to notability.
- Is this an article he wrote?
- 1) The Guitar Noise website seems to be just a group blog about how to play the guitar. 2) The link you gave is just him responding to someone else's comment. That "internationally recognized" line is a promotional line he wrote himself (as per his own website).
- The two articles in Modern Drummer and Guitar one are articles written by Stetina not articles about Stetina. They don't contribute to notability. You would need to find in-depth articles about Stetina.
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Amazon books have more reviews than releases by so-called main-stream artists. They do appear to be quite popular! And I wasn't trying to use them as proof of notability. Just to give an idea of what the guy's exposure is. Somebody in Germany must have heard of him, there's a German Wikipedia article (needs work) See here.
Forget the Guitar Noise one, that wasn't the one I meant to put in. Sorry. It was another online music news source. I have to try and remember. There was also a reliable source good size review on that I thought I had put in but for the life of me it's vanished. I went back though the page history and it isn't there. Maybe I thought I did. Perhaps it was on notepad, and I closed it before I had edited it in. It was similar to the Fret 12 review but not related to the sale of the product. The Modern Drummer (if it isn't about him) and Guitar One still show his profile. They are well-respected and notable publications. Well, there's no article page for Guitar One yet.
The articles below are relaible,

OnMilwaukee, Apr 07, 2005 - Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home By Bobby Tanzilo

Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 - Interview with TROY STETINA: Music truly is the world’s best hope to cross borders, cross cultures and show humanity what we have in common. Interview by Mohsen Fayyazi

Maximum Ink Madison's music magazine, September 2012 - Second Soul
AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL BY MIKE HUBERTY

Guitariste Metal, 3 Octobre 2014 - Troy Stetina interview
And these below are helpful,

The Journal Times, Sep 25, 2013 - Center Stage /Oversoulss /5-19 - By Loreen Mohr

The Journal Times, - Center Stage/Oversoulss - By Loreen Mohr
Easily notable! He's had a huge influence on a good amount of major notable guitarists. I can find more but I have been drawn into this as I do sometimes and have neglected other stuff.
Thanks
Karl Twist (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but almost all of those sources are interviews with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and they don’t contribute to notability. The only non-interview source in there is the Journal Times article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Dr. Swag Lord . Well actually the first part of the OnMilwaukee article is not interview. The subject was researched (as it's the normal procedure) before the interview was conducted. And if considered primary, it's not like it's from the subject's own site anyway. Yes, I understand that primary sources and sources related to the subject themselves cannot be used to support content in a page. By that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the status of the subject and the reliable sources that support the assertion that he is a notable person. The Maximum Ink is similar. Well, the first 196 worlds / 15 sentences (not including the title) are about him and not by him. The interview is secondary. There are two Journal Times articles. Then there's the Modern Drummer article by Matt Pieken about his book-cd combo, Speed and Thrash Metal Drum Method that he did with Charlie Bushor. It's about his work, not written by him.
Going on what user Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert said earlier with "together they peek just over the edge", well with what I've come up with, the interviews by respected news sources etc., his contributions to major music magazines etc., collectively they well and truly sit on top of the table. And the Modern Drummer review proves it more. And this below, a C&P of what I edited into the article page,
According to La Scena Musicale, Stetina was booked along with Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, and Jonathan Kreisberg to appear at the Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival which ran from August 13 to 15, 2015, at the Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts. La Scena Musicale, 3 August 2015 - International Guitar Legends Headlining Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival: 2015 Artists include Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, Jonathan Kreisberg, Troy Stetina
It's obvious when Stetina is mentioned in the same headline such as these premier artists, he's well and widely known in various fields and notable. His volume of work speaks for itself, especially when artists such as Mark Tremonti, Michael Angelo Batio, Bill Peck, and Eric Friedman appear on Troy Stetina: The Sound and the Story etc. etc.. For him not to be notable would be an exception to the rule.

Karl Twist (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Modern Drummer article is a short review of one of Stetina’s books. It has no in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities.

