Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Woja Emmanuel

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

two concerns, 1st: Subjects notable only for one event (kidnapping) which covered by one sourced that he worked for, see WP:BLP1E. 2nd: the main contribator to the article seems to be the person himself as they uploaded 3 different images of the topic of article while claiming they were theirs, see [Woja Emmanuel pictures at commons]. yet the editor did not delcar any conflict of interest, so this article may also falls under Wikipedia:Autobiography FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Samudra Gupta (poet)

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

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

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

Simon Nicholls

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Dilovan Kovli

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Iran, and Iraq. – The Grid (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator, does not show notability --VViking_TalkEdits 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons listed in my PROD nomination. The editor is shooting themselves in the foot if they really are socking to remove a PROD tag (they themselves are allowed to do that) and their other contributions reek of WP:UPE. Passenger pigeon (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for an aspiring artist. Is not in any permanent collections, has not made a life changing contribution to the arts scene, or any other artistic notability requirements we look at. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So this will set significant precedent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep or alternatively rename to focus on the legal case, per Sweet6970. The case has been widely covered in UK press, with The Guardian calling it a microcosm of the wider debate about transgender rights [2]. Oppose merge or delete. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy LaGrone

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

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

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

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

Gupi

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Most sources also only link to the artist's own website or Apple Music~~ EDIT: PLEASE DELETE. JUST SAW I ALREADY NOMINATED THIS ONCE. --FMSky (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. FMSky (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above request was about an accidental repeat in the transclusion process, which has been fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the first deletion nomination was back in 2007 for a toy of the same name. The second and third (this one) are for the entertainer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many sources exist about this artist, such as here, here, here, here and here. The article itself cites many of these sources. Passes WP:MUSICBIO at least to me. Beachweak (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I voted "Weak Delete" in the last AfD about 18 months ago due to Gupi having some introductory media coverage though much of it was in the form of listcicles (e.g. one out of many new Pride musicians) or brief mentions in articles about someone else. Since then the situation for Gupi has improved a bit with some album reviews and feature stories on the Food House project, as found by the above voter. I still think some more truly dedicated coverage would help but there may be enough for a stub article. The current version is too dependent on unreliable sources but those can be removed through the editing process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathangi Ajithkumar

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

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

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

Steven Bayme

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

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

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

Sudheer Dara

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Medicine, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baqi:) (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naufal Ahmad

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Prager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saidullo Abdullaev

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

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

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

Anita Gonzalez

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

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

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

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

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

Béla Dunszt

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

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

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

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

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

Shammai Zahn

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

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

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

Shalom Nagar

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sourcing/coverage seems solid and article isn't a stub. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Joris

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

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

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

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

Farhan Faiyaaz

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

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

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

Tahmid Bhuiyan Tamim

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

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

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

Rajat Dalal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now clear your confusion by reading that information carefully.

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

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

Crispy Concords

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

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

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

Anson Tsang

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

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

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

Simone Andrian

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

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

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

Jans Arends

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

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

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

Ryan LaPlante

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

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

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

Tom Hall (poker player)

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

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

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

Rodrigo Seiji

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

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

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

Shafiqa al-Qibtiyya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrei Polgar

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

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

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

Mizanur Rahaman

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Jimmy Here

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

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

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

Daniel Lowery

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Seth Hill

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

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

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

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

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

Ryan C. Clark

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Begich (author)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jadrolita

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Popular culture, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is BBC here unreliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, no. It is reliable but not independent in my view. If we can find more, I think it can help establish notability here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans While I agree we would need at least one more source, per WP:SIGCOV, why is it not independent? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I consider interviews to be non-independent sources. Don’t you agree? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEWS are iffy. What the subject says is dependent, what the journalist says and concludes (if anything), is independent _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Well, I’m still digging. I (we?) might find non-iffy sources with a more proper look (or not). Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some coverage - the BBC pidgin article is interesting. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, see above. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Ahuja

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Fails WP:COMPOSER

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

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

Shalini Passi

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

MV Ramana Reddy

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: A strong pass to GNG is Telangana Martyrs Memorial. While the other coverage's are not exhaustive, highlighting his impact in the regional art community and public memorial design, passes notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Simon (entrepreneur)

