Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography

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

WikiProject Biography
General information
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do
Biography article statistics
Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.

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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Deletion sorting|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch

People edit

M.G Hkh edit

M.G Hkh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Bharat Kamdi edit

Bharti Bharat Kamdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Subject is only going to contest in the general elections that is to come in June, being a candidate from a party doesn't automatically pass WP:NPOL, and being a Chairperson of the Palghar Zilla Parishad doesn't pass WP:NPOL either. This is more or less too early. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thushar Vellappally edit

Thushar Vellappally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, coverage seems to relate to his candidacy in the current Indian election. No sourcing to support claims of being a philanthropist. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election for his constituency is completed on April 24, 2024 and this is not for the election. Just starting the page for adding more information. He is a notable politician and lot of political controversies are reported in the news. Links are added.(talk)

  • Delete: Similar to other adfs, there has been a proliferation of premature articles regarding candidates for the 2024 Indian General Elections. Like this individual, they too fall short of meeting the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Since they have not yet been elected as Members of Parliament, the news reports solely focus on their candidacy. Some similar other AFDs: Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi. Grabup (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable politican, fails WP:NPOL, can be re-evaluated if candidate gains place in legislature to satisfy the presumed qualities of NPOL. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    more citation is added to indicate the notability. Mettleboy (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain : More reference were added to emphasize the notability. Mettleboy (talk)
  • Delete This page is an election candidate only, no proof of victory, and does not specify otherwise, Fails WP:POLITICIAN~~ Spworld2 talk 01:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Schäfer edit

Lasse Schäfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL for not being the MP, and fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO generally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither being an unsuccessful election candidate nor being organizational chair of a minor political party constitutes an automatic notability freebie that would guarantee a Wikipedia article — but this is referenced almost entirely to directly-affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, and the only citation to media is just a photograph of him rather than a news article about him, and this isn't adding any GNG points either. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Spiegel edit

Ilya Spiegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find nothing to indicate they pass WP:NBASIC or WP:GNG. They are just another politician who just stood for election but was not elected. There is no Finnish article or any mentions on Finnish Wikipedia of them that I can find. There used to be a Russian version but that was deleted. KylieTastic (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohaib Al-Malkawi edit

Sohaib Al-Malkawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Couldn't find any articles or independent information about him online. The article is mostly puffery. Probably a COI - draftifying might be an alternative, though I can't find any coverage about him at all. Clearfrienda 💬 02:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Rutter edit

Luke Rutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a British man killed fighting in Syria. Seems completely non notable, was only reported in the news because he died. A sad event, but not one that makes him notable. No sustained coverage of him since this either, all sources seem to be directly after his death/repatriation in 2017. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulquawiy Abdulganiyu Olododo edit

Abdulquawiy Abdulganiyu Olododo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL obviously and WP:GNG. Current sources are either PRs or passing mentions. Nothing gives WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable politician or "serial entrepreneur". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tharahai Cuthbert edit

Tharahai Cuthbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL (for now) and WP:GNG, the subject is only a candidate of an assembly election that is to come, hopefully, in July. She is yet to be elected, we don't even know if she'd be. So, for now, it fails WP:NPOL and also WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Draftifying would also not be a bad idea. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject's achievements and of role as a candidate of a political party is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There has been a notable increase in the creation of Wikipedia pages for candidates in the 2024 Indian General elections. However, many of these pages fail to adhere to Wikipedia’s Politician notablity guidlines WP:NPOL or the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Merely being nominated as a candidate and having some media coverage does not automatically make someone notable. Additionally, creating articles for these candidates at this early stage is premature. According to Wikipedia's notability policy for politicians WP:NPOL, candidates who win the election and become Members of Parliament will inherently meet the criteria for notability. Therefore, it is recommended that these premature articles be deleted, this article is same as previous AFDs: Kompella Madhavi Latha, Neeraj Tripathi. Grabup (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chioma Rowland edit

Chioma Rowland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. She is only known for being the wife of Davido. She does not have a notable modeling or chef career. This article is pretty much WP:PROMO.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant Dubey edit

AfDs for this article:
Dushyant Dubey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per the previous AfD, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. The two users who wanted this article kept was a sockpuppet and the page creator themselves. John Yunshire (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad edit

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After the cruft was removed, it seems there's nothing that supports WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No significant independent RS coverage that I could find. Only hits in WP:LIBRARY are his research papers and a quote in Men's Health about growth hormone therapy. His book is self-published and I couldn't find any reviews. That leaves us with WP:NPROF criteria. I think the research impact criterion is the only one that might apply, but I'm unfamiliar with the subject area so will leave that for others to evaluate. Jfire (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jfire, others, I do not see signs of significant academic impact here. I see on Google Scholar several papers with a moderate number of citations, but in a medium-to-higher citation field. (Even in a lower citation field, I'm generally looking for several papers with more citations than the highest cited one I see of his.) Awards listed in the article are all WP:MILL, as is membership on an editorial board. I was cursory in checking NAUTHOR and GNG, but did not quickly see a pass. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sadeghi-Nejad is one of the most notable experts in the field of pediatric endocrinology, globally, and his publications support that. A niche medical field does not have the same number of citations as more general research areas. In addition, the book Dreams of Persia is an important contribution to Persian-American culture and linguistic heritage. KatMaldon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — KatMaldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Emaan Singh Mann edit

Emaan Singh Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, subject was never elected in any of the contested elections, and fails WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Being the father of a notable person doesn't confer notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG criteria and hasn't been elected as an MP or MLA which fails WP:NPOL. As previously stated regarding Indian politicians, these articles are premature and should be deleted. Referencing past instances like Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi underscores the need for deletion. Grabup (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Sempebwa edit

Dennis Sempebwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sequentially an article that is written with many links and ref layout so impress editors and readers. A general overview of this articles shows its failure in meeting general notability guidelines. The articles told us that subject of it is a writer, but it's also credibly that it goes nowhere to WP:NAUTHOR. The books doesn't seem to have significant coverage or reviews to indicate a generally critically accepted written work. Aside from that, most of the books were published by his 'press' which doesn't meet notability and seems to be cited also in the article.

No coverage at all for his impact in the filed. In general, it doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO for inclusion, please analyse the sources before commenting. Some of the sources doesn't necessarily approves the word it's citing or let me say, "unreliable". Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some of the currently cited sources are written by Sempebwa or published by organizations related to him, which is not suitable to establish notability. But some of the sources (e.g. The Monitor, Pulse Uganda) seem to be independent. I can't tell from the sites' own "about us" information, and in light of the somewhat laudatory tone, whether these can be considered "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS), though. Cnilep (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Rönnbäck edit

Lars Rönnbäck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to reach WP:NACADEMIC. All of the reference are to their own company website, own publication or the usual academic databases. Scopus shows H-factor of 5, with highest number of citation for any paper being 26, for a 2010 paper. The affiliation at Stockholm is unclear, as they have no web presence there (suggesting that they are not a principle investigator). The prizes look like routine conference early career development prizes, insufficient to establish notability. The maths book doesn't seem notable either. A merge to Anchor modeling could be considered (their most notable contribution perhaps), but wouldn't help the subject at that page. Klbrain (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a bit harsh. Is there no other notability criteria that can be deemed suitable? Sauer202 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Computing, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly does not pass any WP:PROF criterion (and in particular not #C1, because the citations are not high enough in a high-citation field). He (or someone with his name) apparently won some local teaching award in 2010 [1] but that doesn't pass #C2. We have no independent in-depth coverage of him needed for notability through WP:GNG and my searches didn't turn up any. One book would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR and we don't have any of the published reviews of it that (together with reviews of other books) could be used for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: He is one of the persons "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" of anchor modeling.
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The local teaching award is in neurology, so it was probably awarded to this Lars Rönnbäck. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but my point is that the article has never claimed that he received a neurology award. Sauer202 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is one of the inventors of anchor modeling, a well-known data warehouse architecture, and is an active contributor in various open professional and social media channels about data warehouse architecture. I find it very weird that this should not meet any general notability criteria? Is this a competition about finding reasons to delete articles? Sauer202 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our anchor modeling article is entirely primary-sourced, and although searches for that term in Google Scholar have many hits, many of them appear to be for an unrelated technique in audio signal processing. I am not convinced that this is a significant enough contribution to give its inventor inherited notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't view anchor modeling as primarily academic, but primarily applied. It is true that the Wikipedia article about anchor modeling is sparse (and I plan to develop it further), but that can not be held against its creator. Anchor modeling is open source, and its concepts are taught independently by Nikolay Golov at Harbour.Space University.[2] Nikolay has many interesting videos on YouTube with interesting comparisons of data vault and anchor modeling. Anchor modeling is the only data warehouse modeling technique that is 6NF, and therefore I think notability is inherited to its contributor. Sauer202 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        If you think it's not academic work that he might be notable for, then you need to go through our notability criterion for people notable for non-academic work, WP:NBIO. That requires independent publications that provide in-depth coverage of the person, seemingly even harder to reach in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to add independent sources. Can you make a new assessment of whether it meets the threshold? Sauer202 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jemal Gokieli edit

Jemal Gokieli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For me, it doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. If someone could bring satisfactory sources, it would be a fair one. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cook (energy market strategist) edit