Please note, the article in La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. At the bottom of the article it states: “LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee. See the media kit at our advertising page at https://myscena.org/advertising”. Since that is an ad paid for by the band it is not RS and does not add to notability.

You say there’s two Journal Times articles, but you linked to the same one twice.

Please take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the subject has been associated with notable individuals does not make him notable himself.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a further note, “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are certainly not RSs (obviously blog sources). Also, Maximum Ink seems WP:QS at best. There’s no published editorial board, no published editorial policies. Additionally, it’s quite suspicious that the article links to the Wikipedia page of Tony Stetina and links to places where you can purchase Stetina’s CD (seems pretty promotional to me). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Modern Drummer review isn't what I would call short. It's an acceptable size. It's not supposed to be about an "in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities". It's a review of his work.

Ok if one of them such as La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. There's enough of the other! And as I mentioned with Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert saying "but together they peek just over the edge for me", I go further and say there's enough reliable stuff to sit him on top of the table!

Sorry my bad about the Journal Times. Yes, it was one article. There was the additional updated page.

Well the WP:NOTINHERITED would be the card to pull out if there were no other good supporting info about him. But thankfully there is! The point I made about him being associated with notable individuals was that he is regarded as prominent.

“metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are possibly blog type in format. But the first one has been used to reference around fifty+ pages here, (most of them about heavy metal no surprise) and is a respected source of info.

Nothing suspicious or promotional about the German page for Troy Stetina. Because he's been so prolific with his published works, the searches get flooded with them and for someone who has German as a first language and English as second, this is how a page would be likely to add up. I'm not going to make any assertions about lazy editing because I'm not going to judge an editor's ability. I'd just go with the language thing.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the topic of this article is Troy Stetina, the Modern Dummer review fails WP:SIGCOV. There’s no material about Stetina specifically. If you really think metal shock Finland is an RS, then I think I’ll open up a discussion on RSN. Also, I never mentioned the German Wikipedia page—I was referencing the Maximum Ink article that has a link at the bottom directing us to Stetina’s en WP page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a RSN discussion on the above source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#metalshockfinland Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Modern Drummer article doesn't fail anything! It's just a good review of a release of his. A review in a well-respected publication. Actually, you said earlier (18:29, 11 June 2024) that it was written by him. It was actually written by Matt Pieken. And actually, I believe that somewhere here someone said that there were no reviews of his work. Well there's the Matt Pieken review in Modern Drummer and another which I have to re-find. Incidentally, Pieken has done reviews for artists such as Jane's Addiction. And OK, minus one Metal Shock by Mohsen Fayyazi if it be so. Well, we still have good enough on him to support the Keep status.
Yes, I see that you've opened an RSN discussion on Metal Shock. OK, what can I say.
The fact that Stetina has written for two of the two of the biggest selling guitar mags is additional proof of his status. He was employed by Guitar One and wrote for Guitar World. Just a quick grab of the Ozwinds site where it says, "Go inside the mind of one of the most accomplished guitar instructors in history", you said something previously that this was copied from his website. Well, perhaps one or two others may have done this, or he has copied on to his website what has been said about him. Most to the majority of sites refer to him as something similar, I guess this is because this is what he is!
To tell the truth I'm not that keen on heavy metal or this type of music. I had heard of Stetina in the past but didn't know that much about him. If I didn't think he was notable I would have just gone for a re-direct or maybe wouldn't have bothered at all.
Karl Twist (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t think where he was employed or what magazines he written for are relevant for notability. Do you have any other sources to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Troy Stetina to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if the consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider redirecting rather than deleting? There are a number of possibilities. One would be Mark Tremonti who has a historical and ongoing musical association with Stetina. There was already a mention of him there on the page. I have also done a bit more. There's other content that would eventually go in there as per the normal growth of an article. This is regardless of a deletion or not. If in the event of a deletion consideration, that would probably be the best. Perhaps if the Guitar One article was created, that would be another one as Stetina was involved with the magazine for some time as a writer and contributor. Then there could be his brothers Dale and Wayne where a paragraph could be. They're only stubs at the moment. With a re-direct, the history can be preserved which IMO is always a good thing.
I would like to do more to fix the subject's page as it is a mess. Sadly, my time is limited and I am neglecting other things. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet and different assessments of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy	Book authored by Stetina			✘ No
Fretboard Mastery [With CD] by Troy Stetina	Book authored by Stetina			✘ No
Guitar Noise	Stetina is responding to a reader's comment	Appears to be a WP:BLOG		✘ No
Modern Drummer Issue 166			~ This is a review of one of Stetina's books. There is no mention/WP:SIGCOV of Stetina at all	~ Partial
Guitar One Magazine February 2006	Article authored by Stetina			✘ No
OnMilwaukee Interview	WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject			✘ No
Metalshockfinland	WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject	Seems to be a randomWP:SPS		✘ No
Maximum Ink Interview	WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject	? A non-notable, local music magazine. Can't find editorial polices, editorial board, etc.. The interview also contains a link to Stetina's Wikipedia page at the bottom and links to purchase the subject's CDs. Appears WP:QS and WP:PROMOTIONAL		✘ No
guitariste-metal.fr	WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject	Appears to be a random WP:SPS		✘ No
Ad in La Seine Musicale	WP:SPONSORED-content by the band	WP:SPONSORED-content by the band		✘ No
The Journal Times				✔ Yes
Billboard Jan 1995			Single, passing mention of Stetina of a video he hosted	✘ No
www.ultimate-guitar.com	? Likely a press release	As per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, Ultimate Guitar is only reliable for “articles written by the "UG Team" or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.” This particular reference has no bylined author so it likely a press release/WP:UGC.		✘ No
Musicradar	Interview with one of Stetina's bandmates		~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as there is enough coverage in total including prose part of interviews, and a review for a narrow pass of WP:GNG. Also Ultimate Guitar is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources although the particular reference is possibly a press release so doesn't help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don’t count towards GNG as they are a primary source. Also Ultimate Guitar is only reliable for “articles written by the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.” As you stated, the reference is likely a press release. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Dr. Swag Lord, your created document isn't an official guide to follow! Also, it isn't accurate!