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

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

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

Amar Hoskote

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

Non-notable actor, none of the sources in the article meet WP:RS, and a BEFORE search brings up nothing. Fails WP:NBIO. CoconutOctopus talk 08:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CoconutOctopus talk 08:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom, at this time subject clearly fails WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Baqi:) (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pretty clear as of right now. Tolozen (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no indication of notability at all. Fram (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's stated that he's been a film actor since 2014, but there's no clear filmography history, a quick search shows it fails WP:GNG. --Gilc (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Lun Eve Lin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bert van Boggelen

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

Has been interim chair of an union and a political party, but relevance is not supported by reliable secondary sources (as far as I could find). Dajasj (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Dajasj (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. In the past seven years or so we’ve deleted hundreds of articles about political party officials and unsuccessful candidates. This is just another one. Bearian (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources are primary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kym Illman

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

This photographer does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. I've actually come across Illman's YouTube channel before, but I'm just not seeing the sourcing to establish notability. The most solid source I found is this profile from Nine.com.au. I found some other sources like this and this this that quote Illman's social media posts and cover some of the associated drama, but to me this doesn't feel like significant coverage of Illman or his work. Most other sources I came across were passing mentions or just Illman's name in photo credits. I don't think we have enough coverage to meet GNG, but I'm open to discussion with other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Australia. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Motorsport, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I was browsing the Wikipedia requested articles and saw Illman’s name. As I recognised him, and as I an interested by his work, I thought I should create his page. Whilst creating I did see significantly fewer credible sources than I would have wanted to. Although I do feel like I, or others, could very likely, with some digging around the internet, add some more information to the page that covers more of his life/work, I do agree with there being a lack of sources that establish his notability and would understand if this page is deleted. ThornlessCookieReal (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your understanding. I do think notability is borderline, and I'm open to keeping the page if other editors are able to dig up some better sources. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As of November 29, the article has seen a large amount of revision and inclusion of more reliable sources than it was a few days ago when this AfD was opened. Madeleine961 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was going to say almost exactly what Madeleine961 did. Sandcat555 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the recent expansion, I do agree to keep the article per WP:HEY. Thanks to Hack for the expansion and additional sources. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Gursimran Kaur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omran Daqneesh

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Bart Simpson (filmmaker)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your interest.

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

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

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

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

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

Cihan Erdal

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

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

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

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

Ex Muslim Sahil

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

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

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

chatbot-generated post

- Sufficient Reliable Sources (RS) and Notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

chatbot-generated post

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

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

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

Eyüp Can (journalist)

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

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

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

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

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

Melissa Tan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vicky Zahed

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Keep: Weak, but the subject has received moderate coverage which is sufficient to support a stand-alone entry per WP:BARE. Also, the article is WP:POORLY.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. V. S. Rama Rao

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

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

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

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

Alan White (DJ)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The extreme lack of sourcing isn't helping... I tried looking for book reviews, no luck... For someone who seems to be so well-known, I'd expect some coverage in the Atlanta newspapers, which it doesn't seem to have either. Delete unless we can get some sort of sourcing in place that proves this is a notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, Oaktree b, is that your opinion for both articles nominated here in this AFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've only reviewed the one about the person, not the TV show, I can look at it in a bit. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Chauhan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For argument's sake, even if the not-yet-closed discussion is considered as consensus for what you have claimed, there is still only one review in a national publication. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has relatively moderate significant coverage for his films Saiyar Mori Re, Samandar (film), and Karsandas Pay and Use. As the lead actor in all these projects, the combined coverage is sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the coverage though? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: i dont think the subject passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There sure are a lot of words that could've been left unsaid here. Parties personalized the discussion and bludgeoned it with walls of text. At the end of the day, it comes down to which arguments have the most solid basis in Wikipedia policy, and that appears to be the delete camp. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Oliva

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was one of the co-founders of Free Software Foundation Latin America [28] in 2005, and still is one of its board members [29]. As a promoter of free software, he has given dozens of lectures in Brazil (this governamental site lists just a few) and abroad. —capmo (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