Chris Cook (energy market strategist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given this article has had verification issues for nearly 12 years, and the fact that none of the sources satisfy WP:GNG mostly because they either lack WP:DEPTH or aren't independent. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Lukas edit

John Lukas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This ahs been in CAT:NN for over 14 years. I thought it was borderline, but I couldn't find enough coverage or significance to show he meets WPBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Pool edit

Bob Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NJOURNALIST. LA Times sources are not WP:Independent, and thus I do not see them as justifying notability. Couldn't find any independent coverage of him. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources turn up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No independent coverage. Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Horner (actor) edit

Mike Horner (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wining just the AVN award still doesn’t mean his notable. Subject still fails WP:GNG. Can’t find any news about him on Google. Maybe that was why no other references were made to the article than the current of which they are three but still doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheri Caffaro edit

Cheri Caffaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The first link on the reference which is the official website is a dead link. Secondly other link still doesn’t show any independent of the subject. Did my google search still can’t find any sign of notability of the subject neither any news independent of the subject. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She still doesn’t meet WP:NACTOR. I understand you might have seen her as an actress who has appeared in multiple notable movies just because the movies are on Wikipedia also. But after checking some of the movies she appeared which are on Wikipedia I come to found out that some of the movies doesn’t meet WP:NFP neither WP:NFSOURCES. Note should be taken that IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability.
To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage which of the movies fails including the actress not passing the general notability guideline. I’m pretty sure those movies would have been rejected if it was submitted through the WP:AFCREVIEW so therefore they will have to go through the WP:AFD.--Meligirl5 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of newspaper coverage back in the 1970s when she was active. Meets the GNG at the very least. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the sources GoldenAgeFan1 found leaves little doubt to me. Skynxnex (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GoldenAgeFan1's sources, which demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rahm edit

Johnny Rahm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. Made some Google research about him. I can’t find any sign of notability or reliable source talking about him. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Garrity edit

John Garrity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find enough to show he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pickering (footballer) edit

Charles Pickering (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AFC moved to mainspace by non-reviewer and is still not yet ready for mainspace. Two of the sources in the reference section are from Facebook. The article also provides little context other than that he was on some teams. Shadow311 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the fact that it fails notability Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmoy Roy edit

Tanmoy Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not have any reliable sources online, and any sources that I did search for have only come from Instagram, IMDB, and other blog sites. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Completely unsourced newly-created BLP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CanonNi That isn't a criteria for speedy deletion, as far as I know. There's a credible claim of importance so not WP:A7 and it doesn't appear to have anything negative to make WP:G10 apply. WP:BLPPROD could have been used (although AFD is a fine choice too). Skynxnex (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially tagged the page for BLP PROD during NPR, which was later removed in this edit. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Sorry I missed the history. I still believe it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under A7 or G10; although perhaps G5 depending on the outcome of the SPI. Skynxnex (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable per WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage found in RS, either English or Bengali (তন্ময় রায়). He directed Sesh Chithi, for which notability per WP:NFILM is also unclear, though it had some notable actors in the cast. Sockpuppetry is also evident: see linked SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and West Bengal. Skynxnex (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources on the page and a simple search does not display any result on the director. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing any coverage on this person.Hkkingg (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No WP:RS references. We're also approaching a WP:SNOWBALL close at this rate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others and possibly Wikipedia:Snowball clause also. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article lacks sources and fails to demonstrate the director's notability. Also agree with referring to WP:SNOW. Waqar💬 16:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia edit

AfDs for this article:
Priyadarshini Raje Scindia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP that makes few claims to notability other than her marriage to a notable politician. Recent coverage relates to her campaigning in the current Indian election, hardly demonstrating significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Flynn (businessman) edit

Greg Flynn (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most news seems to be about his company Flynn Group and its restaurants/ acquisitions rather than him. He was briefly in the news regarding the California minimum wage issues and seems to be only known for that. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The company this individual founded, not the founder himself, is what is notable here. A review of the citations here only shows there are few that provide in-depth coverage of this individual. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 1 source is in-depth which is Forbes. The rest are interviews or passing mentions. I vote to delete. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with above editors. Although there is some news coverage, they are not the right type of coverage. They are mostly interviews, quotations and primary. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Greg-Flynn-Owns-1-245-Restaurants-and-Makes-2-13900429.php SFGate gives significant coverage about him and his accomplishments. Dream Focus 18:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The SFGate Article also contains many quotations and appears to be based on an interview. It is unfortunate that wiki policies do not count interviews towards notability, but we must follow the policies. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. I don't see anywhere against interviews being used to determine notability. Coverage is coverage. A reliable source thought they notable enough to cover, then that counts. Dream Focus 01:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So, the sources are really obvious and are already in the article. I was planning on adding these really in depth and obvious indicators of notability to the article, but they were already there, leaving me perplexed.
These sources are entirely about his life. Yes, they're also going to talk about the company he founded that literally is named after him. The fact that he founded such a successful business is what makes him notable. And, yes, news articles about people are going to include quotes from them. That doesn't make them interview articles. An interview is an article that is entirely just question and response. None of these are that. The claims made by those above would be equivalent to saying Jeff Bezos isn't notable because any article about him is also going to discuss Amazon. It's nonsense. That's not how notability works. SilverserenC 23:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarik Minasyan edit

Sarik Minasyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find too much info on him in English or Armenian (I copy pasted his name in Armenian in Google). He seems to be an elected official but per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political officedoes not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. " Shinadamina (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Merlin edit

Chip Merlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I had declined this at AfC and still don't see references showing notability despite being moved to mainspace by another editor. CNMall41 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Law. CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject meets notability requirements for an athlete and has been covered in a variety of sailing publications and websites. I feel it is worth noting that off the bat CNMall41 immediately accused me without evidence of having a personal connection to the subject and seems to bear some personal grudge against this article, previously having said they would step away from being involved in the editorial process.Sailbanshee (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sports career coverage is notable and significant and subject has notable legal and writing career with well cited sourcesAnatomyoffear (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well cited and establishes notability as a prominent athlete in the world of yacht racing with a verified track record and unique, well documented story covered in a variety of independent, verifiable sources.Captbloodrock (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote. Since you moved to the main space, I am wondering if you can point out the references that specifically show how subject meets WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple articles covering subject in yachting and boating websites, coverage in major newspapers, documentation of subject competing and placing in major yachting events…Captbloodrock (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am asking for the specific ones. The ones that discuss him in-depth that are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. Are you able to point those out?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tampa Bay Times article, the Museler article(s), the article about his obtaining a new ship for an established boat racing team, the multiple articles about his participation and placing in races… I thought the original article author was being paranoid but I’m beginning to side with them there’s some bias on your part against this article’s subject. I believe this article meets notability requirements which is why I moved it. I’ve stated my case for such and won’t engage in any more nit-picking. You put the article up for a vote, let the vote decide.Captbloodrock (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a discussion, not a vote. As far as the WP:aspersions, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. If you are unable to point out specific references other than naming a publication, I am unsure how to further discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, you are talking about this Tampa Bay Times reference which is a routine announcement about his law firm. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well sourced and subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) for both his law career but especially sports athletic career, which the article documents and cites well with appropriate citations.IOProfessor (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Suarez Maceo edit

Willy Suarez Maceo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PERP. Also, he has only been charged, not convicted of a crime, so there's a chance that he's innocent. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's more in depth coverage after/if he's found guilty, then that's another story, but as of now this is in violation of BLPCRIME. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjog Waghere edit

Sanjog Waghere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE search on Sanjog Waghere has a lot of reliable hits but they are all about his candidacy in the 2024 Indian general election for Shiv Sena (UBT) making it a case of WP:BLP1E. Fails to meet GNG and NPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article itself has reliable links from before the candidacy. MrMkG (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nom. also failed WP:NPOL, If this were the criteria of Wikipedia. So today there would be an article about the candidates who stood and lost in every election. Come on and grow up please. Thanks you Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. To contest candidacy for political office, does not guarantee notability. The degree of significance of the subject and of his role whether as a 3 time corporator or a mayor of industrial city is not enough to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. few sources are present. I vote for deletion. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafique Sayed edit

Rafique Sayed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not passes WP:GNG. TheChronikler7 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and India. TheChronikler7 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete most references are not-reliable sources. Almost all titles have been doctored to sound like they are news articles about the subject when they are either about someone else (ie: the one titled "Rafique Sayed captured actress Shefali Shah on Vogue India" is actually "Shefali Shah on whether playing real-life characters limits or frees an actor’s creativity" and the only hit for Sayed is a credit for a single photo) or misrepresenting a non-rs source (ie:"Rafique Sayed article on Pixel Village" is actually just his own self-published Pixel Village profile). A draft of this article has already been rejected 3 times this month at Draft:Rafique Sayed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated the article with strong sources. The person is already notable.
The sources are not "strong"-that is why the draft was rejected 3 times already. You are still misrepresenting references by changing the title names to make it sound like they are news articles about Sayed, when they are actually about different people with at best a quick passing mention of Sayed and sometimes just a photo credit. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The draft was not rejected three times. It was declined three times, and has now been declined four times. If this article is kept, the draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, the draft should be kept. Not commenting yet on whether to keep the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Shining edit

Stewart Shining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion due to significant concerns regarding its notability and the reliability of its sources. Despite attempts to engage the community for improvements, the article suffers from critical issues as outlined below:

Broken Links or Unavailable Sources: The article relies heavily on sources that are either broken or inaccessible, undermining the verification process. Key examples include:

Sports Illustrated cover, 2001 (link) - broken. "Phuket, Thailand, October 2000" by The Advocate, HighBeam Research, Inc., February 3, 2004 - inaccessible. "By Stewart Shining, for Time Out (February 1996)" from natalieportman.com - archived and unavailable. Other broken or archived sources include links from People Magazine, Rolling Stone, and celebrians.com covering various photo shoots and articles from 1996 through 2008.