Actually, the OnMilwaukee Interview that you mention (properly named:"Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home" By Bobby Tanzilo) is an article-interview combo. The article part is sufficient to support the page.
The Maximum Ink Interview (Properly named:"Second Soul

AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL" BY MIKE HUBERTY ) is an article and interview combo. The article section is sufficient to support the page

The La Seine Musicale wasn't sponsored by the band. If sponsored as you say as per "LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee.", which band as you say?? Was it Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, or Jonathan Kreisberg?
The Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 interview is an interview yes. It has been used around 50 plus times here to reference articles. I'm not putting it forth as a supporter for the page.
I'm trying to find the article that goes with this eBay photo of Troy Stetina. The photographer was George P. Koshollek and it is date-stamped FR DEC 5 1986 as per on the back. The cut-out stub says "Roll over, Beethoven. Here comes Troy Stetina" and has -Sentinel photo beside it. Could it be from the Milwaukee Sentinel?
I even more stand by what I said that Stetina is a notable subject. His being a writer for two of the largest guitar mags in the US as well as holding guitar clinics in events that have internationally known prestigious artists is just one aspect. Many others ... etc. etc. etc. Below is an interesting indicator from Jstor,
BOOK CHAPTER
But That Doesn’t Help Me on Guitar!: Unraveling the Myth of the
Self-Taught Metal Guitarist
Kevin EbertFrom: Connecting Metal to Culture: Unity in Disparity, Intellect (2017)
Edition: 1
...and Heavy Metal Lead Guitar Vol. 1&2 by Troy Stetina are two such examples. Also noteworthy is his 1991,
Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar In an interview with Guitariste Métal, Stetina was asked about his sales figure
he replied: Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar is the biggest seller now. Maybe 300,000...
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [52] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

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

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

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

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Proposed deletions[edit]

Hallvard Lillehammer (via WP:PROD on 25 June 2024)