PS: Oliva also meets item 3. of WP:ANYBIO, having an entry at the National Library of Brazil [30]. —capmo (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The link I provided is from the Brazilian National Authority Control, maintained by the National Library (Biblioteca Nacional, the bn in the link). Even the entry on Machado de Assis, one of Brazilian greatest writers, returns just a couple of lines [31]. What I'm trying to say with this is that in this case, length is no parameter for the subject's importance. Being in the list is enough proof of notability. —capmo (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Oh, and by the way, accusing someone of "falsifying facts" because they disagree with you isn't funny. I was hoping you'd be willing to discuss this civilly, but those hopes seem misplaced. I'm telling you now, drop the stick. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOURTEEN EDITS in a row? Have you ever heard of the Preview buttom?? ;) You seem to be taking this too seriously, try to relax a bit! Now regarding your other question: FSF and FSFLA are "sister" organizations, completely independent from one another. Again you were proven wrong in your assumption. —capmo (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how this works. You don't get to accuse people of acting in bad faith and then pretend like you did nothing wrong by telling them to "relax" with a winky face. This page with FSFLA's constitution says that they "act in joint concert with the other FSFs (Free Software Foundations) to promote and defend Free Software". They're not independent. Again, thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep @HyperAccelerated I think your tone is bordering on WP:UNCIVIL, and frankly I think you aren't being receptive or fair to new evidence presented to you by capmo. Take it down a notch. You can disagree without being rude or combative. In looking at google books the book from MIT Press mentions Oliva and his 2016 award but unfortunately the coverage gets cut off and is not completely viewable: see page 291 He is also thanked for his contributions to several publications: [32], [33], [34]; and mentioned in this book on cybersecurity. Here are a few books he is cited in: [35], [36] (there are several more like these) I think this lends credence to A. the significance of the FSF Free Software Award (which is erroneously being dismissed as the subject was not attached to the FSF at the time of the award but worked for a separate independent sister organization) and B. Oliva's position as a well known figure within his field. What these don't do is demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. However, the national library entry, which HyperAccelerated in bad faith dismissed as WP:BLUDGEONING, is significant to the point that I think it pushes this into the keep category. A biographical entry (even a brief one) in a national library reference resource makes a person encyclopedic under the spirit of WP:5P1. Period.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for voting. I've been more than fair to capmo, especially since they accused me of lying without remorse. I'd be much nicer if they were new, but they've been around for 19 years and should know better. I also don't understand why you think I've acted in bad faith at any point during this AfD. Go to my Talk page if you think there's a problem -- I'm not going to litigate this here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FSF and FSF Latin America are not independent entities. There is a quote from FSF Latin America's constitution that I wrote above that shows that they operate in "joint concert" with one another. Aside from putting this sentence on a bright neon sign at the top of the Burj Khalifa, can you tell me how I can make it more clear that these two organizations are not independent? HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The national library reference is a database. It is a directory, not a collection of biographies or an encyclopedia. It contains the name of one work that I assume Oliva wrote.

This creates a double-bind. Either:

1. BN is a database, not a biographical dictionary. It doesn't count towards notability.

2. BN is actually a collection of biographies and nothing that Oliva has done is notable enough to be put in his biography. That is a very strong signal we should delete this article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of your sources appear to be mentions and don't demonstrate significant coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of the National Library source. You don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the process by repeating your arguments (see how I used that in the right context; ie a repeated opinion). I think I already made it clear that I agreed the sources don't constitute SIGCOV, so we agree there. I can accept your explanation on the lack of independence between the FSF and its sister organization, but the coverage in a book published by MIT seems to indicate the award has some prestige all the same. Unfortunately it is not clear whether that book has more to say on Oliva as the next page is not viewable. It may (or may not) have SIGCOV. This is a borderline call in my opinion, and I've modified to a "weak keep" based on your feedback. We'll see what others have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think I've bludgeoned -- the double bind makes a new point -- but I don't think it's important. Thanks anyway. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion." You already made the same analysis on the national library source above. I can read the discussion. Repeating arguments made earlier after editors who express an opposing opinion is the specific behavior addressed on the bludgeoning page. I normally wouldn't have pointed it out (since you only did it once instead of repeatedly) but I wanted to draw your attention to the type of behavior one should look for when citing WP:BLUDGEON. When you cited it earlier, capmo was presenting a brand new source not previously examined. It wasn't a repeating argument, so it couldn't be considered bludgeoning. However, when you repeated your analysis of the library source after my keep vote, that is bludgeoning because it is a repetitive argument being made with a different editor. Understand?4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use this page as a platform to write about anything besides whether or not this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seriously: Stop the bludgeoning.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've read the wall of text above, and I'm still not swayed enough to change my !vote... Primary sourcing doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks to everyone who has jumped into the discussion, and to Doczilla for relisting it. Some editors have cited a lack of independent sources in the article. I'll try to fill this gap by presenting links from several sources that could help establish the subject's notability.
1. Oliva is cited on page 7 of the 2013 São Paulo State University entrance exam. An article written by him was used as the base text for questions 16 through 20 of the exam.[37]
2. SERPRO is the largest Information Technology public enterprise in Brazil; six of Oliva's speeches were given ample coverage on their website: [38]
3. Estadão and Folha are two of the biggest Brazilian newspapers.
  - This article by Folha from March 2000 cites Oliva, then only 26 years old, as one of the "main collaborators" in the free software movement.[39]
  - Another article by Folha about Microsoft's near-monopoly, from May 2007, where Oliva is asked to give his opinion on the subject: [40]
  - In this article by Folha from March 2010, Oliva is interviewed about his breakup with Google: [41]
  - This article by Estadão from July 2012 announces the beginning of the 13th International Free Software Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and lists Oliva as one of the speakers.[42] (requires subscription)
  - Another article by Estadão from March 2014 about alternative social networks, where Oliva is interviewed (among other people). [43] (requires subscription)
4. A document prepared by CTI Renato Archer, a research center maintained by the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, establishes (page 27) a Special Committee to prepare the Information Technology Master Plan. On the following page, they present a list of specialists who may be invited to collaborate in the Plan (Oliva is the first name in that list). [44]
I could go on listing other similar links, but I believe that for now these will suffice. Regards, —capmo (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these sources. I get what you're trying to do, but I think the sources are even worse than the ones you presented before.

(1) is interesting but doesn't establish anything other than the fact that that his writings can be read by Brazilian high schoolers. By necessity, this standardized test contains a long quotation from Oliva and no direct analysis or synthesis.

(2) is not an independent source. Oliva spoke at a conference that SERPRO's employees helped run (cite; there's evidence Oliva spoke at this conference in link you shared), and then SERPRO wrote a press release about it. You can tell it's a press release because the articles are all attributed to "Serpro Social Communication" (translated). And even if you think this is total nonsense, lots of people give lots of talks each year, even if we only count ones at plainly notable institutions. Many are given by smart people, but not all of them are automatically notable.

(3) and (4) are mentions or interviews and don't establish significant coverage. Interviews aren't secondary sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed at the amount of time and effort you put into trying to discredit each and every evidence I bring here. Your analysis is again wrong: (2) IS an independent source, Oliva never worked for SERPRO, he was just invited as a speaker. And we're not talking about "one" single conference; there were three consecutive International Conferences on Free Software and Electronic Government in years 2008 to 2010; he was invited to all of them and gave a total of 6 speeches. Regarding (4), it's not just a "mention", it's an official document prepared by a governmental agency; they list 12 specialists that could be consulted, each from a different organization. Being in that list is an evident proof of notability. —capmo (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, half of the sources you've brought so far are trivial mentions of Oliva. It doesn't take that much time to point that out.

You have a twisted view of notability. "Gave a talk" or "mentioned in a list made by the government" doesn’t establish notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. Does appearing in a list of government contractors establish notability? What if that list was made by a local government, not a federal one? How about appearing in a voter roll? There are prescribed standards for notability, and the most important one is that subjects should receive in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. I am here to determine whether an article about Oliva can meet this standard and deeply uninterested in discussing whether he's met whatever weird standard of "notability" that you've cooked up.

If you are going to add more citations, please make sure they provide in-depth, independent coverage of the subject as prescribed in WP: GNG. Too many people think they can declare victory after spamming walls of authoritative-looking sources, and frankly I would be much happier if you gave me two plainly good sources instead of a dozen bad ones.

I also never said Oliva worked for SERPRO. Don't put words in my mouth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are the one twisting things. Oliva isn't in "a list of government contractors". He is in a list of respected specialists that could be invited to provide counselling on their field of expertise to a government agency. Quite a different thing! —capmo (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC currently, but from GScholar[45] he is lead author on papers with 75[46], 71[47], and 45[48] cites. For comparison, Larry Wall's The Perl Programming Language only shows 64[49]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charlotte Sartre

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bibliographies. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - Doesn't entirely establish notability. Needs better sources and better info. Too many red links, suggesting that not notable
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the subject of a number of profiles including Las Vegas Weekly, Jezebel, and Paper. She's also discussed in several academic sources as seen from a Google Scholar search: [50]. I think there is enough to meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a mix of moderate and trivial mentions, from databases or entertainment platforms that focus on her work rather than her broader impact. However, given the combination of in-depth interviews, mainstream coverage (Stern), and critical industry coverage from Las Vegas Weekly, Adult DVD Talk, the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, California, and Nevada. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Draftify. Not seeing a keep on sources now there. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two articles from the Daily Beast which detail Sartre: How Porn Made These Women Feel Empowered: ‘It Gave Me a New Sense of Confidence’ and The Rise of Video Conferencing Quarantine Porn. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [51] [52] [53] [54], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[55]] and [[56]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep: You see the name, you want to know who it is. It's as simple as that. Cyber rigger (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Cyber rigger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: If we keep it, it's logical that Barron Trump should have his own article. Lucafrehley (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a public figure and meets Wikipedia notability requirements to have her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.77.187 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. We don't write about the grandchildren of Nicolas Sarkozy, Olaf Scholz, or even Vladimir Putin. --Tataral (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the articles focused on her by Daily Beast, Essentially Sport, ABC News, Golf Week, New York Times.XavierItzm (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Also should be even more prominent during the next four years. Her fame is global. She is covered in The Times of India for instance. Hektor (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not an unquestionably reliable source, see WP:RSP and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_447#RfC:_The_Times_of_India. In my own experience, its coverage tends towards the sensational. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources with sigcov – such as this Cut piece and especially this solid Telegraph profile published after the start of this AfD – demonstrate notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would appear that Kai has done little else to gather press coverage other than be the granddaughter of the incoming President (unlike her aunt Ivanka who is notable), only thing going for her in terms of notability is the instagram posting and social media influencer career paragraph, and thats not much. Considering we have First Daughters that are far more notable than her (Malia Obama comes to mind who is in filmmaking) don't have Wikipedia pages I struggle to understand why she does. Naomi Biden's wikipedia page got deleted for this same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfriendnow (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Gelasin (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. The content of this article could be shortened to a sentence or two that would fit well in the full family article. This individual's internet popularity is on the increase but right now it's WP:TOOSOON to tell if that will hold. Might warrant a standalone article eventually. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Having some subscribers on tiktok and youtube does not give notability. The possibility of being an influencer in the next years does not give notability WP:TOOSOON. User:GuzmanTierno 8:00, 29 November 2024 (GMT)
Keep: Meets WP:GNG as you can find sources as https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kai-trump-sanitizing-grandpa-trump-200345791.html and https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/13/kai-trump-age-parents-donald-trump-grandchildren/76259196007/ Shadow4dark (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is her own growing brand, she says she wants to stay out of politics and grow on Youtube separately. Osnelandrejr(talk) 07:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I would actually like to see a "Descendants" section in the Donald Trump article. People are interested in what his children or grandchildren are going to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Ashik Rahik (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made this article because Kai has used the fame afforded by her family, the most famous in the world, to garner significant attention among teenagers. There’s already been coverage, and there’ll be more as she does more stuff. The idea of Wikipedia is to make a place where people can find reliable information about things that are happening around them. Don’t cut it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpharomeo12 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her family being famous doesn't mean she needs a Wikipedia page. It's either delete this or merge it. Unfriendnow (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she passes notability -- famous family (like Kennedy family members) and media is covering her extensively because she is providing videos into meetings at Mar-a-Lago, etc that otherwise we don't have visibility into. Deleting now would be a big mistake -- it would have to be re-created from scratch in future years.. Danski14^(talk) 14:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it need to be re-created from scratch in future years? have other granddaughters of Presidents also had Wikipedia pages? Naomi Biden's was deleted and she had a historical wedding and was in the news, Finnegan Biden when she was in the news and attended the coronation making her and her grandmother the only member of a First Family to do so.

Why is Kai Trump so important and so different from those two? what has she really done? Unfriendnow (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely notable, and I really hope this AfD wasn't created out of a political bias toward her grandfather. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG due to sustained media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.160.78 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent David Fraser

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

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

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

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

Delete per nomination. I’m hoping for the promised citations, but not holding my breath for a week. Bearian (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally managed to get some sources onto the page. then there is also [57], [58], [59] and [60] (last has a quote from New York Times). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the many added sources on the article and the links to dedicated articles above I think there is enough for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Referencing has significantly improved since the time of nomination. Meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since addition of sources, passes WP:GNG. Procyon117 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by duffbeerforme pass WP:GNG. Qetehi (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

People

People proposed deletions