Links That Do Not Verify Notability or Credibility: Several sources mention Shining's work but do not provide substantive discussion of his role or influence, failing to establish his notability. This includes articles like "Goddess of the Mediterranean" from CNN/Sports Illustrated and various brief mentions in Rolling Stone that do not analyze his impact in the field.

Overreliance on Primary Sources: The article predominantly uses primary sources, such as stewartshining.com and celebrians.com, which may introduce bias. These sources largely showcase the subject’s work without any critical analysis or third-party perspective, failing to meet the standards for reliable, independent verification of content. Misrepresentation of Roles or Inaccurate Information: The article includes claims not supported by reliable secondary sources, such as the subject's alleged significant roles with non-profits and major editorial contributions. For instance, a Wall Street Journal article titled "New Optimism for AIDS Activist" and information from Photo District News do not confirm his reported roles, creating potential misinformation.

Given the extensive reliance on problematic sources, combined with a significant lack of independent and reliable secondary coverage, the subject's notability cannot be adequately verified. Therefore, I recommend a discussion on whether this article should be retained, heavily edited, or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsoukorussie (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as pass notability and there's nothing wrong with offline sources. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atta Soja edit

Atta Soja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NBOX or GNG. Sources are database entries, press release with the same images, paid articles posted without bylines etc., Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarang Jain edit

Tarang Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard to meet WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bakhtar40, as a fairly inexperienced editor (131 edits), you need to read WP:BEFORE, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources". It is not just the sources actually used in the article that count. A simple Google search for Tarang Jain Varroc (he owns 86%) gives us:
https://www.forbes.com/profile/tarang-jain/?sh=5a0e545f2676
https://www.forbesindia.com/article/big-bet/twinwin-venture-how-tarang-jain-built-a-global-automotive-business/49915/1
https://www.forbesindia.com/article/leaderhip-awards-2013/tarang-jain-taking-risks-to-derisk-varroc/36383/1
https://www.autocarpro.in/feature/varroc-tarang-jain-autocar-professional-3428
https://www.themachinist.in/interviews/2333/investments-help-companies-stay-competitive
https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/companies/varroc-engineering-striving-for-double-digit-margin-by-end-of-fy24-says-cmd-17046041.htm
There are plenty more. And who knows what else in Hindi, etc? Edwardx (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sindh Premier League edit

2024 Sindh Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT. The tournament doesn't have official status with no lasting effect. RoboCric Let's chat 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Evans edit

Marion Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Yadav edit

Rahul Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Press Releases and announcements. Most of the news is about his firm. The news are about the company. Or it will be better to Redirect this article on Housing.com. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwinder Singh edit

Ashwinder Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) edit

AfDs for this article:
David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden, or Delete. Case of WP:BLP1E that was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (2nd nomination), but it was recreated. Referencing is very poor (there are no quality RS that cover the subject in any SIGOV outside of being in lists of famous winners). I tagged the article a year ago and suggested it should be redirected as IPs were constantly adding badly referenced WP:PROMO material about his other business interests, but when I WP:BOLDLY redirected it a few days ago, having not had any response to my notices, User:Robert McClenon felt it was better to send to AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only seeing now that it was also at AfD a third time (that AfD wasn't logged on the Talk Page) where it was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (3rd nomination). Having read the sourcing that was provided for the 3rd AfD, I think it was pretty weak, and a redirect, to his entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden would be a better solution. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 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. McNear, Claire (2020). Answers in the Form of Questions: A Definitive History and Insider's Guide to Jeopardy!. New York: Twelve. ISBN 978-1-5387-0232-1. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes about Bruce Lou: "As a student, he’d done quiz bowl, the team trivia competition often found in scholastic settings, and won the National History Bee—a contest organized by David Madden, who was a nineteen-time Jeopardy! champion in 2005—and Lou found himself missing the competition."

      The book notes: "As Watson entered crunch time, Jeopardy! granted IBM access to notable champions from years past, including nineteen-time winner David Madden, whose streak was second only to Ken Jennings’s at the time. Madden played two games against Watson.“"

      The book notes: "A number of Jeopardy! alumni’s new chapters, perhaps unsurprisingly, have to do with trivia. David Madden was a twentythree-year-old grad student when he first played, and as he left the studio after his twentieth game with vouchers totaling more than $430,000, he wasn’t sure what he wanted to do. ... A quiz bowl alum, he ultimately used his winnings as seed money to found International Academic Competitions, which hosts, among other things, the annual National History Bee and Bowl."

      The book notes: "David Madden, the nineteen-time champion, remembers auditioning in the Jeopardy! studio in May 2004. With him was a friend named Jeff Hoppes, who was called to be on the show just before Madden and ultimately became one of the final victims of Ken Jennings, coming in second in the seventieth game of Jennings's seventy-four-game winning streak. Hoppes, Madden says, first played quiz bowl in high school when he was a classmate of Rutter's, and then went on to marry eventual six-time Jeopardy! champion and Tournament of Champions runner-up Larissa Kelly. Madden, Rutter, and Kelly made up the winning team in the All-Star Games."

    2. Grant, Meghan (2019-03-04). "'Jeopardy!' All-Star Games finals include Ridgewood native". North Jersey Media Group. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "This Bergen County person is competing in the "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games this week. ... Who is former champion David Madden of Ridgewood? Among the former champs will be Madden, a member of Team Brad, one of the six trios of top players in the tournament. ... Back in 2005-2006, Madden won $432,400 in 19 rounds in a row — the third-longest winning streak in the game — earning a rank among "Jeopardy!" top players. ... Madden founded International Academic Competitions, running about a dozen contests in 30 countries, including the National History Bee and National Science Bee, hosting tens of thousands of students. Former players have gone on to "Jeopardy!" teen and college tournaments, and five staffers have won on the show."

    3. Grant, Meghan (2019-03-05). "Ridgewood native David Madden and Team Brad win 'Jeopardy!' All-Star Games". North Jersey Media Group. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "Ridgewood native David Madden and his partners on Team Brad won a decisive victory on "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games, and the $1 million prize. ... Madden earned a spot on the All-Star Games roster by winning 19 rounds in a row in 2005 and 2006, the third-longest winning streak in the show’s history. He was “drafted” by team leader Brad Rutter, along with Madden’s former Princeton classmate, Larissa Kelly. ... Madden used some of his first "Jeopardy!" winnings, a $432,400 pot, as start-up money, going on to found International Academic Competitions."

    4. Coutros, Evonnie (2005-09-23). "Ridgewood grad strikes it rich on 'Jeopardy!'". The Record. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Former Ridgewood resident David Madden hit the jackpot this month, but it wasn't in the lottery. Madden, a 1999 graduate of Ridgewood High, had a 19-day winning streak on "Jeopardy!" and walked away from the game show with more than $430,000 in cash. Madden, 24, a graduate of Princeton University, lost to a 24-year-old self-employed musician from Decatur, Ga. The episode aired earlier this week. ... Madden, who now lives in Berlin, is studying for an advanced degree in international relations at Frei University."

    5. Daugherty, Haley (2023-02-17). "Greater Latrobe Senior High School to host national quiz competition". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "International Academic Competitions was started in 2010 by Jeopardy winner David Madden. He and his wife, Nolwenn Madden act as executive directors and they expanded the competition globally in 2012."

    6. Adams, Caralee J. (2013-07-01). "Reviving History Instruction: What's Old Is New Again". Education Week. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "With the goal of engaging students more deeply in history, David Madden, a “Jeopardy” champion and former high school and college quiz-bowl player, established the National History Bee & Bowl in 2010. Now in about 2,000 schools—elementary through high—individual Bee competitions and Bowl events are held throughout the country. Mr. Madden, 31, discovered there was plenty of demand."

    7. Ferguson, Mike (2014-02-08). "'I'll take history for $1,000, Alex': Founder of history bowl attends Montana competition". Billings Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "Montana high school history buffs can thank David Madden’s 19-day winning streak on the game show “Jeopardy!” nine years ago for the chance to show off their own knowledge Saturday at Skyview High School. Madden, 32, is founder and executive director of the National History Bee and Bowl, an individual and team competition with about 50,000 participants in more than 200 places around the country and overseas, too. About 60 students competed all day Saturday in the state championship held in Skyview’s theater. ... Madden, a graduate of Princeton University, founded the organization four years ago on his more than $400,000 in winnings on America’s most famous quiz show."

    8. Zarnowski, Tatiana (2011-02-28). "Saratoga Springs competition will test knowledge of history". The Daily Gazette. Archived from the original on 2014-07-22. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "National History Bowl and Bee, a private, for-profit startup company, is based in Ridgewood, N.J., where owner David Madden is from. The company conducted a pilot competition there in May. In 2005, Madden reigned in a 20-game run on “Jeopardy!,” the second-longest ever after Ken Jennings, who had a 74-game winning streak."

    9. Strauss, Robert (2005-10-09). "Worth Noting; I'll Take Quiz Kids For $600, Alex". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "Mr. Madden was the captain of the Quiz Bowl team at Ridgewood High, and was on a similar freshman team at Princeton."

    10. Pakkala, Tiffany (2008-01-10). "'Jeopardy' winner turns to hiking with a purpose". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: ""Jeopardy" fans remember him as the calculating young trivia expert who won 19 times on the game show and left with winnings more than $442,000, in part because he sought out the "Daily Double" early to maximize his cash. Now David Madden, 26, is crunching numbers for a different reason: He's hiking 3,000 miles to help raise money for a group that offers free and low-cost lodging to hospitalized soldiers and their families."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Madden to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these refs is WP:SIGCOV on the subject in a major regional/national media outlet - none.
No main regional or national American news outlet thinks he is notable enough to do a piece on him - if they don't think he is notable, why do we?
Passing mentions, and mostly for the BLP1E, in small media outlets, is not the General notability guideline. If that was the case we could get rid of BLP1E as a guideline as most cases have such coverage. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject received significant coverage in 2005, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020, and 2023. A person who falls under WP:BLP1E does not receive sustained significant coverage over 18 years for his activities.

He was a nineteen-time Jeopardy! champion in 2005. He founded the International Academic Competitions, which hosts the annual National History Bee and Bowl. He competed in and with his partners won the "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games in 2019. A person who has received significant coverage for multiple events does not fall under WP:BLP1E.

The subject is from New Jersey. The subject received significant coverage in a 2020 book published by Twelve. He received significant coverage in a 2014 article in Billings Gazette, the largest newspaper in Montana. He received significant coverage in a 2008 article in the Savannah Morning News, a regional newspaper that covers the Savannah metropolitan area and parts of South Carolina. He easily meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.

Cunard (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But he hasn't received any significant coverage. If WP:GNG was "significant number of passing mentions in non-national/regional sources", then he would be a keep. But the requirement is for "significant coverage", and in quality sources (of which there is also none).
I could create an AI to scan 3rd tier US media to find names briefly mentioned (many of which will have a BLP1E element), and I could create 1 million more Wikipedia BLPs in the morning, but I would probably be in ANI shortly after.
No encyclopedia outside of Jeopardy! fan sites, will ever have an article on this subject. His entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden captures everything that is notable about his BLP1E. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources such as Pakkala 2008, Ferguson 2014, Grant 2019a, and McClear 2020 are not passing mentions. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Cunard (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no requirement on WP:SIGCOV for sources to be "a major regional/national media outlet"; topics can be covered locally and still be notable. WP:NOTPAPER. —Ost (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourcing identified by Cunard is lasting and diverse in its source markets. I think this is beyond BLP1E territory. Star Mississippi 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Archibald edit

AfDs for this article:
Todd Archibald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article recreated by WP:SPA following deletion a year and a half ago. I am bringing this to the community's attention. I am personally a weak delete: somewhat accomplished person, but I think it falls a little short of our notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This still isn't properly sourced as getting him over WP:GNG — nine of the 13 footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the four hits that come from real media aren't about him, but just glance off his existence in the process of being about people or organizations that had cases come to his courtroom, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG if he isn't actually their subject. Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. mostly primary sources. Hkkingg (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Procedural) -- concensus can change, but not likely within 6 months. There were good keep arguments before and good delete arguments then too. But let's not go through the whole process again so soon. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only plausible argument for keeping (ultimately not successful) in the previous AfD was per WP:AUTHOR, as an author of legal textbooks. But nobody making that argument linked to any published reviews and I couldn't find any. The current version doesn't even mention the books. The previous deleted version also noted that he was the editor-in-chief of Advocates Quarterly, but to make a case for WP:PROF#C8 we would need to argue that it is a major journal and we don't even have an article about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguements at the last AFD Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Lopes edit

Brendan Lopes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO. The subject has coverage only for winning a private island. No other significant coverage on his works or states any importance for an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunarso edit

Sunarso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage or importance on the subject to have an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Sinha edit

Anurag Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially tagged this for UPE for cleanup but after it was challenged by two SPAs, and at the request of one, I dug further into cleanup. The issue is that the references, other than this, are not reliable to show notability. Everything is mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, press releases, churnalism, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. I removed some WP:FAKEREFerences prior but kept everything else in tact so the AfD could be judged based on how it sits currently. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41
I think you are indulging in provocation to prove you’re correct. Please refer this case to senior editors and administrators for opinion. My knowledge about Wikipedia rules is limited. However this nomination for deletion seems fishy. Hope fellow editors will objectively contribute to sort this, whatever is right.
Request to refer to the Talk Page of Anurag Sinha to understand the case. His notability and credibility is vouched and acknowledged.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixing001, Don't worry this ADF discussion will surely closed by an Administrator of Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @CNMall41
I would really like to contest your decision to provocatively send the article for deletion, while I was engaging in a meaningful conversation with you in the talk page. I will also request the inclusion of other editors and administrators to have a look at this case as I feel that this step may have been influenced due to reasons while this could have been avoided certainly for an actor who has a valid presence and calibre in the indian films industry.
Please have a look at the references right from 2008 till 2023 where these references are attributed from TOI, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Organisational bodies, Etimes, Recognised Production Houses and International Film Festivals, Directors and fellow actors from the industry of India.
While some citations may come from a list of as you call “Paid Media”, there is a plethora of other google search articles and references in the article where the subject is not in ‘Mentionary terms’, but actuality a major point of interest.
Articles by reputed journalists of India, like Mr Subhash K Jha, Mr Khalid Mohammad and other prominent journalists have done interviews and wrote articles on ‘Anurag Sinha’. His recent Best Actor Award in International Film Festivals is also merited by TOI and PTI, ANI News, The Week, Zee5 News etc.
While, you discredited the article and the subject 2 months earlier accusing of Paid Creation, why did you not send it for deletion then itself when proper cleaning of language and any inkling of promotional intent was also removed by myself.
I had only requested you remove the “paid template” and present any transactional proof made by the user/article subject for creating the page, to which there is still no evidence provided by you. You have stated the ‘creator of the page’ has been flagged, but that does not mean that all articles created by the creator are false and paid, when the merit of this particular artist/actor is recognised by a mass audience and people of his industry.
However, I again repeat that today seems out of hasty decision, you have altered the article by your edits which are not justified. This article is on my watchlist and some removals are uncalled and was not needed at all. While you also have wrongly exercised your rights to put templates and send the page for deletion. Why?
Also, for clarification of my interest in the article, I certainly am interested in the work of actors and indian film industry and will want to contribute positively towards it.
As a responsible Wikipedia editor, I again would address you to clean the page, if you find it dissatisfying. According to me, all current references are reliable third part sources that are not just mentioning, but are talking about the subject or acknowledging the achievements of the subject.
I trust this process and hopefully this matter will be justly resolved. I will also invite other editors and experienced editors to engage in its resolution.
Thanks Fixing001 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article must be uploaded back and edited with supervision. The article subject is legit. DSTR123 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that DSTR123 and Fixing001 might be the same individual, given that the DSTR123 account was created today following this nomination and has only posted this comment thus far. Grabup (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup:, They likely are. SPI filed here. I believe the image uploads are a pretty good trail of breadcrumbs. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on my checking, I've discovered that sources are only WP:NEWSORGINDIA and press releases, sponsored articles, and interview pieces can't establish notability at all. The individual clearly doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG due to a lack of comprehensive coverage on the subject. Grabup (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Keep’’’ - The article subject has a 16year career where he has recently won Best Actor Awards in his field at International Film Festivals in New Jersey and Toronto. The notability can’t be debated with the individual being working with premium indian production houses like Mukta Arts, Emmay Entertainment, Applause Entertainment, T Series etc in leading roles with directors and co-stars who are also having a sterling background.. like Subhash Ghai, Anil Kapoor, Nikkhil Advani, Shefali Shah, Purab Kohli etc. The article references are cited from the premier news agencies of indian media viz..Times of India, HT, Rediff, The Week, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Money Control, The Print etc. Mostly all the articles in India media are cited with references from the above agencies, if that’s the case, we may need to delete every article in Indian Films section.

This article must be added with citations available in the public domain and be made available. It’s a KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - There is enough information on public domain for the credibility of the actor. The article needs more citations. Not all artist must have a comprehensive coverage, consistent qualitative work over a sustained period with accreditation from international film festivals and other platforms must be taken in account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E5:1041:EA04:B517:90B9:EDEE:D31E (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions (one for which he was nominated for a FF award; another that received minor awards; which also contributes to prove the roles were significant); his role in P.O.W. – Bandi Yuddh Ke can also be considered significant. So, at least 3. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with other AfD's I have requested this, can you show me the specific references that show notability? Simply having "various significant roles in notable productions" does not grant notability, it only says they "may be considered notable." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Here are just some of the articles that are published where the actor is talked and discussed in a positive prominent light and not merely in mentionary terms. This merely are a few articles from only one of the indian publications, Times of India, TOI Entertainment.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/kill-terrorism-not-the-terroristshubash/articleshow/2849557.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-in-black-and-white/articleshow/2917175.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/genres-dont-matter-says-anurag/articleshow/3184943.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/i-think-i-can-handle-the-curiosityanurag/articleshow/2864389.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/actor-anurag-sinha-to-marry-on-nov-19/articleshow/5156245.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-sinha-wins-best-actor-award-feature-for-shadow-assassins-at-alternative-film-festival-toronto-altff-2023/articleshow/104649337.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/subhash-ghai-feels-inspired/articleshow/3973118.cms?_gl


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/star-plus-p-o-w-bandi-yuddh-ke-gets-3-new-faces/articleshow/56625506.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anil-is-jealous/articleshow/2787866.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/another-honour-for-subhash-ghai/articleshow/3900541.cms?_gl


Again, all this issue of notability was only brought by the editor who flagged the article, when was requested on the Talk page to remove the paid templates as there was no citation of proof for payment by the artist in discussion for a period of two months or so. I still am not clear why is it happening here, where the article on this actor in discussion can easily be expanded with reliable reference and citations that are available on the public domain.

My perspective - The India media is suffering with the malady of copying and publishing information from one source to another and is suffocating genuine talents and films with the issue of paid marketing and publicity. If Wikipedia doesn’t provide a platform like its own of credible acknowledgement to authentic artists/talents, soon must find it surfeit with articles on Arts & Entertainment , that are already influenced and published under bias and discreet funding from production houses. Why are we not calling out the ones overtly known ? As for this article, this feels like a pitiful hassling over an unjust removal of a credible and relevant indian talent.

Comment Times of India is totally not reliable when it comes to BLP. They are known for their paid editing and promotional material. See WP:TOI and WP:RSN archives. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olanrewaju Smart edit

Olanrewaju Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL (WP:NSUBPOL), sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In short, the offices being occupied by the subject do not guarantee notability under WP:NPOL and fail WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives is a notable position in Nigerian politics. His successor Jake Dan-Azumi also has a Wikipedia article. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Batmanthe8th Oh, thank you for bringing my attention there. Under what criteria do you think COSs are notable? They do not fall under any and have to pass WP:GNG which this one and the one you have pointed me to utterly fails. Even the COS page is AfD-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall accepting the COS page a while back on the generous side due to its notable role in Nigerian politics. I didn't nessesarily imagine the individual people getting their own articles unless they were notable for something else, though. TheBritinator (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: being the Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives and Senior Special Assistant to the President are notable positions. I know all of the Senior Advisor to the President of the United States are considered notable, so why not Nigeria especially that this article have good sources to confirm WP:42 FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Six out of 8 of the current sources are pieces about being the new chief of staff which do not pass SIGCOV. I am sure all the senior advisors to the President of the United States are not inherently notable, but they all appear pass GNG clearly. This is not the case here. This subject is not inherently notable and also fails GNG. Also, CoS to a HoR is not to be compared with a CoS-ish position to the President of a country, who is the number one citizen of that country. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is where we differ. I think some positions make you inherently notable even if there is zero English sources. If I can draw parallels, for academic being a Fellow of the Royal Society automatically makes notable, regardless. You are within your rights to disagree especially that the Wikipedia:Notability (politics) has failed. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails WP:NPOL.Chief of Staff must meet WP:GNG OR any other WP:SNG. Shoerack (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkosana Makate edit

Nkosana Makate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product of WP:BLP1E. Yes, the subject has been making the news in the past few months but this is all just 15 minutes of fame. WP:ATD, a redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" would make sense. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Africa, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this case been in the news for years, not months. It has been extensively covered in WP:RS for that time. So the nomination description of it as “15 minutes of fame” is inaccurate. Makate may, or may not be notable in terms of WP:BLP1E but the case almost certainly is. Park3r (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Park3r, the case may be notable. However, I don't think Nkosana Makate is, the article is composed of this particular case only. Opening statement says "…is a South African who proposed the "Buzz" idea to Vodacom", no description nor WP:SIGCOV, and back to the nom, this is a clear BLP1E. Until relevant sources are brought to light, I think redirecting the article to Vodacom is the way to go. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure I understand the deletion rationale here. The case is definitely notable and as much as Nkosana Makate may not be notable but he definitely deserves a mention in the case because after all he is the central figure to the case. Also, seeing that most articles on Wikipedia are about Europe and U.S and there is a serious lack of African content (including content on languages) I think it would have been wise for you Dineo to be bold fix the issues on this article and go on to translate it to your mother tongue than tag it for speedy deletion. Wikimedia ZA is there to support African Wikimedian like yourself to increase African content and languages on Wikipedia. Please reach out to me on bobby.shabangu@wikimedia.org.za to talk more on how we can support you. Bobbyshabangu talk 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bobbyshabangu, yes he may be the central figure but this is pure WP:BLP1E (meaning he's known for one event only) which is the deletion rationale here. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if there was something I could do to improve it. Nkosana Makate is already mentioned on Vodacom#Please Call Me. Note that your comment does not support your "keep" !vote in any way. dxneo (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. As I read the "Keep" vote, the editor is rejecting the deletion nomination without arguing the specific points of it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Ivanov (model) edit

Vladimir Ivanov (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model, fails WP:NMODEL. Both references are from 2013 (one is broken). Doesn't seem to have his models.com profile updated since 2017. Does not meet wp:ANYBIO or wp:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Etemadi edit

Ebrahim Etemadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ebrahim Etemadi likely doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the mentioned sources might not be reliable enough. Waqar💬 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Unaegbu edit

AfDs for this article:
Jeff Unaegbu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came about this article during clean up and saw it's contains a bit vague and non verifiable content. Taking into cleaning up, I became tired at the line seeing almost if not all the sources lacks editorial guidelines, perhaps doesn't go with our policy and guidelines for reliable sources.

On the other hand, apart from the quality percentage of primary sources linking to book that were self published in the platforms such as Amazon, etc., the article generally doesn't meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV, and it contains a bit hoaxes that were made (those like references/acclaims which I have removed when cleaning part of the article). The article in general doesn't conform with Wikipedia's inclusion for authors, journalist too—since he edited a magazine and has written for some magazines per the article. Lacks verifiable source and seem looking like a advert/promotional/vaguely constructed source, and more.

The books he wrote doesn't meet our guidelines for books, so we may try redirecting or WP:PRESERVE albeit there is nothing to be preserved here. I also discovered the previous AFD that reads 'no consensus', and it seems there were no improvement or rather say; the previous AFD seeking for clean up which I've did to some part and found no substantial need for the inclusion of this article. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Vitale edit

Renzo Vitale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar A. Ayaz edit

Iftikhar A. Ayaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. @AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting WP:BASIC: "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." AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeseha Wuraola Becky edit

AfDs for this article:
Adeseha Wuraola Becky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has not starred in a single notable film; a Google search of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are primary sources that involve the subject granting interviews to several publications. The article was previously deleted via an afd discussion, which can be seen here.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't G4 on a prod/soft delete. Desertarun (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The refs check out. She doesn't pass Nactor, nor does she need to because she passes both Basic and GNG. Desertarun (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact there is that there isn't much verifiable source(s) to verify whether she acted those films or not, that's part of WP:NBASIC. For the refs, there are WP:ROUTINE like made from interviews, etc and points towards WP:MILL—not notable for now! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas Puranik edit

Shreyas Puranik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, appears not notable. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article i would like to suggest keep, as it passes WP:MUSIC. The musical artist have received full fledged coverage from independent media sources for his work such as [3], [4], [5].[6]. Further the artist also passes one of the criteria of winning or being nominated for a notable award, as he won the notable Filmfare R. D. Burman Award in the category of upcoming music talent.[7][8]

Hineyo (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are either paid placement or Press Releases. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Note - This account (Hineyo) is blocked. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked for 24 hours. That doesn't invalidate their opinion on that basis alone. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pass WP:MUSIC, Also, there are significant reliable sources availabe which talks about the subject. Grabup (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He has won awards which indicate notability and the articles references indicate sufficient coverage InDimensional (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please share best three references ?

Ossanda Liber edit

Ossanda Liber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable
Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Dring edit

James Dring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD requested, but denied for being Grammy nominated. However, WP:ANYBIO requires winning once, or being nominated multiple times. Is twice good enough? I read multiple as something greater than two. So, fails ANYBIO. Even more, none of the references pass WP:SIRS, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Sources are database entries and press releases. No significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — to add to what UtherSRG said, he was nominated for one Grammy, not two, together with four other people. Also, the article is by a banned sockpuppet and paid editor, which we shouldn’t reward. — Biruitorul Talk 18:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per this link [9], as well as the Grammy nomination, he has been nominated for a Golden Globe. Also - clearly WP:MUSICBIO applies here. ResonantDistortion 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With named nominations for two three notable awards, that is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO#8. There's also sufficient WP:RS to show the subject meets WP:COMPOSER#1. I have cleaned up the article including removing non-RS citations and adding several more, which may not be multiple lines in depth but do contribute per WP:BASIC, so any "whiff" of paid editor contribution no longer applies. ResonantDistortion 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per the Billboard reference just added to the article - Dring was a named credit in the nomination of the Feel Good Inc. Grammy award. So he does have two Grammy nominations, plus the Golden Globe; I've updated my !vote. ResonantDistortion 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per ResonantDistortion. X (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete also per WP:NOTINHERITED. Article is rife with the requisite heavy namedropping and coattailing (Jamie T in particular) in attempt to cover for lack of individual notability and weak press-release sourcing. Being nominated just once for a soundtrack song all the way back in 2010, signing an agreement, and his recent production for an unknown indie artist (Terra Twin) aren't enough for SIGCOV. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 00:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) "all the way back in 2010" The date of the Grammy nomination is irrelevant as per WP:NTEMP, (2) Dring has been a Grammy nominee twice not once, the first in 2005, which is verified by a RS in the article, (3) The reason the article is "rife with the requisite heavy namedropping" is because the subject has made credited and verified contributions to a number of notable works, (4) two credited grammy nominations does rather indicate that notability by association does not apply, and (5) There are c. 14 words devoted to Jamie T, which does not appear undue, given that, for example, on the album Trick "sees Jamie T play all instruments alongside longterm collaborator James Dring" ([10]). I know I am probably repeating myself, but WP:BASIC, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER all apply. ResonantDistortion 07:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG. Can’t find independent reliable sources giving significant coverage. Contributor892z (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This discussion is leaning towards Delete but I don't see a rebuttal to the assertion that this subject meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. It's also common for subject in music production to mention artists they have worked with and albums they have produced so that doesn't seem like name-dropping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ameer edit

Abdul Ameer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This guy fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. A search seems to only one article with his name in it and it only covers him tangentially. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan edit

AfDs for this article:
Mehr Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.
also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 27 April 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu edit

François Mathieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu, a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 April 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.

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena edit

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald edit

Michele Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable for only winning Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge, where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:BIODELETE. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think more independent reliable source are needed.--Meligirl5 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do independent reliable sources make BLP1E or BIO1E inapplicable? Even meeting WP:N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion because of her performance in both of her Survivor seasons, but I agree more independent reliable sources are needed. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meligirl5 and JohnAdams1800: What are your thoughts on redirecting the article to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, an alternative to deletion? George Ho (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this because I love survivor. 75.132.100.119 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would suggest the article should be move to draft space, since she seems to be notable for a particular event but fails WP:GNG. Maybe before the 6 months time more proof of notability would have been gathered for the subject to be on the main space. If no improvement after 6 months, the draft page will be deleted as per wikipedia draft page policy under WP:G13.--Meligirl5 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strictly Ballroom (band) (3rd nomination)[reply]

People proposed deletions edit


Academics and educators edit

Kristina M. Barkume edit

Kristina M. Barkume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rejected speedy deletion. Non notable academic. Fails GNG, WP:NACADEMIC Acebulf (talk | contribs) 00:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Onouye edit

AfDs for this article:
Barry Onouye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Writing a few non-notable books doesn't really make you notable, especially as not scientific or media sources seem to exist. It's been 14 years since the issue has been raised. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. I missed this, but the first nomination closed as no consensus. Frankly, I feel the delete case is stronger here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minesh Mehta edit

Minesh Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written as an advert for a radiation oncologist. Possible COI edits by User:Anniyam and User:Pikar 81. GobsPint (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G. E. Kidder Smith edit

G. E. Kidder Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:NBIO, only sources that I could find is one book from 2022 [11] (already cited extensively in the article, and authored in part by is grandson), and his obituary [12] in the NYT. Most of the contents of the article were added by one IP and do not look verifiable. His son Hopkinson Smith looks notable though. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan Aliyev edit

Subhan Aliyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • NO GNG. Created for advertising and PR purposes. The article is submitted for deletion as there are grounds for its deletion.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user's (Correspondentman) right to edit on Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been indefinitely restricted by administrators. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad edit

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After the cruft was removed, it seems there's nothing that supports WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No significant independent RS coverage that I could find. Only hits in WP:LIBRARY are his research papers and a quote in Men's Health about growth hormone therapy. His book is self-published and I couldn't find any reviews. That leaves us with WP:NPROF criteria. I think the research impact criterion is the only one that might apply, but I'm unfamiliar with the subject area so will leave that for others to evaluate. Jfire (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jfire, others, I do not see signs of significant academic impact here. I see on Google Scholar several papers with a moderate number of citations, but in a medium-to-higher citation field. (Even in a lower citation field, I'm generally looking for several papers with more citations than the highest cited one I see of his.) Awards listed in the article are all WP:MILL, as is membership on an editorial board. I was cursory in checking NAUTHOR and GNG, but did not quickly see a pass. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sadeghi-Nejad is one of the most notable experts in the field of pediatric endocrinology, globally, and his publications support that. A niche medical field does not have the same number of citations as more general research areas. In addition, the book Dreams of Persia is an important contribution to Persian-American culture and linguistic heritage. KatMaldon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — KatMaldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yohanna Bako edit

Yohanna Bako (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Sources are either song releases, PRs, promo puff from primary sources, or clearly not independent of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - graduate assistants are basically never considered under WP:PROF guidelines, so we're looking at GNG or NMUSICIAN. I don't see a pass there. Guardian.ng seems to publish press releases as is under their name. If it were a real story, it would count towards notability, but real news stories don't end with "Dr. Yohan and TAP are thrilled to share this masterpiece with the world." -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loralee Larios edit

Loralee Larios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only potentially distinguishing characteristic of this early career academic is an Ecological Society of America Early Career Fellowship, which, honestly, ain't anything very remarkable. The rest of her work shows busy engagement with research and teaching but nothing that would satisfy WP:PROF. I don't see a sufficient notability basis here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Rönnbäck edit

Lars Rönnbäck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to reach WP:NACADEMIC. All of the reference are to their own company website, own publication or the usual academic databases. Scopus shows H-factor of 5, with highest number of citation for any paper being 26, for a 2010 paper. The affiliation at Stockholm is unclear, as they have no web presence there (suggesting that they are not a principle investigator). The prizes look like routine conference early career development prizes, insufficient to establish notability. The maths book doesn't seem notable either. A merge to Anchor modeling could be considered (their most notable contribution perhaps), but wouldn't help the subject at that page. Klbrain (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a bit harsh. Is there no other notability criteria that can be deemed suitable? Sauer202 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Computing, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly does not pass any WP:PROF criterion (and in particular not #C1, because the citations are not high enough in a high-citation field). He (or someone with his name) apparently won some local teaching award in 2010 [13] but that doesn't pass #C2. We have no independent in-depth coverage of him needed for notability through WP:GNG and my searches didn't turn up any. One book would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR and we don't have any of the published reviews of it that (together with reviews of other books) could be used for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: He is one of the persons "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" of anchor modeling.
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The local teaching award is in neurology, so it was probably awarded to this Lars Rönnbäck. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but my point is that the article has never claimed that he received a neurology award. Sauer202 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is one of the inventors of anchor modeling, a well-known data warehouse architecture, and is an active contributor in various open professional and social media channels about data warehouse architecture. I find it very weird that this should not meet any general notability criteria? Is this a competition about finding reasons to delete articles? Sauer202 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our anchor modeling article is entirely primary-sourced, and although searches for that term in Google Scholar have many hits, many of them appear to be for an unrelated technique in audio signal processing. I am not convinced that this is a significant enough contribution to give its inventor inherited notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't view anchor modeling as primarily academic, but primarily applied. It is true that the Wikipedia article about anchor modeling is sparse (and I plan to develop it further), but that can not be held against its creator. Anchor modeling is open source, and its concepts are taught independently by Nikolay Golov at Harbour.Space University.[14] Nikolay has many interesting videos on YouTube with interesting comparisons of data vault and anchor modeling. Anchor modeling is the only data warehouse modeling technique that is 6NF, and therefore I think notability is inherited to its contributor. Sauer202 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        If you think it's not academic work that he might be notable for, then you need to go through our notability criterion for people notable for non-academic work, WP:NBIO. That requires independent publications that provide in-depth coverage of the person, seemingly even harder to reach in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to add independent sources. Can you make a new assessment of whether it meets the threshold? Sauer202 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Bukoff edit

Allen Bukoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any sources on this guy anywhere. There are a few papers but they have few citations and he's hardly ever first or last author. WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC are both failed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and Michigan. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but the article does not even assert academic notability; it appears to be trying to claim that he is notable as a fine artist through having multiple works in notable collections. Fluxus is notable (and his connection to the movement can be documented [15]) but that does not give him inherited notability and he is not even mentioned on the Fluxus article. I'm not convinced that having copies of a newsletter kept in an academic library (see link above) is really the sort of thing that counts towards WP:ARTIST #4d, the way having individual paintings in major museums would count. He does have artworks, of a scale that would definitely count to #4d if they were in major museums [16] but the Coon Rapids Sculpture Park is not a major museum. If we could find similarly significant individual works by the subject, in multiple notable and bluelinked museums, I would likely have a different opinion, but my searches did not turn up any. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Singh Arha edit

Abhimanyu Singh Arha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward T. Jackson edit

Edward T. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic, without a lasting claim to relevance for the general public. Sadads (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cook (energy market strategist) edit

Chris Cook (energy market strategist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given this article has had verification issues for nearly 12 years, and the fact that none of the sources satisfy WP:GNG mostly because they either lack WP:DEPTH or aren't independent. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Weismann edit

Max Weismann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. None of the organizations he was affiliated with seem to be accredited in any way. Psychastes (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found only a paid obituary. Reviews for How To Think About the Great Ideas exist but are credited to Mortimer J. Adler rather than Weismann. Jfire (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Architecture, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak/Lean Delete (Awaiting more information) -- looking at Google Scholar I immediately came to the conclusion that there was enough to mount a keep argument. But looking more closely, it's tough. He has a complete tribute obituary in Studia Gilsoniana, a philosophy journal held in 188 libraries, which is generally enough for a WP:PROF:C1 evidence for impact in the world of scholarship. But as an e-journal, it is hard to tell if this is because of overzealous librarians who like to catalog (or subscribe to catalogs of) e-journals. "Music Theory Online," which is one of the top 3 journals of my field, but is free and (as the name says) online only, is in 1180 libraries -- none of the libraries actually "own" either of the journals. It's enough to contribute to notability, but not sure it's sufficient on its own. Then there are tons of tributes in less reputable sources all found on thegreatideas.org. Clearly Adler and A Syntopicon are notable, given the large amount of coverage, but I don't see Weismann's impact in any of the coverage. It could go either way, but my spidey-sense from participating in a lot of these is that it doesn't add up to enough for WP:PROF or GNG notability, and the fact that none of the articles that seem like a place to direct to mention Weismann helps my conclusion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this stage, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. If there are more sources, will be a different story MaskedSinger (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman edit

John Hoberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine McDermott edit

Catherine McDermott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and fails WP:PROF. Uhooep (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2 is "has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". (Emphasis mine.)
Criterion 3 is "has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor".
Times Higher Education reports McDermott as a National Teaching Fellow, "Fifty-five people working in universities have been named as the latest winners of the sector’s top honour for teaching and learning".[1]
Jonathan Deamer (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "National Teaching Fellows of 2015 are named". Times Higher Education (THE). 2015-06-11. Retrieved 2024-04-30.
I make the argument below that it is at least a contribution under C4 (significant contributions to higher education) even if the community does not choose to call it a C3 (scholarly society), which I would. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the presumption that the aforementioned National Teaching Fellowship does, in fact, qualify as a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society." I am unfamiliar with this fellowship though, and it might not meet the mark. If consensus is reached that it is not sufficient to meet these criteria, then I will change to Delete, as this person's notability seems to ride on this award. Updating to Keep based on David Eppstein's discovery of the reviews, and the Design Week profile. nf utvol (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reviews, towards a possible pass of WP:NAUTHOR, include [17][18]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, setting aside the question of whether the fellowship is significant. I found four reviews of two of her (many!) design books and added them to the article. Note that another book, Feel-Bad Postfeminism: Impasse, Resilience and Female Subjectivity in Popular Culture, is not hers: it's by a different Catherine McDermott, a lecturer of English at Manchester Metropolitan University. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR (Eppstein's argument) and also per WP:PROF: British-full professor at a well-regarded institution is at the level that are notable at a research level; the National Teaching Fellowship is sufficiently selective to count strongly towards a C4 (contributions to higher education) or C3 notability. About half the books are from presses that are selective in their publications. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Design historian Professor Catherine McDermott is one of design’s most prominent academics. I know nothing about design but I'm assuming the authors of this article in Design Week probably do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good find @Necrothesp RE: the Design Week article. That moves me from neutral to keep. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarolím Antal edit

Jarolím Antal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable "expert on social etiquette, state and diplomatic protocol", neglected and unused article. - Altenmann >talk 03:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Sorin Biris edit

Alexandru Sorin Biris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a GoogleScholar profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with h-index 66 and i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced. Turgidson (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified. Kannarpady, the WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal. [19][20] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations — a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's keep the discussion focused on the article and not the nominator; there's enough to unpack w/o looking at motives. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- the citation counts (in a high citation discipline) and one independent coverage of notability seem barely enough to keep the article. Yes, it has too many dependent sources and isn't our best article (though it is salvagable). The high citations of articles where he is last author (institution director) take away a tiny bit from his notability as a researcher but puts it exactly in notability as a director/leader in higher education research. I could, however, be persuaded to go to either a full keep or weak delete with more evidence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This Kannarpady who created this article seems to work for this person: https://ualr.edu/nanotechnology/about-us/researchers-and-staff/dr-ganesh-kannarpady/
    Seems like personal beef. I would delete this article SleeplessSeatle (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I see some highly cited papers, even in a higher citation field, but middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper doesn't convince me of so much. There are a couple of highly cited papers where Biris is last author, but one has been retracted for research misconduct. I did some work on trimming this down into shape (as did Turgidson), and it is no longer in WP:TNT territory, but the mess leaves me unconvinced of NPROF. There is definitely room for disagreement on this one, and I can also see policy-based arguments for keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Baker-Hytch edit

Max Baker-Hytch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics): (1) research does not have a significant impact (1 book recently published, no commentary on his work, less than 100 citations. (2) zero awards. (3) Not a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. (4) Nothing to indicate that anyone is discussing this person's work, let alone "academic work has made a significant impact"! (5) Not a distinguished professor, a postdoc and a tutor. (6) did not hold a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post. (7) mentioned once BBC Dorset for playing in a band, which he does not have a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (8) Not the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Checking the basic criteria, the article is compiled from his work (WP:Primary + the section about "Ideas" is pure original research, e.g., "Baker-Hytch contends that mutual epistemic dependence is an essential mechanism for human acquisition of knowledge with no citation. A few sentences later, there is a citation to a book that discusses the topic but not the person or the person's ideas. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section regarding mutual epistemic dependence is NOT a pure original research. If you read it carefully, you will find that J. L. Schellenberg's discussion on Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence Divine hiddenness: Part 2 (recent enlargements of the discussion) is cited. If you find yourself unable to get the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. Also, Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence is discussed by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Christianity, England, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Double-digit citation counts on Google Scholar fall below the bar for WP:PROF#C1. Being a Fellow at Oxford is just a teaching job, not the kind of honorary level of membership in a selective society (such as FRS) that would pass #C3. Reviewing for journals and occasionally getting cited in journals are things all academics do; our standards for notability are significantly above that level. Nothing else in the article even resembles a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Max Baker-Hytch is not only a fellow but a reputable academic and researcher at Oxford. His work is characterised by its depth and relevance, evidenced by its considerable, significant impact within the academic sphere. In addition, his research consistently maintains a high rate of citations, further solidifying the claim to keep his article. As a result, he obviously meets WP:PROF#C1 and the established criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck out your comment as you are only allowed a single keep or delete opinion in a deletion discussion. This is not a vote; more keeps and more repetition of the same claims will not help. It is a discussion to clarify how Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to this case and build concensus on whether Baker-Hytch does or does not meet those guidelines. You might also find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful advice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking out my comment is unacceptable and outrageous as it goes against a fair discussion on Wikipedia and the First Amendment.
    If I mistakenly make more than one KEEP, please delete the redundant KEEP but leave my comment intact. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk of the First Amendment brings into serious doubt the reliability of your judgment. EEng 17:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Max Baker-Hytch has written numerous academic papers, resulting in a total citation rate (of all papers) higher than 100. This impressive achievement reflects the impact and significance of his contributions to the academic sphere. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This promotional glurge reads like something an AI would write. [Comment referred to Special:Diff/1221275435 before it was edited to change what I replied to.] —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a human and not an AI, but I speak in a calm, formal manner. I am elaborating on my argument. Could you stop irrelevant distractions or personal attacks? We should focus on our clarification instead. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    100 citations isn't a high bar for a real academic in most fields. I have 88 at the moment, and I've never held a non-clinical faculty appointment. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are not from Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read carefully, you will find that I said his TOTAL citation rate is higher than 100, not only 100 but significantly higher than that. The total citation rate and discussions on all his papers are obviously above one thousand. You may use Google Scholar to search all his papers and relevance discussions. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2014 PhD. Citations are far short of WP:NPROF, even in a low citation field. I don't see reviews of the one book for WP:NAUTHOR, and it would likely be a WP:BLP1E anyway. Little sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to me that you have only considered his DPhil thesis and have neglected many papers written by him. The total citation rate and discussions of all his papers are higher than hundreds or thousands (see Google Scholar). Therefore, there is no doubt that he meets the WP notability criteria. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I specifically address the citation record above. I have examined the publication and citation record, and see nothing that is not WP:MILL. There is one paper with a good number of citations relative to career stage, and not much else. As I say, WP:TOOSOON (at best). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pesclinomenosomlos has apparently been canvassing this AfD to multiple user talk pages [21] [22] [23] and has been blocked as a result. Pesclinomenosomlos, once your block expires: do not do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TOOSOON is too generous. I see no evidence of coverage, let alone significant coverage. — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (if I'm allowed to !vote in these circumstances), there seems no reason to keep this article. I've no idea why I might have been canvassed to help keep the article, as I've not come across either editor or article subject; but since Pesclinomenosomlos has been indeffed, the matter is purely, er, philosophical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Max Baker-Hytch has the extensive Authority Control Databases. He is likely to have the potential to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • I noticed that Max Baker-Hytch is being discussed by many high profile academic journals, encyclopaedias and websites. For instance, IEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press and Research by the University of Birmingham.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk) struck comments of IP, now blocked for block evasion
    The Cambridge and Birmingham papers are the same paper. Are there any other sources? IEP and SEP mentions are good but quite brief. Shapeyness (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that the subject stands out from the field. The IEP and SEP mentions, for example, are entirely unremarkable; a couple brief statements to the effect that an academic wrote a thing are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. The text is heavily promotional, with boastful claims unsupported by the sources (e.g., His thesis [...] is considered a phenomenal contribution to the field). The ending line of the intro, saying that He also proactively defends Christianity [...] on social media, is either a truly pathetic angling for significance or damnation by faint praise. To delete will be a kindness. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inclusion in IEP and SEP articles is not nothing as those pages often detail only the more important contributions in a specific debate, but they are brief mentions and in a very niche subject matter. The same mostly goes for this Philosophy Compass article here doi:10.1111/phc3.12413. It seems the subject of the article is making some important contributions to a niche area of phil of religion but not really enough substantive analysis in RSes to support an article - WP:TOOSOON. Shapeyness (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:Too soon as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- per Too Soon. The citation numbers are almost enough for philosophy; it's a field where automated tools are very poor at picking up citation counts. But institutional position (tutorial fellow is not senior lecturer or professor) and lack of major awards says come back in 5-10 years. I'm generally a bit sad to delete articles that I'm pretty sure will legitimately come back w/ a clear notability in a few years, but this is sufficiently self-promoting that it'll probably be better to start again from scratch if that happens. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It really is way too soon for a page on this subject - does not yet meet the guidelines as per WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Melo e Castro edit

Paul Melo e Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan article with no evidence of notability. Lecturer does not meet WP:PROF and an h-Index of 4 means the research output had little impact. Tried to find book reviews to see if the subject could meet WP:NAUTHOR but I was only able to find this one and I don't think it's enough to qualify for notability. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV as well. Contributor892z (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Bartlett edit

Steven James Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, appears to be a vanity page Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However BLP is bloated and needs pruning to 20% of current. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete unless someone provides more RSes - the existence of Steven Bartlett (businessman) makes searching for sources quite annoying, but I managed to find a few. Here is an extended discussion of his book The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil but I'm not sure about the journal or if the reviewer is an independent source. Other sources I found are briefer mentions, e.g. [24][25], or I don't have access (also unsure about the journal here) [26]. Shapeyness (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- slightly over the notability level for WP:AUTHOR and right at the edge for WP:PROF, based on citations, appointments, and reviews. I actually disagree with Xxanthippe though on the pruning part. If the subject is notable then the information there is the type of thing someone looking up information about the subject (biography, etc.) would like to know. But that's for post AfD discussion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Author and passes WP:Prof, meets criteria 1,2. Like [27] respectfully disagree with Xxanthippe re the pruning part since biographers find this category of information important.
Additional references that refer to Bartlett’s published work, accessed today:
  1. Martin, B. (2020). "Tactics against scheming diseases." Journal of Sociotechnical Critique, 1(1), 1–20. https://social-epistemology.com/2019/01/31/technology-and-evil-brian-martin/
  2. Martin, Brian. "Evil institutions: Steven Bartlett’s analysis of human evil and its relevance for anarchist alternatives," Anarchist Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, 2021, pp. 88-110. [28]
  3. Meissner, W. W. "The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil. By Steven James Bartlett." Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Summer 2007), 267-268. [29]. Review begins with "The subject matter of this treatise is far-reaching and profound" and ends with the conclusion: "Psychologists and psychotherapists will find this a challenging and thought provoking approach that makes a significant contribution."
  4. Suarez, Alejandra Review of two books by Bartlett: "The worst devils of our nature." PsychCritiques, June 13, 2012, Vol. 57, Release 23, Article 2. [30]. "Because the books present such an unusual stance that can provoke thoughtful consideration of the accepted truths in psychology, I highly recommend them."
  5. Martin, Brian. "Technology and Evil." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 8, no. 2 (2019): 1-14. [31]
  6. Martin, Brian. "What if most people love violence?" Waging Nonviolence, 3 May 2019. [32]
  7. Martin, Brian. "Whistleblowers versus evil." The Whistle, No. 96, October 2018, pp. 4-5. [33]
  8. West, Marcus. Book review: "Bartlett, Steven James, The Pathology of Man." The Journal of Analytical Psychology, Volume 51, No. 3, June, 2006, pp. 486-7. [34]. Review ends with the conclusion "This is certainly a classic work of reference in the field."
  9. Martin, Brian. "When to Read a Heavy Tome." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11 (8), 2022: pp. 84-89. [35]
  10. Critique of Impure Reason by Steven James Bartlett cited in Ruffing, Margit. "Kant-Bibliographie 2020," Kant-Studien, vol. 113, no. 4, 2022, pp. 725-760. [36]
  11. García, Luis Felipe. "Introducción a Crítica De La Razón Impura: Horizontes De Posibilidad Y Sentido. Revista De Investigación Filosófica Y Teoría Social, Dialectika, 2021, 3 (7): pp. 63-70. Translation into Spanish of Bartlett’s book Critique of Impure Reason.[37].
  12. O’Kane, Aisling Ann; Park, Sun Young; Mentis, Helena; Blandford, Ann and Chen, Yunan. "Turning to Peers: Integrating Understanding of the Self, the Condition, and Others’ Experiences in Making Sense of Complex Chronic Conditions." Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 25, 2016, pp. 477–501. DOI 10.1007/s10606-016-9260-y. Discusses and cites Bartlett’s book, Normality Does Not Equal Mental Health. [38]
  13. Martin, Brian. "Research Grants and Agenda Shaping Research Grants and Agenda Shaping." In Allen, David M. and Howell, James W. (eds.), Groupthink in Science: Greed, Pathological Altruism, Ideology, Competition, and Culture (Springer, 2020), pp. 77-83. [39]
Toh59 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Evans edit

Marion Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Archibald edit

AfDs for this article:
Todd Archibald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article recreated by WP:SPA following deletion a year and a half ago. I am bringing this to the community's attention. I am personally a weak delete: somewhat accomplished person, but I think it falls a little short of our notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This still isn't properly sourced as getting him over WP:GNG — nine of the 13 footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the four hits that come from real media aren't about him, but just glance off his existence in the process of being about people or organizations that had cases come to his courtroom, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG if he isn't actually their subject. Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. mostly primary sources. Hkkingg (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Procedural) -- concensus can change, but not likely within 6 months. There were good keep arguments before and good delete arguments then too. But let's not go through the whole process again so soon. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only plausible argument for keeping (ultimately not successful) in the previous AfD was per WP:AUTHOR, as an author of legal textbooks. But nobody making that argument linked to any published reviews and I couldn't find any. The current version doesn't even mention the books. The previous deleted version also noted that he was the editor-in-chief of Advocates Quarterly, but to make a case for WP:PROF#C8 we would need to argue that it is a major journal and we don't even have an article about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguements at the last AFD Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror edit

AfDs for this article:
Ami Dror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000, Would you care to list your three "solid" references? Regards. X (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Account has made thousands of edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia though. Doesn't seem like a problem Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creepTalk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has nearly 50k edits on Hebrew wikipedia, and stated that they translate a lot of articles, quite likely just on their watchlist Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems to be fine on WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creepTalk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creepTalk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creepTalk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creepTalk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this. X (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zerotalk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creepTalk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zerotalk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.
  • Ref 1 [40] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 2 [41] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
  • Ref 4 [42] This is another interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 5 [43] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
  • Ref 6 [44] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
  • Ref 7 [45] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
  • Ref 8 [46] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
  • Ref 9 [47] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
  • Ref 10 [48] Another press-release Non-RS.
  • Ref 11 [49] An interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 12 [50] Business interview. It is not independent.
  • Ref 13 [51] Another interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 14 404
  • Ref 15 [52] A radio interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creepTalk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:
Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.
  • Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
  • Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
  • Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creepTalk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:
  • Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creepTalk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.
  • Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
  • Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
  • Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creepTalk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:
  • Ref 17 [56] Another interview. Its not independent.
  • Ref 18 [57] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
  • Ref 19 Non-rs
  • Ref 20 Non-rs
  • Ref 21 Unable to view it
  • Ref 22 [58] Its a passing mention.
  • Ref 23 Non-rs
  • Ref 24 [59] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
  • Ref 25 [60] Essentially a passing mention.
  • Ref 27 [61] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
  • Ref 28 [62] Doesn't mention him.
  • Ref 29 [63] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
  • Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
  • Ref 31 [64] A small profile. Not significant.
  • Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
  • Ref 34 Non-rs
  • Ref 35 [65] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 36 [66] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creepTalk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creepTalk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.

Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy. X (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis form my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards. X (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee edit

Robert McGee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barth edit

Stephen Barth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable lawyer/keynote speaker. Lack WP:GNG-style direct and in-depth coverage. DepreciateAppreciate (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not pass WP:NPROF by any stretch of the imagination. An academic doing what academics do, but not notably. Qflib (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our article lists two books coauthored by him, but I only found one published review of one of them [71]. If both had multiple reviews, we would at least have a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because both coauthored), but one review of one book is definitely not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with above editors. very weak news coverage. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions edit

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Deletion_sorting&oldid=1030861123"