Actors and filmmakers[edit]

Ernst Hannawald[edit]

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

It doesn't meet WP:GNG and the significant coverage to satisfy the notability requirement for this article. One link is dead, and none can be found online when I look. Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added things. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A simple brief look at the German Wikipedia might have shown that, maybe. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eashvar Karthic[edit]

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

Main issue: the 2nd film of the director never released --> WP:TOOEARLY. This guy only directed one released film, not meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative professionals since the film received mixed reviews. The notabliity guidleine states that the director creates a "well-known work or collective body of work". As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. I don't know if a writeup by an assistant professor at American College, Madurai holds any weightage but that info can be added to Penguin, the director's only released film. The deletion was caused by an undo of a redirect to Penguin. Long sources are mainly direct interviews about Penguin, not independent. Acting roles seem minor and not notable.

If anybody who directs one film, gets an article, doesn't this set a bad precedent. The film didn't win a National Award or any award for that matter.

This source [53] talks about six films including Penguin, all of this information pertaining to Penguin should be moved to the film article. This director can be notable after more of his works release. DareshMohan (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you are wondering what the contents of source #7 is, it is here: [54] The story focuses on the pain and struggles suffered by the female lead. A pregnant woman remembers her child who went missing years ago. After the child’s missing, her husband started becoming toxic by saying she was the reason for the loss and separated ways from her. Later after years, a male character was shown who accepted her as she is and started living happily with her. No strong characterization or importance was given to both these male roles. They are just part of the screenplay.

That's just the plot of the film. How is it scholarly analysis? The assistant professor mentioned above [55] (page 100) is the only significant analysis but that is of the film and can be added to Penguin.

Just redirect to Penguin till Zebra (his second film) releases. DareshMohan (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR as director of Penguin (film), a notable creation that received coverage, which is what the guideline requires (the said coverage mentions him, see the page about the film). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penguin (film): His only directorial credit. The second one has been unreleased for over a year, and doesn't have a Wiki article. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Actor and WP:Director. AmericanY (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)— AmericanY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This seems like a bad-faith nomination and I believe you are upset about your friend, User:Monhiroe's autopatrolled rights being removed. You first edited this article on 8 October 2023, what changed your mind between then and 19 June, 2024, when you redirected it? Did it take eight months for you to judge its notability? On 19 June, you skimmed through all the articles I have ever created and made some changes on three of them [56][57][58]. Was it to check which ones you could nominate for deletion but couldn't find any, so you thought Eashvar Karthic was borderline because he had only one film and chose to redirect it? Is this how you get back at an editor who may have upset your friend?

The notice you have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force is not neutral and did not follow WP:APPNOTE. Is your nomination rationale so weak that you are trying to discredit a source simultaneously?

Notability

The main issue you have mentioned in you nomination rationale is countered by WP:FILMMAKER#3 where it explicitly mentions significant or well-known work. It need not be a collective body of work.
I believe the film receiving mixed reviews has no weightage here as we are not debating for WP:FILMMAKER#4c
As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. - Adding to my previous comments above, the film has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, which can be verified by checking Penguin (film).
Apart from the above, the film has been cited in journals for three completely different reasons: A film that discusses women-centric films, OTT during the COVID-19 pandemic and representation of the subaltern.
If you had taken the time to read through Source #7, you would have known that the PDF you have linked is another journal that has cited the original source #7's work. In the PDF you have linked, Penguin (film) was selected as one of the films out of all the other women-centric films that were released in 2020. The scholarly analysis is in the findings and conclusion section of the same PDF. The journal entry's objective is independent of the subject, so it's absurd to ask for an analysis about the film when the objective is different.
FWIW, here is another journal that extensively cites the subject's work.

There is significant coverage about the subject and their work. Penguin (film) has also received independent periodical articles, reviews and cited in multiple journals, thereby passing the WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeraxmoira, I completely agree with you on the notability of this director and, like you, I do indeed disagree with DareshMohan's interpretation of the guideline in the present case, but is your very aggressive opening statement absolutely necessary? I am inviting you to kindly strike it. I don't think it's appropriate here, nor helpful. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any bad-faith nomination will be called out. My statement is true and the diffs/timeline make it clear, so it will not be struck out. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Penguin (film): he has done only 1 film its better he done atleast 3 or 4 movies. Another film he directed was not released yet. WP:TOOEARLY. Monhiroe (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Penguin (film). Case of WP:TOOSOON with only 1 release under this director and has not garnered significant achievement to satisfy notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manichandra[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng. Was a contestant on 4 games shows and won 1. And is a choreographer. Sources (and article content) are just facts related to that. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG source. Creator is indeffed for abuse of multiple accounts. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There seems to be no significant coverage and the role played by the subject on the shows apart from the Jodi S9 is not significant as well. Fails GNG. ~~FWIW, I was waiting to G5 this after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isha.Narain was closed.~~ Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage and achievement in secondary independent reliable sources to satisfy notability. Most sources on the page are unreliable. The page has mostly routine news of the subject as runner up on a Bigg Boss game show that is not sufficient basis for a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Pendergrass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pendergrass seems to be just under notability, with a partial nomination in a small award and few roles.

Pendergrass has voiced several side characters in multiple works in the Yo-Kai Watch franchise and characters in the PBS Space Racers series. He does not seem to have had any other roles. He states that he wrote several jingles for the Yo-Kai Watch franchise.

As part of a group of actors, he was likely nominated for Best Vocal Ensemble in an Anime Feature Film/Special by Behind the Voice Actors, a smaller source which is mostly a database but does produce the awards as editorial content. Details on the award are a bit muddled, as IMDB states that it was the 2017 award and gives the actor names, but their website states that it was the 2016 award, though the archived version does not display the actor names for the movie awards. QuietCicada chirp 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Video games, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. QuietCicada chirp 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary coverage, 1 major role, and maybe won a minor award, doesn't meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NACTOR. --Mika1h (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:COMPOSER. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Pendergrass also has no credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Alvarado[edit]

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

I can find nothing in-depth suggesting encyclopedic notability of this actor. BD2412 T 18:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 18:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NACTOR. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial coverage about him that would meet GNG; the one source in the article is a one-line mention. Google search results mainly return other people of the same name. His most prominent role appears to have been 83 episodes of General Hospital, which is insufficient to meet any SNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There currently aren't enough sources in the article to cover WP:NACTOR and I couldn't independently find sources to solve that. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this individual found, what's used (the one article) isn't sufficient. No coverage, no notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He wasn't even part of the starring cast on General Hospital and even if he was, it would be considered as WP:ONEEVENT which is still not enough to warrant an article for the actor. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Malviya[edit]

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least one significant award won and 3 significant award nominations have her meet WP:ANYBIO imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [59], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Larranaga[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; non-notable actress who mostly appeared in adult films. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its current state does not meet WP:BIO; its sole source does not seem reliable and does not establish notability. SunTunnels (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find book reviews, nor any sourcing the acting career. Plenty of sites selling the books though... Not passing ACTOR or AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTRESS, and WP:AUTHOR. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Nanda[edit]

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

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

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

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

Adam Kendrick[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about an actor (also known as Adamo Palladino), and added two sources. One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Blaq[edit]

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

Upcoming comedian not notable for a page. References from unreliable sources and mostly trivial mentions Runmastery (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Runmastery (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming?? Nah, he's a blown stand up comedian in Nigeria 75DD (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Nasty Blaq is a well-known and accomplished comedian in Nigeria, but I still believe the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While he has a significant following in Nigeria, the reliable sources required to establish notability are lacking. 2RDD (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is worth keeping, but the sourcing needs to be improved. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of coverage seems to show this is a notable Nigerian celebrity (see for example https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/celebrities/comedian-nasty-blaq-bags-ambassadorial-deal-with-dubai-based-fashion-line/rxffl59) and that the subject meets the requirement for a page; deletion does not seem necessary but trimming does. I am not sure the mention of the cars he owns is of extreme interest, for instance, but maybe I'm wrong. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm concerned that this article doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO as there is limited coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I think it's important to prioritize notability and ensure that our articles meet Wikipedia's standards. — talk 7:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has worked with worked so many famous brands, few are Kubanah Whiskey Unveils Nastyblaq As Brand Ambassador, Cardtonic signs Mega Influencer, comedy star Nasty Blaq as their latest Brand Ambassador and so many more but I intended not to put it in the article because it will sound promotional

Himanshu Sharma[edit]

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

Failes WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Nothing special found any search engine! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fairly meets WP:CREATIVE with at least 8 credits as writer of notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) +significant awards that have him meet WP:ANYBIO + coverage that seems to have him meet GNG....[reply]
The current sourcing is not very good, though. All that's there are two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them, a social media announcement, and an IMDB profile. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you count the IMDB profile as one source, and one/multiple of the news articles as another? Mrfoogles (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This writer has received at least 2 nationally significant awards, which is sourced + meets WP:CREATIVE for his multiple credits as writer (also sourced), so I am leaving it at that, as I consider the requirement for notability is met. two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them may be considered a description of significant coverage. Thanks. Just added 2 sources. Feel free to remove ImDb. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review newly added sources to the article, especially the nominator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: A triple fulfillment of notability guidelines (GNG, ANYBIO, and FILMMAKER). The subject person is the sole writer of six notable films, namely Tanu Weds Manu, Tanu Weds Manu Returns, Mr. Pellikoduku, Raanjhanaa, Zero, and Atrangi Re, fulfilling WP:FILMMAKER#3. He also won two National Film Awards, a Filmfare Award, and a Times of India Film Awards, fulfilling WP:ANYBIO#1. I have also found personal interviews with the subject person (see Times of India[60], The Telegraph[61], and India Today[62]), and media coverage on his personal life (see The Indian Express[63][64], Times of India[65], and NDTV [66]), fulfilling WP:GNG as well. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Prince of Erebor's sources. DareshMohan (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calabar Chic[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rheji Burrell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not sure how this article looked back in 2012 when the first AfD came about, but now the article is confusing because it doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be about Mr. Burrell alone or about him and his brother. At any rate, the article discusses a non-notable production team(?) whose own discography hasn't seen them ever having charted; and the list of albums that they supposedly produced for other artists isn't sourced. It doesn't help that the article reads like the brothers themselves wrote it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Music, and New Jersey. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In 2012, the article looked pretty much the same as now. It still needs work, obviously, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I see no reason to disagree with the earlier consensus on notability, which is not lost, and the adequate sourcing turned up in WP:BEFORE searches done during the first AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond this [67], I don't find anything about this person or the pair of them. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exercising WP:AGF as in the first AfD linked at the top left of this discussion a respected editor Michig identified a number of book sources that convinced him it passed WP:GNG although a number of the links no longer work, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Andrews (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Working actor, reasonable career, but I couldn't find sources available to confirm he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Lots of mentions on less reliable sites/blogs. Weak keep in 2006 when our standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One quite notable role and some mildly notable ones have him meet WP:NACTOR, which is the applicable guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) PS- Added various sources and think the subject also meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources addressing the subject in depth and directly....:D[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, roles add up to enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: it's not about whether the roles are significant or not, it is about whether the role is significant or not. and so far... the only significant role i can find is his role as tommy doyle from halloween. other roles/movies listed in the article do not really make him significant, failing WP:NACTOR brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 08:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [68] and [69] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [70], [71], [72], and [73]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.

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

Older articles about him also show his prominence.

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

Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is notable on YouTube as an influencer & content creator. but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia.--DelwarHossain (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable person. I agree with Ontor22. Yubrajhn (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

DELETE Not notable enough for Wikipedia standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After four consecutive AFDs, the article mostly survives on Wikipedia. Still, there is a stir among editors. Mainly his being a YouTuber, but he has also worked in drama and music which makes him notable under WP:ENT. Mafmes (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Categories[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Athletes Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians