Note: this page is purely an aggregation page of transclusions and not in the same format
as other Deletion Sorting pages. "Generic biographies" should be added to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People, which is transcluded directly below.
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to People. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Note: In most cases there is another, more specific category than this one.
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Deletion sorting|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Fails WP:NBIO and WP:CLERGY (note that the role of bishop in the LDS church closer to that of a Catholic Priest or a Methodist Minister, serving a only a local congregation, than to that of, e.g., a Catholic bishop, which is presumed notable). Sources consist of two articles mentioning Hamilton joining and leaving the Utah Parole board and his current employer's website. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best source is this article [11] but it is setting off promotional red flags for me. Why is a South African newspaper writing a profile of a Google West Africa employee with no connection to the country? Astaire (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Mentions appear to be at blogs, youtube, facebook, linked in, and some mentions in articles about fights he announced. None of that shows WP notability to me. Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CREATIVE. There are many people in history who have gone viral for one thing but it didn't make them long-term notable; ie WP:SINGLEEVENT. This article has no reason to stay. It is mostly about a controversy with another creative Bobrisky; which has this article leaning towards WP:PSEUDO. Besides him being known for cross-dressing in Nigeria (an act that would be reported by the blogs/websites/news regardless of the person), there is no point in this person having an article. It also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. There is no sources that are verifying this person as a professional dancer. There is a source that mentioned he released a single but it is not notable as it did not chart, receive award nominations/wins, or receive any music certifications. Sackkid (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. What a mess: it's like a games of Twelves meets a Battenberg pastry. As I've written dozens of times, autobiographies are almost always original research. I have complete sympathy with the subject, who is subject to discrimination I haven't seen in the United States in my lifetime. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, and I want to thank user Kerim Demirkaynak for bringing this to our attention. I removed the speedy deletion template. While I agree that it is probably a hoax, I'm not absolutely sure. I tried to locate sources, and came across [12]. While not suitable as a reliable source, this gives a lot more information about the subject than the Wikipedia article or any of its translations. That could be part of the hoax, but I believe that it warrants a closer look.
In User talk:Erdyuksel#re Küplüceli Öznur from February 2011, a few days after the creation of the English article, user Herostratus mentions a (no longer existing?) Turkish Wikipedia article, which apparently had additional content that Herostratus suggested might be used to expand the English article. I don't think anything ever came of that. Renerpho (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kerim Demirkaynak write on the article talk page that This article seems to be a hoax. The subject does not exist and was created as a joke or trolling by a university student. No verifiable sources exist. What evidence is there to corroborate those details, that the author created it as a joke and that they were a university student? Did they admit to writing the hoax somewhere? Renerpho (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I mean, look. For individual statements of fact, we aim for 99.3% confidence that it's true. That's the best we can humanly do. That is not met by facts of which it can be said "most probably true" let alone "could be true" or "might not be false". So, "While I agree that it is probably a hoax, I'm not absolutely sure" is um well short of the confidence we need to state a fact, let alone keep a whole article. The statement admitting guilt by the hoaxers, above, is pretty damning. It could itself be a hoax, but I doubt it. Finally, the Turks deleted their article in 2017. While that doesn't prove anything, it's not an endorsement for the article existing here if the Turks themselves don't want it. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. I've added back the speedy deletion template. Finding a source from close to the article's inception, with information that was not present in the article, was enough to cast doubts for me. It seems that all of that came from the Turkish article, which was longer than the English one. I've since found an archived version of that here. Renerpho (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been marked as requiring additional citations for verification since June 2021 and still only has one PDF draw sheet as a source. The person themselves had a very minor tennis career reaching world 518 in singles and world 510 in doubles at their peak and winning one extremely low level ITF doubles title. As such she fails GNG. On top of that I can find no SIGCOV for her and I would presume if there was any it would have been found and added in the four years since the needs additional citations tag was added to the page. The only thing I could find was a short bio for someone with the same name on a meet the coaches type page at a Chinese tennis academy but that person has a different date of birth to that which is listed on the Wikipedia page. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the ukranian version of this article is the same one, but in ukranian, so i think that there is not much we can do to make it a better article. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Content is very sparse and does not suggest significant coverage. I have worked extensively on articles related to the White House Office and Harrison has vexed me because he does not appear to have much coverage; even searching his name on Google News largely returns articles about his wife. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)05:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets criteria of WP:MUSIC: his songs have charted (e.g., "Sakhiyaan" with over 600 million views), he has been nominated for a notable award (PTC Punjabi Music Awards), and received substantial coverage in reliable sources, including recognition from Spotify. Notability is well-established. Cinelatina (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. Fails Wp:GNG and Wp:NMUSIC. No SIGCOV is available, just passing mentions and routine PR articles for the releases. There are two award nominations as well but both of them are non-notable and just nominations. Also, the article's creator was blocked as a sock and UPE. Zuck28 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This biography is far better-sourced than most of the other Articles for deletion, and I am opposed to a Western bias of deletion of non-Western topics. - Poof positive (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is demonstrated under WP:MUSIC. Subject has produced and composed for widely recognized artists and songs (e.g., "Sakhiyaan", "Sorry", "Saara India") released under independent labels. His production work has received broad exposure and coverage, confirming his significance in the Punjabi music scene. Cinelatina (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentions are limited to niche blogs and local EDM outlets. There is no evidence of charting, awards, or sustained impact to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG.Cinelatina (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a non-notable actress and model who has made only minor appearances in films and music videos. The "Filmography" section is misleading, as she did not have a lead role in Kesari Veer. The article relies mainly on primary sources, mentions, interviews, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA and lacks WP:SIGCOV coverage.
Concerns include potential manipulation of her date of birth, with primary source citations (e.g., Instagram) contradicting verifiable information, such as her being 20 in 2016 during India's Next Top Model season 2. The article may be affected by COI/UPE and violates WP:TOOSOON.
What about it? I've added a few secondary sources to the page. Also 1) I've added a source indicating she plays one of the four main characters in Kesari Veer (and see Leading actor) and the filmography can hardly be described as "misleading". 2) A page cannot "violate" WP:TOOSOON, which is an essay, not a policy but, most of all, citing that essay may have been useful back in 2017 but certainly not today, as she has now an already notable acting career 3) Stating that she has "made only minor appearances in films" is totally inaccurate, for that matter. I have no idea about potential conflicts of interest regarding the page but in its current state, it does not strike me as an issue. Eva UX (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that assessment was correct, she still would pass Wikipedia:NACTRESS. And please note that WP:BASIC indicates that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (the different reviews in reliable sources of the 3 films she had lead roles in mention her performances with critical assessment and those mentions, some being brief, cannot be considered trivial nor passing mentions). Eva UX (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTRESS. What secondary sources are you looking for, reviews suffice. The 2 interviews should be considered for sourcing since they are not the bulk of the sourcing. You can always tag the page for needing citations instead of deletion. DareshMohan (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary sources and therefore unreliable for supporting claims in articles. While interviews can be used to establish that an interviewee made a particular statement, they are not considered reliable for verifying the accuracy of those statements. For example, this actress lied about her age in one of her Instagram posts, and later that post was used as a reference to manipulate the date of birth on Wikipedia. See wp:IV
There are reviews of the movies as citations but none of them can really provide in-depth reporting. See Wp:SIGCOV.
Keep. Meets notability criteria per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She has acted in films across major Indian language industries (Hindi, Telugu, and Kannada), with roles that received individual mention in professional reviews. The Times of India described her as "bold and glamorous," while The New Indian Express and Cinema Express included her debut in their critiques. In addition to her film roles, she has appeared in high-profile music videos performed by prominent artists like Badshah, Tiger Shroff, and Harrdy Sandhu — each of which has received notable media attention. Her modeling background, including participation in India’s Next Top Model, further supports a career with sustained media visibility. I think reliable sources, both mainstream and entertainment-specific, provide significant coverage of her career, satisfying the general notability guideline. Cinelatina (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable actor. Should be restored as a redirect to Shane Jacobson, whose name is very frequently misspelled this way - there are more hits for him with his name misspelled this way than for this guy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a stub or delete the redirect. I am of course familiar with Shane Jacobson, and have several of his films in my library, so when I stumbled on the name "Shane Jacobsen", unlinked, in an article on an unfamiliar film I was surprised. I linked it without saving, to see where it would lead, and found to my surprise that it led to the Australian actor. Not impossible, as many Aussie actors have found their way into American films. Off to IMDb, where Shane Jacobsen of New Orleans is mentioned as appearing in three or four movies, two having WP listings and, quite properly, neither one linked. How much time did I waste? Two minutes tops. Had it confused anyone else? Maybe not. Would someone turning those unlinked "Shane Jacobsen"s blue reduce Wikipedia's usefulness ? Absolutely. The beauty of this solution is the hatnote. Anyone looking for either person by that name gets what they want.
We cannot keep it because he is not notable. The notable actor's name is regularly misspelled this way by sources, so it is just as likely someone would be searching for him - sen/son are regularly confused in names and this mistake is in many news articles referring to him. Sometimes, people have similar names. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To Shane Jacobson. The person who made the existing redirect into a stub first initially made a stub worthy of BLPPROD. Took me two reverts explaining in the edit summary why this is a bad thing to prompt them to make an actual stub, albeit still unsourced for the time being. This was good enough for me. Now that the stub is in AFD now, I'll be truly honest. Even after a source got added by another editor, I just don't see how this actor meets NACTOR, he's just too obscure of an actor. Plus that Shane Jacobsen is a valid misspelling of Shane Jacobson. Yelps ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ critique me15:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no contest re notability of actor Shane Jacobsen, and I have reverted the links I made in those two film articles. I maintain, however, that the original redirect was not useful, and because there is a real life person of that name in WP articles, counterproductive. Doug butler (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, when the lead sentence mentions her talent agency... This [20] is about all I can find. Coverage now in the article is primary, or databases. I don't see that any musical notability has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources do not support the notability of this "up and coming" actress; an online source does not provide the kind of significant coverage to establish notability. Seems like WP:PROMO. Fails [[WP:NACTOR] and WP:NMUSICIAN. Netherzone (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the subject has won a songwriting contest and participated in local theater, the article relies almost entirely on self-published sources and IMDb. There is no significant independent coverage establishing notability as required by WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Cinelatina (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't clearly establish the subject's notability. Most of the positions listed are regional and there’s only one reference, which doesn't fully back up all the claims. Without stronger sources or a clearer reason why this person is notable on a broader scale, this is not strong enough for an article. Idoghor Melody (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A substantial number of sources have been incorporated into this article, and this particular one has garnered sufficient attention. The Chinese Wikipedia contains a relevant article as well. This politician previously served as the mayor of Fuzhou City, the provincial capital of Fujian. The GDP of Fuzhou City is presently 180 billion USD in 2023, comparable to the yearly GDP of half of Nigeria. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Agree with User:TinaLees-Jonesin toto. Additionally; Jin Nengchou was the mayor of Fuzhou. Fuzhou has a Prefecture-level city population of 8,291,268. This would be like saying the governor of Virginia isn't inherently notable— its population exceeds 43 U.S. States and Territories, and 93 U.N. member states. I would argue that any leader of a population that size in the past fifty years is inherently notable. Yes, the page needs significant improvement and expansion, no that does not justify its deletion. Foxtrot620 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject held several high-ranking positions in the Chinese political system, including Mayor of Fuzhou and Vice Chairman of the Fujian Provincial Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, positions that indicate substantial influence at both municipal and provincial levels. His political career is documented in some reliable sources, including government publications and directories such as Directory of Officials and Organizations in China and Daily Report: People’s Republic of China. These are secondary sources with editorial oversight, and they cover his roles and appointments in detail. The subject’s long-standing and documented participation in public service justifies the existence of a standalone article per Wikipedia’s standards for notability. Meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Cinelatina (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am currently working to improve the article by adding reliable, independent third-party sources, including reports from *The Guardian Nigeria*, *The Nation*, *Punch*, *Voice of America*, *Vanguard*, and coverage of the National Student Entrepreneur Awards. I also plan to add inline citations and expand the article’s coverage to better meet WP:GNG and WP:N. I respectfully request that the nomination be kept open to allow for these additions. Nnamdi93 (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnamdi93 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nigeria NewsDirect ran a feature titled “Ken Etete: The dependable Oil and Gas CEO”, detailing his acquisition of an FPSO and his leadership of one of Nigeria’s largest indigenous oil‑service firmsthisdaylive.com+2nigeriannewsdirect.com+2businessworld.africa+2.
Business World Africa covered Century Group’s $15 million acquisition of the FPSO Sendje Berge, noting that Etete’s firm is “one of Nigeria’s biggest oil servicing company” and “the first domestic energy infrastructure provider to fully own and manage two FPSOs” kenetete.com+15businessworld.africa+15nigeriannewsdirect.com+15.
Africa Oil & Gas Report spotlighted his organic expansion over 20 years, highlighting his problem-solving leadershipafricaoilgasreport.com+1sowshea.org+1.
Africa Intelligence examined his strategic handling of Erin Energy's OML 120 fallout, showcasing his negotiation skills in complex deals africaintelligence.com These are feature-level coverage from independent outlets
Nominating per request here by IP editor show states - "The last AfD for this subject was closed as soft delete which was treated as an expired PROD. recently the soft delete was challenged by user User:124.104.175.128 and was accepted and moved back into mainspace by an administrator despite there being zero usable sources. The IP user then removed the notability tag without a reason and made no improvements to the article. This leads me to believe WP:COI as the request for undeletion was the first edit the user ever made. Requesting an AfD. 2600:1011:B037:C57F:2834:79AD:326B:D5B6 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)" CNMall41 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only real source cited, the Celluloid Social Club, doesn't say more about him than his name and some past roles. A sentence fragment. This is not sigcov. Toadspike[Talk]06:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a few hours of independent research and was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Claim to notability would be stronger if there was evidence of RS SIGCOV to meet notability requirements. ZachH007 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns about this person's notability still hasn't eased since the previous AFD discussion, which resulted in "kept". Re-reading the discussion, the "keep" votes aren't without caution if not suspicion.
One promised to improve the article or something (to further verify this person's notability), but I still don't see logs of edits made by that voter. Another is now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Another cited WP:NACTOR, which is what I was unwilling to challenge then due to lack of votes favoring either deletion or redirection.
I re-raised my concerns recently not too long ago:
I'm concerned again about this person's notability. The following I cannot use to verify because they are just interviews, i.e. primary sources, which neither WP:GNG nor WP:NBASIC would allow such sources to be counted: Ent Weekly (another), Pajiba.
Screen Rant (source) is discouraged per WP:RSP#Screen Rant. Reality Tea displays just his brief profile. I was able to listen to the Idaho Statesman article; it just previews his then-upcoming The Challenge appearance. Maybe I'm doubtful again about this person, but the reliable sources verifying his general/basic notability have become scarce. George Ho (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Since then, I've yet to see my concerns readdressed. To challenge the past assumption that WP:NACTORS suffices, this person must also comply with WP:NBASIC per WP:BIOSPECIAL. I've still yet to see reliable independent sources verify his notability in Survivor: Winners at War and/or The Challenge and/or any other non-television field even as a war veteran.
You don't need to watch it. Already, he won just one season and reappeared as one of established winners in the winners-only season. Well, he didn't win in his second (winners-only) season, but even other winners who also reappeared in that season turn out to be notable for just their own winning seasons (per past AFD discussions) and lack general/basic notability needed for this project. George Ho (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice I only commented on his military service notability, and that because it was included in the Military AfD sort. Nothing else. Intothatdarkness17:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a munshi, like a cantor or chancellor in other Abrahamic religions, is not automatically notable, and there's a lack of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first and third sources appear to be biographical dictionaries of some kind. I can't find a way to access them, but assuming he legitimately has entries in those that's probably enough to establish notability. There are also plenty of hits on Google Books - I'm relying on machine translation and can only access snippets, but these books and others appear to contain SIGCOV or potential SIGCOV: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Someone who speaks the language would have a much easier time properly searching for sources, but there's enough there that I think he's quite easily notable. MCE89 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is included in the National Biography of Finland under the name Rudolf Hast: [29]. Biografisk lexikon för Finland includes a Swedish translation of the same article: [30]. There's also a short entry in Uppslagsverket Finland: [31]Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing and newly found sources (as noted above by MCE89 and Jähmefyysikko) give solid, non-trivial coverage of Hast’s work and historical role. Being the first Finn to earn a Doctor of Medicine in Sweden and a pioneer of smallpox vaccination in Finland clearly passes GNG. I’ll also add those additional references to make this even stronger.Uni44hossiq (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strongly disagree with the source assessment. I don't understand what's wrong with the listed sources at the time, and would like the nominator to explain their reasoning. /Julle (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: All these sources I used, are reliable third party sources. None of these sources promote him, nor is there an issue of conflict of interest in them. (The German-language sources can be translated via Google Translate.) This pianist is prominent enough on his own to warrant a Wikipedia article, not because he is the son of a famous pianist, who already has his own Wikipedia article. That is why, I created this article. The article should not be construed in any way as a promotional article, because it is not. It is a biographical article and I made sure that it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Oratas (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we've seen that in science fiction, in off-Broadway, and in classical music, that sometimes scathing criticism is the best evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:NMUSIC, all coverage found in WP:BEFORE was either WP:ROUTINE or from primary sources. I am also bundling the singer's albums, all of which have been unreferenced since creation more than 15 years ago:
Delete: Non-notable singer. No sourcing found outside of social media. Doesn't appear to have had a charted single, or any other MUSIC requirements to show notability. Sourcing now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - He had a couple of minor TV appearances as a budding child star in the early 2000s and got a record deal, but he never achieved any reliable media coverage of his singing career and I can find no pro reviews for any of his teenage albums. Then he faded back into normal life. The musician article and album articles have been sitting here with no references since that era and could have been deleted 17 years ago. Better late than never. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: historic possible myth, but with sufficient sourcing for notability. Worth having an article to explain that her status. Article sourcing can probably be improved from the German article. PamD08:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is only talked about in terms of her husband and her late son (who is primarily mentioned because of his dad). As notability is not inherited this subject does not have any sources of her own. In my before search I couldn't find anything else. I would be okay with a redirect to AidoniaMoritoriko (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is based on sparse and trivial references with no clear demonstration of notability. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking for any information about this musician, whose article just says he wrote one song, and I couldn't even find anything about him. Not even the BBC interview at the bottom of the article was archived, assuming it ever existed. GamerPro6417:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A biography that only has 2 different sources (different pages from the same website are still 1 source). One of which is a non-independent obituary. The most useful of the other source is primarily just a self written article which basically makes this a WP:AUTOBIO. This issue was noted during the AFC process by Cactusisme but the article was moved to the mainspace anyways. Searching for James Hastings brings up numerous unrelated individuals and modifying the search with terms like ship models brings up nothing. Moritoriko (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He won the prestigious Craftsman of the Year award. The article that the nominator says was self-written is the article where the award is announced by the craftsmanship museum, which is why it is usable. Wikipedia considers different articles from the same source to be usable. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section WP:WHYN of the general Notability guideline there is a sentence that says ...multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement. So yes, we can use them but when considering a subject for notability they still count as 1. Moritoriko (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the 4 guidelines under creative do you think applies to him? I (and correct me if I am wrong) think we both agree that its not 2. But no, I don't think he does, or at least not according to the sources on the article at present. Moritoriko (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4) The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
Winning the craftsman of the year award means significant critical attention and it matters that his work is exhibited at the Craftsmanship Museum. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your responses. Under another section of WP:WHYN, it also states that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage." The articles give the subject significant coverage since they are entirely about him, and are also reliable as the craftsmanship museum is a reliable source, and are secondary including the article that is an autobiography since the introduction is written by the craftsmanship museum (As I explain above). Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Delete I looked on the internet and couldn’t find any sources on him besides ship crafting sources and half the results weren’t even about him. I don’t think this is fit to be an article with little outside sources on him besides the ones in his profession. This also doesn’t feel written well like a Wikipedia article. The main biography passage doesn’t even have his death as a part of it. 8bit12man (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a scarcity of sources. But Wikipedia notability guidelines don't include whether an article is or isn't well written. I agree, I'm not the best writer. Having a bachelors degree and graduating magna cum laude and I'm still not a very good writer. However, it's a discussion about notability. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be on for the guidelines on notability. But this has a lot of issues and doesn’t fit the criteria that much outside of notability. This article isn’t very salvageable as it still mainly relies on a single source from the same website. Another thing was this used to be a draft and despite it being declined and not nessacarily ready you still moved it into main space and removed the draft comments.Then when this was nominated for deletion you said this was a personal attack. Despite not having any evidence for that.
I believe this article has little chance at surviving as it was moved even though it wasn’t ready.
It does also not have parts in the manual of style for biographies which talks about how it should be written. It will need a lot of rewriting as it has a lot of issues. The reason im talking about the articles history is because it should be deleted or moved to draftspace for further work because it wasn’t ready but it was still moved. I also feel like you are taking this personally since your the only one defending this article and you alleged it was a personal attack when it was nominated for deletion. 8bit12man (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it's relevant that the only reason the article was noticed by the nominator is because he may have taken my words personally in a different conversation. However, I have no problem with the nomination. Orlando Davis (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. The Articles for creation process is not perfect. It can occasionally result in good articles not passing through. I believe that is why extended confirmed users such as myself have the option to move articles up themselves. In this case, I believed that was the best course of action. However, I usually use the Articles for creation process since I believe that a collaborative effort is the best way to produce a high-quality article. Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the process isn’t perfect this can’t be considered an exception. I don’t believe this article is good or high quality as per all the previous comments and statements I have made. I don’t believe pushing it up to main space wasnt the best course of action as it still hasn’t reached better quality since moved.
This nomination wasn’t a personal grudge. It was the editor pointing out the articles flaws. You keep climbing this was because they were offended in a previous argument. I seriously doubt that with you claiming it wasn’t just one editors who have a grudge against you. If you have evidence for that please present it. 8bit12man (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was flagged for me on my talk page so I'm not going to cast a bolded !vote. But I don't see a case for notability here. WP:NCREATIVE does not appear to apply here because these models (regardless of the excellence of the craft) are not contributing to a notable work nor are they notable works themselves. WP:ANYBIO doesn't apply since the Craftsman of the Year award does not appear to be an independently notable and significant award. There's only one independentsource that I can see so WP:GNG is not in play either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the craftsmanship museum is a significant institution, isn't their award significant? And there are independent articles that I can show you that mention the award being handed out. Is that what you need? Isn't the craftsmanship museum a significant exhibition? And doesn't the fact that Hasting's model is part of that exhibition qualify as part b of part 4 (been a substantial part of a significant exhibition) in WP:NCREATIVE. Isn't an award by a notable institution (The craftsmanship museum) count as significant critical attention (part c of part 4 of WP:NCREATIVE) And couldn't you say that if his work is exhibited by a notable institution, that you could say it is (a) become a significant monument in 4 in WP:NCREATIVE.
A subject doesn't need to be widely known to be notable if we can demonstrate that his peers see him as notable within his or her field. Orlando Davis (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. Even though you didn't vote. I still consider that to have an appearance of canvassing, since you are influencing the debate's outcome. I appreciate your time and effort. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a policy based reason for your opinion sir? It seems that all but one of the deletes come from editors whom I have offended in a previous heated conversation, as they believe that their status as either page reviewers or administrators makes them akin to kings or noblemen who can bully the surfs (i.e., regular editors). Now, that is fine with me. I've got a thick skin. But I do think that it has gotten to the point where their anger at me has altered their judgment. Orlando Davis (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing. It's not a vote, it's whoever the administrator decides made the best argument. And it shouldn't be an administrator who is potentially biased by a previous perceived slight. Orlando Davis (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still keep my opinion as Delete.. It’s not that because we hold a grudge against you. if you have proof for that please present it. It’s just that this article fails many criteria and has many issues and requires a ton of rewriting. We don’t have any anger against you at all. I am a “Surf” by your standards. For the record I have never encountered you before this deletion discussion. I feel like you are twisting this against us. 8bit12man (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSUSTAINED requires attention over a sufficient time. Most of the sources are just about his ships or just on his backstory becuase he won his 2019 award. Since most of these are from when he got his award it seems there hasn’t been any sufficient attention or coverage since then. It also fails WP:SBST for the same reason because there isn’t any coverage outside of these events.
It fails WP:SIGCOV because there is no secondary sources outside of the museum and event and it needs independent sources not affiliated with the topic which it doesn’t have.
The topic of the article or the article itself isn’t notable because it lacks sources outside of the affiliated topic and most of the sources and coverage come from one event which was the 2019 award. You can’t find any sources covering the topic on the internet outside the craftsmanship museum either.
Again as mentioned before this article isn’t well written either missing components and it’s hard to add that without notable independent sources to reference from.
The article has little chance at surviving as it is poorly written and lack’s notability outside the topic and lacks sources. 8bit12man (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again still Delete. References aren’t needed for notability presumption this article needs secondary independent sources.. Most of the sources on this article come from one event of coverage which was the 2019 award. The Craftmanship of the Year award is neither prestigious or notable. It doesn’t have any major attention or coverage outside of the routine coverings by the independent sources you covered. Winning the award may generate attention by the museum as you said by the museum but no outside attention except routine coverage by sources. That doesn’t give enough notability for an article.. You’re not improving Wikipedia or this article by using Wikipedia:Ignore all rules on this article it still fails categories for notability and secondary sources and it is poorly written. Notability is needed to be worthy enough of an article. This article has little to none. 8bit12man (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry if I’m bludgeoning but the point is not amount of justification is gonna save this article and keeping it isn’t doing anyone a favor. My reasoning is all the comments I have made above about this articles issues like notability, lack of sources, poor writing, etc. 8bit12man (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to your previous comment; the Craftsmanship Museum's Craftsman of the Year award is notable. See articles below by the NY Times, the Smithsonian, and many other reliable sources in addition to the two previous ones I shared where the award is mentioned. Hastings passes under WP:NCREATIVE because of the award. I gave the reasoning above in my earlier comments.
I appreciate that you took the time to weigh in. However, I perceive your comment to be mean and uncivil. When you said, the award is not prestigious. That is a subjective term that could be perceived as hostile to a winner of the award. We avoid such negative judgments on Wikipedia, instead focusing on whether an award meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks notability as the sources are not reliable. I could not find further sources about this topic in my personal, extensive research. Historyexpert2 (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process which says “It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.” “The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become.” “Dominating a discussion is a violation of the disruptive editing behavioral guideline and can get you blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every comment I made has been different. That is absolutely not bludgeoning. I have been working hard not to. "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. And bludgeoning is not more grave than other bad behavior such as "just pointing at a policy or guideline without elaborating." See: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I am supervising for bad etiquette. and adding information that I haven't shared yet. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orlando Davis You replied to gidonb below, after they specifically said not to respond and being warned for bludgeoning. (Edit: Although there doesn’t seem to be any rules against this,) I would consider that bad etiquette. You have made no less than 20 edits to this page. I say this with no bad intent, but perhaps it would be for the best if you took your own advice and take a break, letting this discussion run its course. I assure you that no (good) admin will close this discussion based on previous involvement with you, if existing. GoldRomean (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One form of bad etiquette is "Wikihounding, the singling out of one or more editors by maliciously joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may regularly contribute to and in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Wikipedia:WikiBullyingOrlando Davis (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if a conversation is hostile, don't add to the hostility by joining in. Just practice avoidance. That is the most civil strategy. Orlando Davis (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which basically translates as I’m going to cast aspersions and bludgeon the discussion but if you respond back I’ll be butt hurt and hypocritically complain about that. SpartazHumbug!11:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And why not criticize in private, not in public? You could have gone to my talk page. Just to give you a free lesson on conflict mediation from someone who has taken college courses on the matter. Orlando Davis (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While BLP concerns don't apply here, I'm inclined to be somewhat lenient. However, the article lacks any independent sources, which are essential. The subject does not meet the notability criteria under either NCREATIVE or the GNG, even with generous interpretation. Do not respond to this opinion! gidonb (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response; your contribution is valued. However, bludgeoning is not the only example of bad etiquette on Wikipedia. "Just pointing at a policy or guideline without elaborating." See: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is also bad etiquette. Also, while not a Wikipedia policy, I believe it is bad etiquette to follow someone to another page because of an argument on a different page. And this certainly has that appearance and that should be avoided to avoid further conflict. Is it a cultural difference? In Gidon's culture, talking back to authority is a terrible offense. It is not in my culture, nor is it Wikipedia policy. Thank you for your hard work on Wikipedia. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know or care which culture you are assigning to me. I have only provided my opinion on the question at hand at this AfD. Also, I have asked not to respond, based on what I saw under other opinions. Apparently, you can't help yourself. This too will pass. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the safety shoe invention, I don't really see notability for this person. The awards seem trivial and the rest of the sourcing is simply a resume/CV. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gnews brings up this gem [37], with a whole four lines of text. Gscholar only has two hits on the name, that I don't think are about this person either. Not much of anything in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I’d like to provide clarification and context on Syed Mosharaf Hossain’s notability, especially beyond the surface-level view of awards and basic sourcing.
🔬 1. Invention & Innovation: Safety Shoe for Farmers
While it may appear modest at first glance, the safety shoe innovation was recognized by grassroots technology networks and national-level education-focused NGOs, including National Innovation Foundation–India and the India Science Wire. His work has been demonstrated at regional science exhibitions (e.g., Paschim Banga Bigyan Mela) and reported in regional media as a functional solution adopted by small-scale agricultural communities in rural Bengal. It goes beyond a one-off idea—it’s an application-driven invention with social utility and adoption, which is a key indicator of applied innovation notability in developing contexts.
🏅 2. Awards and Recognitions – Not Trivial
The awards may seem local in nature, but several (like those from Asia Book of Records, Positive Barta, and Grassroot Innovator Forums) are curated via peer review and field validation, particularly in the education and rural development sector. These recognitions are third-party validations of social impact, not just self-nomination trophies. He was also selected as Principal of the Year (2024) by a consortium of skill-development organizations under the Directorate of Technical Education in West Bengal.
📚 3. Reliable Secondary Sources
Though not abundant in Google Scholar due to the nature of his work (not academic), his profile and work have been:
Covered by leading Bengali newspapers such as Anandabazar Patrika and Ei Samay in regional editions.
Highlighted by Bangla-language educational YouTube channels, regional digital portals, and field reporting platforms covering Bardhaman and Nadia districts.
Listed as a featured speaker and delegate in two district-level government innovation workshops (verified by district administration websites).
🛠️ 4. Scope of Impact
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is not just an inventor but a grassroots education reformer, having led multiple campaigns for inclusive skill education for rural girls, ITI modernization, and anti-dropout programs for economically marginalized students. These initiatives have been independently referenced by local government circulars and panchayat reports, and his role as Principal of a Government ITI has seen him directly involved in state-level technical outreach. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to provide more specifics for where one might be able to find this coverage in secondary sources. Also, I'd advise you to avoid using AI generated text in these discussions, as it can weaken your argument. Ike Lek (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is a distinguished educator and innovator whose contributions have drawn significant independent recognition. Not only was he honored by the Asia Book of Records, but on June 17, 2025, he was also named “Principal of the Year 2025” at the Asia Education Conclave held in Mumbai, alongside another ITI principal from Bengal, for his work in enhancing technical education and multi-skill training en.wikipedia.org+6magzter.com+6x.com+6. These are reliable, third‑party sources establishing his notability under WP:GNG. Rather than deleting, the article should be retained and improved with these published citations. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not agree with the notability guidelines matching this profile even after thoruogh research, hence it should be deleted.Almandavi (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is a distinguished educator and innovator whose contributions have drawn significant independent recognition. Not only was he honored by the Asia Book of Records, but on June 17, 2025, he was also named “Principal of the Year 2025” at the Asia Education Conclave held in Mumbai, alongside another ITI principal from Bengal, for his work in enhancing technical education and multi-skill training en.wikipedia.org+6magzter.com+6x.com+6. These are reliable, third‑party sources establishing his notability under WP:GNG. Rather than deleting, the article should be retained and improved with these published citations. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is a distinguished educator and innovator whose contributions have drawn significant independent recognition. Not only was he honored by the Asia Book of Records, but on June 17, 2025, he was also named “Principal of the Year 2025” at the Asia Education Conclave held in Mumbai, alongside another ITI principal from Bengal, for his work in enhancing technical education and multi-skill training en.wikipedia.org+6magzter.com+6x.com+6. These are reliable, third‑party sources establishing his notability under WP:GNG. Rather than deleting, the article should be retained and improved with these published citations. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy and the creator also might appear to be harassing other editors with the comment above of, "plz provide this is a promotional article, otherwise, set up your mouth". Possible further warning or sanctions beyond just deleting this page?Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is virtually unsourced, as none of the references or links in it have any mention of the person (that I could find, and there's not a lot of text). Same goes for plwiki, where this was translated from. A Google search also brought back virtually nothing besides Wikipedia, Wikidata and Commons. A bunch of Polish pages mention the name, but I couldn't find any with info on this particular person, including any pages relating to the Polonia Restituta award. ☀Hijérovīt | þⰁč11:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Given that an administrator of Arabic Wikipedia believes that notability outside of promotional material has not been established, I am inclined to agree. I cannot validate sourcing in English to any degree that shows notability, and it would require a lot of cleanup to get this page in working order. Nonetheless, I think it could Return to Draftspace. PickleG13 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit13:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:PROMO There is no substance - just his education, his personal life, and his awards. Why someone would get an award for "highest taxpayer in India" just seems like he didn't have a very good financial advisor — Maile (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit13:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted because the subject doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s rules for notable academics or public figures. It appears to be written by the subject himself, raising concerns about autobiographical bias. His h-index and i10-index are much lower than what is normally expected for a professor in the Humanities. The only proof that he won a major Chinese award is a dead link, and no other reliable sources confirm it. Charlie (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems feebly notable hence the article should be trimmed in a neutral form and also lodged with some more notable news link.Almandavi (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/comment I took the opportunity and edited the page. Used proposed edits and links to at least give it a chance because I believe that people who were notable when articles were not posted on the internet widely or when the digital age wasn't booming, deserves a chance. Also the article is very old so it passed all the screening for years. We can remove some parts though. AppleBoosted (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having gone through the available source material, I have been unable to find anything to establish significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. His main work of note was a single book about social anarchism, which has received some attention but not much more than a passing reference in most sources (see Google Scholar results). David Wieck's obituary for the Social Anarchism journal, listed in the further reading, appears to be the only work specifically about Baldelli that could lead to any development of this article. As this article appears not to meet the notability guidelines for authors, I'm recommending it for deletion. A possible alternative to deletion could be redirecting to social anarchism, although he's not mentioned in the body of that article, so this may not be appropriate. Grnrchst (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's an extensive biography in the Dizionario biografico online degli anarchici italiani (which was originally a print publication and is now updated and expanded online)[41]. Between that and the Wieck obituary, I'd be fine with "Keep" if only there was a third published source. The Dizionario points to an undergraduate thesis, but it's unpublished. Jahaza (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd hope with an extensive list of publications for WP:AUTHOR notability, but I only found one review so far.[42] It would be good if someone has access to Italian library sources to search those. Jahaza (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, REDIRECT to David Wieck, where Baldelli and his main book are mentioned. If more sources emerge the article can be broken out again. 04:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep, just because there is little information now doesn't mean that there won't be more information in the future. FPTI (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as opinions are divided between Keep and Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
aaaand now I'm striking my comment about closing early because I see that I wasn't the only one to !vote "redirect" Jahaza (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect simply as an alternative to deletion. The keep comments above have not established which sources as a group meet the GNG. If all we have is the one encyclopedia source and passing mentions in books (which is all I've found), then that isn't enough on which to base a standalone article. It would require a much deeper scavenge of period Italian-language sources to find reviews for his other works, as his 1972 Social Anarchism was not apparently reviewed in English-language periodicals or indexed in Book Review Digest. czar15:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any independent coverage, as almost all of the sources are either interviews or passing mentions in unreliable or unbylined sources. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, it's completely absurd to think this person might not be notable. They founded the most successful chess journalism / media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess. The nominator lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to be familiar with the subject and did not put adequate effort to look for sources. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from chessbase.in are WP:SPS, and thesportzplanet.com, perlenvombodensee.de, and fountainink.in are more like blogs with little or no editorial oversight. To clarify, ChessBase has existed since 1986 and the Indian version was only co-founded by him. Claiming that “they founded the most successful chess journalism/media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess” reflects your bias and is not policy based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please double check? Because from what I see, the only author who consistently writes on Perlen vom Bodensee is Conrad Schormann, who is also the founder. Six articles were written by Stefan Löffler and a few by Roland Neumeier. The translated DE wiki article states that "The site's editor is Conrad Schormann, who is supported by a team of 18 authors.", which I believe is misleading based on what I’ve seen so far and the fact that the article has very few edits also doesn’t help its reliability. In any case, having a page on DE wiki doesn’t automatically make the source reliable, especially since the standards on EN wiki are significantly higher, which I believe you already know. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to add or to check. I saw the article this afternoon by chance and also the the AfD, with a comment I did not completely agree and just wanted to leave a note that might help. The source is viewed as reliable in de-wp by the chess portal, if you do not agree, that is fine for me. Sagar Shah is at least in my eyes a relevant topic for someone like me, who follows chess purely from an interested viewer point of view. He is very well known in the chess eco system, in de-wp he is notable already just by having reached the IM title. If he doesn't meet the criteria here, because no sources can be found, that are seen as sufficient, so be it. - Squasher (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No snow in the forecast here. Any further input on the sourcing? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:NACTOR ["the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.") and the page in Danish please, to check the said roles--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.
Keep: Clicking on the Gnews link above brings up more than a trivial amount of Danish articles, [51] for example, suggests a long career and seems to be well-known by the public. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify- as an ATD, given the article has potential being kept, if more SIGCOV be added as well as some integration from the other language ver. like the Danish ver. for same article to this english ver. .Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book Danske filmskuespillere: 525 portrætter has a 5 para bio about him (pp 139-140) [52]. As Oaktree b noted, there are many current news stories about him, eg "Kristian Halken has been called the master of supporting roles. One year he won a Reumert for four supporting roles, and it is difficult to find a weak Halken performance. He is now 70 years old. Has Kristian Halken ever actually been bad on a theater stage?" [53]. This article Kristian Halken fra Sommerdahl: Her er hans kendte søn[54] has info about his wife and his son, also an actor. There is plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG, and multiple roles in films, tv and on stage to meet WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Go4thProsper, I’ve noticed that you’re frequently participating in active AFDs and voting too quickly. For example, you’ve cast four votes in just three minutes and eight votes within 14 minutes. This seems suspicious because it takes longer to properly evaluate the articles.
Are you familiar with the guidelines for participating in Afds? I want to inform you that if you’re randomly voting on Afds without any evaluation, it’s best to stop.
Thank you for your advice. I enjoy setting aside time to read the dialogue and the articles under discussion, generally people. Sometimes I also edit those articles to try to improve them. I don’t vote on all of them, but try to weigh in on those that are most egregious or sometimes easy keeps. Once I see a few on which I see value in weighing in, I do. That’s the whole point of the AfD community discussion, no? Go4thProsper (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your vote, you just said, ”Delete: per nomination. She fails GNG.”
Can you elaborate how you came to the conclusion that she fails GNG? If you carefully check the article, there is enough significant coverage in secondary reliable sources to pass Wp:GNG and by evaluating her filmography, she easily passes wp:NACTOR.
This article reads somewhat like a resume mixed with a blog, possibly because the subject, per the article, "keeps a low public profile". The references, though 30, are not predominantly about the subject; many are ammouncements about his company, and several others are general articles that mention him in passing. The few sources that are actually about him profile him for having a lot of money, either locally or in Forbes, and are not generally in depth. He does not appear to be personally notable. This is also a problematic WP:BLP, devoting a lot of space to his personal health. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in agreement. This is a lot of by-the-numbers reporting that is mostly not about the subject. The most that can be said about him from all 4 sources is that he sold a company. FalconK (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage - and if he keeps a low profile, then maybe he doesn't want to be a public figure. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage for this to be made into an article that doesn't need to be deleted.
Second nomination, but it's been 10 years and the previous one was no consensus on the erroneous assertion that founding companies makes a subject inherently notable. Related nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Steelberg but I'm writing this one separately because it is a second nomination, even though the articles are substantially identical.
No evidence of notability. Search through Proquest, Google News, and other internet searches yield no apparent coverage other than in connection with his job. While frequently quoted in interviews, there is little to no notability-establishing 3rd party coverage in reliable sources treating him personally. Award lists do not contribute to notability. Relevant information here is already included in articles about the companies he's founded, and founding companies does not confer personal notability in and of itself (not in WP:BIO). The article is congratulatory in tone and it has not been possible to improve it using WP:RS since 2015 due to a lack of relevant sources. The NYTimes article referenced in the article treats the company Brand Affinity and not Chad [55]. FalconK (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inheritable downwards; even if his companies are notable, as stated in the previous AfD, that does not mean he is. Coeusin (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously moved to draft space due to concerns about notability and insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources. I reviewed the draft and declined it for lacking significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline (GNG). However, the creator has since moved it back to mainspace without addressing the sourcing concerns. While the subject has received an award, I believe it is not sufficient on its own to establish notability without substantial independent coverage. I'm bringing this to AfD so that other editors can review the article and share their opinions on whether it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Afstromen (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has minimal sources but just enough to warrant a Wikipedia listing, that said, I will respect other editors if the decision is delete. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I encountered the article because I searched for "Wes Watson" & wanted to know who this individual was; I was happy to find a Wiki article. He seems to have enough of a following, and to have been involved in enough newsworthy things (if only a couple: the viral incident, the other viral incident, a book, a few media appearances), for the article to be worth keeping. I don't see how it serves Wikipedia to delete it—there are less informative articles about people equally as (un-)article-worthy, and I favor—in general—keeping them, too. Himaldrmann (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His only claim to notability is a singular incident, which received fleeting media coverage, in which he was arrested for battery. RandFreeman (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find coverage about the "viral beatdown", that seems 1E-ish. Otherwise, people are discussing if he's even worth as much money as he claims. Whole lot of nothing here. No sourcing and not even a real claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has a lot of coverage from major outlets including BusinessInsider, Miami Herald, New York Post and others if you search through google and google news for "Wes Watson" "Youtuber". He's clearly notable. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject in question - Welsey Thomas Watson - acts not only as an example of negtive behaviour of modern 'red pill' influencers, and can be used for references for such, but he is self proclaimed "the biggest in Miami." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.11.125 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and lack of verifiability. BusinessInsider / New York Post are not reliable sources for BLPs. Nayyn (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First off: Is anyone actually contending that a lead Wes Watson is a motivational speaker, businessman, author, influencer and conman. is okay in BLP terms? Secondly: it seems the subject's notability relates to number of YouTube subscribers, a viral video, and an arrest record. GNG fail. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character/influencer/con man. I do not find sources that would elevate him to GNG. The "con" may extend to the article itself which has been edited by numerous IPs, one of which has received multiple warnings on the talk page after which said IP blanks the page each time. In response to User:KatoKungLee, there are articles but all I find is 1) a brief bit in an article about cons who youtube 2) a "sponsored" MSN article 3) a couple of accounts of a lawsuit after he beat someone up. Not a keeper, IMO. Lamona (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried in a good-faith effort to add some information that is damaging to this person but still objective. Online sentiment is overwhelmingly negative about him, and I think this page should reflect that. Yet my edit was deleted. I think in that case, if such edits are reversed (I know multiple people tried similar edits, although I am aware many of them were insincere "troll jobs"), then we are better off not having this page at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:F0A:2280:41A9:40D8:8952:E832 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no doubt in the reliability of references provided in the article, this subject does not look notable to me for several reasons. She has only been in office since January, with there being little coverage of her life and career, particularly because there does not seem to be significant coverage of that in reliable sources (as it can be seen, the references only briefly pass over what she has actually done in her life and instead concentrate on her political beliefs). As far as I'm aware, an official is not presumed to be notable only based on their political beliefs (most of this article is actually related to that instead of her short career). This then might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, where a politician could become notable in the future for their career accomplishments, and not instead of their political views. To close this off, there is coverage of this person in reliable sources independent of the subject but is this coverage "significant"? We could write a ton more articles like this where there's news coverage of someone's political beliefs, but little to none about what they have accomplished. I should also note that while the creator of this article has expanded several major articles to B-status which is sure appreciated, they were previously banned from creating articles in the mainspace and instead had to use the AfC system. This is one of the articles created since the ban expired in April. Vacant0(talk • contribs)15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIGCOV, I think you've confused significant coverage with coverage of what you think is significant... Your argument doesn't make any sense otherwise. Significant coverage of political beliefs counts just as much towards notability as significant coverage of political accomplishments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than WP:TOOSOON, I would argue independently of that, she is not notable. Most of the sources were published at the same time so there is no demonstration of sustained coverage. The citations from the end of May are redundant. existence ≠ notability. There is a lot of masking a lack of notability. The article lists every job she's ever held. A vague position at Gettr for an unlisted amount of time is not encyclopedic. The sourcing is also misapplied. For example, the statement that she was sworn in on May 27th does not appear in the Forward despite the citation. Again, adding references to mask a lack of notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kingsley, and some of her commentary, have received significant coverage from major sources in the short time she had been in the public eye. This coverage is only likely to grow, although I believe she is notable now. As a side note, the article is pretty well-written too. CarlStrokes (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess no one reviewed the article talk page or you would have seen, and mentioned here, that this article is currently being reviewed for GA status (see Talk:Kingsley Wilson/GA1). This seems relevant to discussing whether or not it should be Kept or Deleted. LizRead!Talk!04:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? There being a GAN review does not meant that the individual is notable. We have deleted many GAs and FAs in the past, this therefore won't be anything new. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Based on what" you ask???
Wilson has been in the news nonstop lately. I did a quick Google News search and gave up looking at news results by the 20th page. Of course some of those may be passing mentions or low quality but clearly this person is now one of the most prominent people in the States.
Comment: as the GA reviewer, I would prefer if you disregard the GAN when evaluating the notability of this subject (if that is within policy). No opinion on deletion. GoldRomean (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ms. Wilson holds a position of high importance as a spokesperson for the Pentagon. Her plainly stated views carry weight based upon people's respect for statements made by persons with the authority and responsibility to articulate policies of our government. Moreover, her prior statements may be helpful in evaluating whether a given statement she may make in the future is affected by bias. Mediator MFIII (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC) — Mediator MFIII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thanks for your interest in this article, Anish Shah qualifies under WP:GNG, as he's the CEO of Mahindra group which is in India's top 25 companies. And he has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as far as I researched after founding this article via Special:Random/Draft.
So I will improve this article asap to follow the Wikipedia:GNG completly. and kindly explain this- Business person does business things so I can know what wrong I did in this so I can improve that also. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that notability is not inherited by association per Wikipedia:INHERIT. However, the argument for keeping this article is not based solely on Anish Shah’s role at Mahindra Group, but on his own notability, which is independently established through. Multiple reliable and independent sources that provide significant coverage of his leadership, strategic decisions, and business vision as Managing Director and CEO of Mahindra Group. Kindly search on Google about him. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your review. While I understand the concern that "businessperson doing business things" doesn't automatically imply notability, I respectfully argue that Anish Shah meets the WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.
He has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources such as Forbes India, Economic Times, and Business Today, which profile his leadership, strategic direction, and impact at Mahindra Group. This coverage goes beyond routine job announcements, it reflects independent journalistic interest in Shah as an individual business leader, not merely in the company he leads. His coverage is not trivial, routine, or tied to a single event. I will continue to improve the article by adding more sources that fulfill WP:SIGCOV and will restructure the article to reflect their depth and focus. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Business person does business things" … and on a global scale in Choudhary's Shah's case. Mahindra Group is huge ($23 billion plus). There are Mahindra tractor dealers in farming towns across North America. I'd be stunned if Choudhary Shah isn't notable. --A. B.(talk • contribs • global count)01:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it appears many of the significant sources are resume-like or procedural "Shah picked as ..." or fall into the tabloid category "What is Mahindra Group's CEO Anish Shah's monthly salary?" but we don't necessarily get a substantive view of what makes him notable beyond running this company. The most significant pieces are on the business, not him as a person. Not opposed to draftify-ing this so that it could continue to be improved and to eliminate the WP:REFBOMBNayyn (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayyn Thank you for the feedback. While I understand the concern regarding routine coverage, I’d respectfully argue that Anish Shah meets the threshold for WP:GNG through sustained, independent, and in-depth coverage.
Articles in Reuters, Economic Times, and Fortune India go beyond procedural appointments. They explore Shah’s leadership in restructuring Mahindra Group ( exit from loss-making units, multi-billion-dollar EV spin-off), his market-shaping role in India's SUV and EV sectors, and his national-level role as President of FICCI. These establish significant coverage focused on him, not just Mahindra as an entity.
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.
The book notes: "That's a hell of a lot of pedalling if you were to undertake the epic journey on a humble bicycle, but such trifling obstacles did not deter South African adventurer Riaan Manser when he decided to accept exactly that daunting challenge, an ambitious expedition which very nearly killed him. Manser set off on his trusty mountain bike from Cape Town in September 2003. He averaged an impressive 88.5km (55 miles) per day and after two years, two months and 15 days in the saddle, travelling through 34 different countries, he had become the first person to circumnavigate Africa on two wheels. ... Manser's feat was recognised when he was named 'Adventurer of the Year' by Out There magazine in 2006 and granted an audience with Nelson Mandela. He politely declined an offer to work for the Liberian Tourist Board."
The book notes: "Riaan Manser from Cape Town went one better. In September 2003 he set out on his mountain bike to ride the whole way around the continent. Two years, two months and two days later he was back, having pedalled an incredible 36,500 km (22,680 miles) through 34 counties, lost 14 kg (31 lbs) in weight, learned French, Portuguese and Arabic, eaten monkeys, rats and bats and been kidnapped by child-soldiers in Liberia. The journeys described in the pages that follow may not be quite as epic, but they will certainly open your eyes to the wonders of this most wonderful of continents."
The article notes: "That's been the reality for Riaan Manser, a renowned world traveler and self-proclaimed professional adventurer whose five-month, 5,000-mile rowboat trek from Morocco to New York City included a stop at the Atlantis Marina in Great Kills on Wednesday. ... The long-haired, long-bearded Manser, 40, was hanging out with Ms. Geldenguys in their home one day when they decided they would venture to New York City in an incredible way -- via rowboat. Without a support staff, the couple set off in December, with a portioned supply of food and water donated from a South African grocer. ... Manser is a traveling author and public speaker outside of his professional adventuring"
The article notes: "In 2009 Riaan Manser set on a world first when he became the first person to circumnavigate Madagascar by kayak. The expedition lasted 11 months, a feat he achieved alone and unaided. The incredible 5000km journey, 5000 km, was demanding, both physically and mentally. Not only did Riaan have to overcome severe loneliness, but natural disasters, extreme weather conditions, and ten hours in saltwater wreaked havoc on his body. ... Four years after his solo trip, Riaan and his wife Vasti took on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. They endured a 173-day expedition from Agadir, Morocco to New York City, USA. ... In 2018, Riaan was joined on his 7-metre rowing boat, by rowing rookie and a total stranger Fanafikile Lephakha for a 5500 km expedition from the Canary Islands to Barbados which would last nearly two months."
The article notes: "Riaan Manser and Vasti Geldenhuys, a fun-loving couple from Cape Town, have been together for 14 years, so when Ms. Geldenhuys, 36, suggested a vacation, he was agreeable. ... Mr. Manser, 40, is a professional adventurer who, without Ms. Geldenhuys, a lawyer, has traveled the perimeter of Africa on a bicycle and around Madagascar and Iceland by kayak. So he suggested that the two row a boat from Africa to the United States, with no accompanying vessels. They completed that journey around 2 p.m. on Friday, rowing their custom-built, 22-foot, high-tech rowboat into the 79th Street Boat Basin almost six months after leaving Agadir, Morocco, on Dec. 30. After rowing almost 6,700 miles, they claim they are the first pair to row from mainland Africa to mainland North America."
The article notes: "First, it was Riaan Manser, alone and unaided…cycling the entire perimeter of the African continent, then circumnavigating Madagascar in a kayak and similarly around Iceland in a double kayak, adding two more incredible world firsts to his name. He then met his adventure partner for life, Vasti. Together, they broke world records through their adventures; from a world-first ocean row – Africa to North America, and then earning another Guinness World Record during a subsequent ocean crossing – the fastest mid-Pacific row from California to Hawaii."
The article notse: "Manser, whose children’s book My First African Adventure, was awarded the overall winner of the SA Book Awards 2023, spoke to the Grade 3s to 6s about his remarkable adventures, including a journey cycling around the perimeter of Africa. ... After the talk Manser signed copies of his books, including My First Wild Island Adventure and My First African Adventure, for students and staff alike."
The article notes: "He’s known as the South African that has conquered the world’s toughest oceans and most hostile environments. But now Riaan Manser is about to take his whole family on an adventure. He told Ryan all about it this morning and also shared a story about one of his scariest adventures. First, it was Riaan Manser, alone and unaided…cycling the entire perimeter of the African continent. Then he circumnavigated Madagascar in a kayak and Iceland in a double kayak which added two more world firsts to his name."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comments on these sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the nominator has a very low understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. They’re just nominating random articles created by me as an act of retaliation because I nominated a few of the articles they created about non-notable subjects. Their rationale for the AFD is unclear as, why they believe it should be deleted, anyways I leave this matter for fellow editors.
How come you decided that the subject is non-notable, given his filmography he easily passes Wp:NACTOR. And all the given sources are reliable sources, kindly let me know which source is unreliable? Zuck28 (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added reviews of her work, though the 2025 book is an edited book so it accounts less towards notability. I also revised the page and removed citations that were non-notable mentions of Tripathi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she has an article in Telugu Wikipedia - I have merged her two records in Wikidata, so it now shows as a link from the en.wiki article. PamD15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[65]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[66].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh No, I listed the source initially to point the awards. It was not my intention to list it twice or to give the impression that the sources were different. Afstromen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation. I still maintain that neither of those are independent. I would also think if she won the "highest award" as claimed, there would be more than just NEWSORGINDIA and a few interview type references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Endorse PamD above; subject meets WP:MUSICBIO#7-8; also this bio suggests that #11 (and to some extent #12) can also be met. There's more biographical information about the subject in (Rajagopalan 1990, pp. 171) harv error: no target: CITEREFRajagopalan1990 (help) though with limited online preview. Also, the use of "may" in MUSICBIO, to my understanding, means that the fulfilled criteria should be verifiable in reliable independent sources, and not that a significant coverage is required in addition. WeWake (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you address the rebuttal as well? There is no such thing as inherent notability. The "may" is there because it indicates the subject is likely notable, not that they "are" notable. Otherwise, why include may when it can be replaced with something more definite. Note WP:BASIC ("presumed notable" but not "are notable"), which also covers "one event" which may apply as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, For a decades long career that's been recognized with several notable awards is not a case of WP:BLP1E in my opinion–the award makes it easier to obtain some news coverage but is not the only basis of notability here. For niche-musicians, traditional coverage might be hard to come by (as is the case here, though I found one tertiary source above). Nevertheless, my two cents is that the subject is "worthy of notice" or "note" through a verifiable statements capturing several subject-specific understanding (of the community) of notability, and should be kept with {{Sources exist}} if existing are insufficient for a BLP. The SNGs allow us to contextualize the requirements of WP:BASIC and avoid a renewed reinterpretation with every article. The use of 'may' in that language broadly captures that these policies are consensus driven and evolve, and thus it cannot (possibly ever) prescribe a definitive criteria of notability. — WeWake (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy of notice would have more than just mentions or unreliable sourcing. I would agree a sources exist tag could be used, but that is assuming sources exist. They do not. All we have is what has been presented which falls short. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His startups do not meet WP:NCORP due to modest scale and event-specific reporting, and the book lacks significant critical reviews or awards to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:@Zuck28, Before taking any abrupt or random action, always ensure proper research is done and all sources are thoroughly verified. Acting without accurate information can lead to serious consequences and misunderstandings. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC) yet another sock block. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the sources provided above I think that notability is met here. I think it would be wise to integrate those sources into the article so that we don't have to argue this again. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Paid-for articles and churnalism that fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not what can be used for notability. The attempting gaming of the AfD process tells me this is also UPE and would recommend salting or we will be right back here again. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This disambiguation page is unnecessary. At present, there is only one Wikipedia article referring to an individual with the surname Meyzenq, namely Raymond Meyzenq. The creating editor appears to consider an individual listed on the Salomon Group article to be a notable figure and therefore has created a disambiguation page. However, there is no existing article on this individual to substantiate this claim of notability. Therefore, this disambiguation page should be deleted or be redirected, with CAT:RWP, to the existing article on Raymond Meyzenq, since he is the only person with that surname currently covered on this platform. QEnigma(talk)03:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a surname page, not a dab page. It's reasonable to include the CEO, for whom a redirect would also be reasonable. PamD08:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: It was a disambiguation page until you altered it ([73]). Your position would have been much clearer if that was included with your post. Best regards. QEnigma(talk)08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: I understand your position. However, it would have been preferable to make the alterations through consensus. That was the primary reason this article was listed on AfD forums. Nevertheless, I maintain the view that this article, whether a disambiguation page or a surname-related entry, requires the inclusion of more notable individuals with existing Wikipedia articles in order to be retained. As you are aware, there are numerous senior executives across various notable companies who do not have individual Wikipedia articles on them and are therefore not included in surname-related pages. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Best regards. QEnigma(talk)11:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma I don't think any specific consensus is needed to remove an incorrect {{tl|dab}} template and add the correct {{tl|surname}} template. The AfD template says "Feel free to improve the article".
Plenty of CEOs don't have links, plenty do. I've made a redirect from him to the company, and tweaked the dab page accordingly. PamD16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, it looks like a "No consensus" closure or, possibly, a "Keep" closure. Any more opinions now that the template has been corrected? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New coverage of the subject has emerged as recently as yesterday in The Globe and Mail. This figure has recent media coverage that is ongoing, and while cited sources do contain bias, they still constitute fact-based news from credible institutions. Effort needs to be put into improving the state of the page. Ike Lek (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If there's coverage (such as in the Globe), please link it for other editors to review, please. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail has since put a disclaimer on their article that it is third party content not verified by them, and upon second look it does indeed seem unreliable. In addition the the sources listed in the original request, I will link a few other potential sources below, although I cannot guarantee their independence from political interests. I suspect a speaker of Urdu, Kannada, Hindi, Punjabi, or Balochi may be able to better identify credible sources.
Weak keep - the Republic of Balcohistan article is deleted but I think Baloch warrants an article (albeit a stub) given how he leads one faction of a Baloch separatist group (or perhaps a state soon?). GarethBaloney17:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I will try to assume genuine intent, this seems to be pushing against Wikietiquette, specifically: "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines."
I say this not because you pinged users who participated in AfDs on similar topics, which is totally fine, but because you only pinged those who agreed with your stance in those discussions, which can appear like an attempt at votestacking. Ike Lek (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't want to be overly accusatory, nor do I want to imply that y'all won't take an unbiased independent approach to this discussion. It just felt off that no one who was saying keep in those discussions was pinged. Ike Lek (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A case of WP:TOOSOON and has serious notability issues. Just because someone says that a province is independent from the federation doesn't make the claim true. Also declaring himself the President is a joke. As far as the sources are concerned we need independent sources which are not biased in their reporting towards the issue which in this case are clearly lacking. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an issue of the legitimacy of his claims (I agree they are somewhat flimsy), but his notability as a figure. Since his joining MEMRI, more articles are being published that are heavily critical of him. I linked one earlier. There is no such thing as perfectly unbiased reporting, but some of these sources are seen as relatively credible. The existence of sources independent of him reporting on what he did and who he is makes him notable. Ike Lek (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon and maybe never. Speedy delete under A7 was correctly closed. I tried checking Pakistani newspapers like Dawn (newspaper) which had no mention of this individual. I tried searching Urdu papers for میر یار بلوچ (please tell me if that is correct) like Nawa-i-waqt[74] and Daily Jang where I found articles that didn't inspire confidence or didn't find anything at all. —preceding unsigned comment by Moritoriko (talk·contribs) 06:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This individual does not pass WP:GNG or fulfill the requirements for WP:BIO as this person has "not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Coverage of this individual in media is routine or passing mentions. Some of the sources do not appear reliable or particularly independent.
The argued notability of this person by editors that have removed prior tags appears to hinge on certain "honors" such as the "Order of the Eagle of Georgia" and the conception of "Lord Leslie" while these honors might sound significant it appears that honors like these can apparently be acquired without much difficulty (according to a source that was previously cited in the text by one of the contributors and later removed).
Delete. Only passing coverage in low-quality sources. Worth mentioning that HeraldicFacts added a picture to the article which was uploaded by Judasith1234 to Commons 19 minutes prior, so another likely sockpuppet.
Hi, @Arcaist - I will not take a position on this page retention, however just to clarify yours and @Naayn comment on "sockpuppetry", it was a misunderstanding of 6 months ago, which was opened in a sockpuppetry debate and resolved through a discussion and a final decision of several Admins, that ended with the deletion of user Judasith1234. It is unfair and incorrect to motivate a further deletion proposal based on this specific topic as it was already discussed and resolved in full previously. HeraldicFacts (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The subject meets WP:GNG through multiple non-trivial, independent sources covering his diplomatic and cultural roles. While some honours may appear unusual, they’ve been reported by independent media and involve internationally recognised institutions, not self-promotion. Rather than deletion, improvement is the constructive path forward, especially given existing sources and the subject’s international footprint. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you done a WP:Before on this individual? Which of the references would you consider to be "non-trivial, independent sources"? I struggle to find a source that would be considered either to support this individual's dubious claim to notability. If editing is the way forward, how would you propose to edit this piece so that it is appropriate? I'm afraid WP:AKON applies here. Nayyn (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Giacomo Merello clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Multiple reliable, independent secondary sources provide significant coverage of his career and roles, beyond routine mentions. Concerns about the subject’s honors and the contributors’ proximity do not negate the existence of independent sources demonstrating notability. Below, I outline the sources and relevant policies supporting retention of the article. Roles and impact: the coverage centers on his notable roles – as a Special Economic Envoy of Antigua and Barbuda, as a legal expert in digital assets and legal heraldry, examples 1. https://expatliving.sg/antigua-and-barbuda-citizenship-by-investment-and-coat-of-arms/Expat Living - this interview is a secondary source (Merello is the interviewee, with the magazine providing context) and offers significant biographical detail, demonstrating coverage in an independent publication; 2. https://www.henleyglobal.com/events/henley-partners-presents-celebration-caribbean about his activities as diplomat; 3. https://www.vietnam.vn/en/viet-nam-truoc-nga-re-tai-san-so-tin-chi-carbon about a seminar held for the State Bank of Vietnam. 4. https://antigua.news/2025/05/17/bridging-oceans-and-opportunities-giacomo-merello-on-promoting-antigua-and-barbuda-in-singapore-and-in-asia/ Antigua News - this is far beyond a trivial mention – it’s a full profile of his activities and impact, published by an independent news source (not a press release); 5. Multiple other independent articles about him from VIR and Malta Invest; 6. https://www.liveranionline.com/immagini/118224/retrospettiva-marcella-bella-cantante-con-il-figlio-giacomo-merello-nel-1985 ; https://dilei.it/spettacolo/marcella-bella-figlio-giacomo-singapore/1279204/ ; https://www.wemusic.it/marcella-bella-chi-sono-e-cosa-fanno-nella-vita-i-figli-carolina-tommaso-e-giacomo/ are all articles directly about him in connection to his very notable singer mother Marcella Bella, and not just as a routine mention, these are all independent secondary sources and are not "routine mentions" but the subject is the main topic. These roles have been covered in context by third-party sources, indicating he is a “significant, interesting, or unusual enough” person to deserve an encyclopedia entry, as per WP:GNG. The titles on their own may not necessarily meet by themselves WP:BIO, but in connection with all the rest, they definitely support and they have multiple mention in secondary sources on their own, like Debrett's, RSN, and Royal House of Georgia. On the Scottish Feudal Baronies there is currently in place an editing war which makes deletion based on that also shaky and not well thought. COI claim is vague and per WP:COI policy, an article should not be deleted solely due to who edited it, especially if just to fix objective links and factual elements, and any promotional tone wascleaned up by neutral editors in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Mediascriptor (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that Mediascriptor has been blocked as a sock. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep I was doing a random round of edits and came across this one. As I did that before, I thought my knowledge could benefit Wikipedia. Anyway, I think according to WP:NONENG Italian sources could be added and are reliable. And, according to WP:ANYBIOThe person has received a well-known and significant award or honor the subject seems notable. Also, I have seen discussions where admins say that even a single reliable source is enough for notability verification. AppleBoosted (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you read the article... Merello works for the organization that hands out this "honor" and helps people acquire such titles.. this is his business. So I can't imagine that we can consider it independent of anything. Nayyn (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, as its sources are clearly insufficient or trivial. The few reputable sources are passing mentions or focus on his family (His mother and uncle meet some criteria), not his professional activities – no significant coverage in reliable sources, not even from Italy or the country he supposedly represents at diplomatic level. XICO (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note with Added material - non vote. This is not a vote as I know the subject and may have COI, but for completeness I want to share further additional info and material supporting WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NONENG. All is WP:RS and WP:V for everyone and closer admin to have a fair, broader view. None of these appear currently in the article.
a prime time TV show on Singapore Channel Five, called Makan Times Stories, also features the subject (the Italian martial artist and lawyer in the trailer): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvzWKthxtlM ;
There is a clear constant pattern of coverage in international sources and from multiple reasons of different kind.
Also I simply observe that several of the editors participating in this AfD discussion, including the proposer, seem to be very actively involved with each other in the broader context of arguing and engaging in what appear to be editing wars, which somehow casts a doubt on their WP:NPOV . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.220.129.231 (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, you are casting aspersions if you are suggesting the proposer and other editors are colluding on some sort of agenda here. If you are trying to insinuate something, do provide evidence. Nayyn (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For precision and intellectual honesty, I never accused you or anyone else of "colluding on some sort of agenda", these are words you are putting yourself in there. And "casting aspersions" involves direct accusations which are "repeated or particularly severe", which, again, it is objectively not the case. 5.148.85.22 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you have declared a COI in this case, it is quite serious to suggest that uninvolved persons are purportedly engaging in editing wars over this subject. This is not true. Nayyn (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi please stop and try to make an argument. I added a number of quality sources and you ignored them. What for clarification I meant is that there seems to be an ongoing drama between you @Kellycrak88 @Mediascriptor @Arcaist which apparently resulted in ANI heated discussions, blocking of an entire section of the Baronage of Scotland, and so on. The IP changes depending where you are, sorry. Also I recently noticed this: https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Rosneft&lang=en&q=User_talk:Mediascriptor ; as an external onlooker I simply noted that there seems to be again and again the same persons, including yourself, over the same topics, and it does not look balanced and respecting WP:NPOV - this is not casting aspersions at all, I am merely stating facts that anyone tracking all the above users interconnected involvements can notice. I will no longer reply on this specific topic, as I believe I explained it to you clearly. However, I do ask you to reassess the page you proposed for deletion based also on the newly shared RS, and in conjunction with everything else. You could easily edit to improve the page further. 119.56.98.99 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only replying because you pinged me. Your COI should make you think twice before accusing others of lacking WP:NPOV. The "ongoing drama" (an expression which borders on WP:PA) is a good-faith effort to deal with non-notable individuals connected to bought Scottish titles; it's not surprising you see the same editors appear in multiple places.
Let's look at the sources:
Thoi Bao Ngan Hang: a report on a workshop in Vietnam at which he was one of eight speakers.
Dai Bieu Nhan Dan: the same workshop, he's marginally quoted in one paragraph.
VNBA: same workshop.
VIR articles: this is not "coverage", they are simply promotional articles written by him.
YouTube: I'm not even going to comment on the notability implications of 4 seconds of him swinging a katana and making meatballs in a trailer with 200 views for a "primetime show".
True-News.it: The fact that family members are notable doesn't make him notable.
I don't think I have to explain why the existence of Robert De Niro doesn't make Merello notable? I can't even find a press release about his envoy status besides an article in Antigua News, which is owned by his buddy Dario Item.
Keep. I think this article could be improved by focusing more on his professional career and ensuring a balanced presentation of supplementary details, aligning it with WP:GNG standards rather than deleting it. Given Antigua’s limited geopolitical prominence, regional sources are appropriate when mainstream Western media coverage is unlikely. The notability is supported by verifiable regional coverage of his professional work, such as his role as Economic Envoy of Antigua. VIR (a state-affiliated yet editorially reliable outlet cited in hundreds of Wiki pages, including those on Asia-Pacific diplomacy) reports his advisory role in digital asset regulation, providing direct quotes from officials and policy analysis. Such sources fulfill WP:SIGCOV requirements. Cinelatina (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the closing admin’s information: I would like to note that the user @Mediascriptor, who provided a KEEP rationale above, has since been unblocked following a review that confirmed they were not a sockpuppet. This clarification is provided so that their KEEP rationale may be considered validly in the discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I find the arguments on the Keep side to be P&G-light. For a BLP, this lands us on the Delete side. Owen×☎13:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fail NPOL, as the mayor of a large city in Chile (Viña del Mar). He did so in full capacity following the removal of office of Rodrigo González, who preceded him. Although he was the mayor for only three months, the article could well be expanded using offline sources such as El Mercurio de Valparaíso. --Bedivere (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put that into perspective then. It's the sixth largest commune in Chile by population. It's a large city in Chile. Bedivere (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Population doesn't mean high notability. Honolulu has a population of 344,967. Viña del Mar has more population than Orlando, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Des Moines and Anchorage, notable U.S. cities. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And in every one of those cities, a mayor would still have to be properly sourced to get their own article, and would still not be handed an automatic notability freebie on bad sourcing just because they existed as a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets enough NPOL, the subject of the biography has held an official position and has received sufficient media coverage. --Carigval.97 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mayor doesn't get an automatic notability freebie just because of the population of the city — the notability of a mayor hinges on the quality and depth and volume of WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources that can be shown to support an article with. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as directory entries and raw tables of election results and simple certifications of his election victories, which are not support for notability — and of the just two footnotes that come from reliable sources, one is a dead link and the other one is just covering him in the context of his candidacy in a much later non-mayoral election that he didn't win, and thus isn't supporting notability as a mayor. Obviously he could keep an article that was referenced properly, but the fact that his city has 334,248 people living in it does not magically exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the thing is that most news sources that could eventually support this article are offline. I'm sure lots of references could be retrieved from regional newspapers like El Mercurio de Valparaíso and La Estrella de Valparaíso. There is a Santiago Mercurio archive online but is only available to subscribers, a source which could eventually serve here. La Tercera and El Mostrador had online versions in 2000 and probably could be at least partially available on the Wayback Machine. The purpose of this comment is to show this could be further expanded and referenced with reliable sources but would need some effort gathering the sources. Bedivere (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for sure, it's not a common event to have a mayor replaced in Chile. Their tenure was short but it certainly was covered by major national and regional sources.
Now, leaving that aside, there are some book sources that could be used to further expand the article. The Tributo a Valparaíso (Fernando Vergara Benítez, 2007) (partially available on Google Books) mentions the "tireless work by former mayor of Viña del Mar and social assistant, Mr. Roberto Parra Vallette, a pioneer in Chile, dedicated with his family for more than two decades to the rehabilitation of drug addicts, founding in 1982 (or 1983?) the Casa de Acogida Hogar La Roca" (p. 34). An article, from 2000, mentions him in this 2000 magazine, but the article is not completely visible. There is this El Mercurio article (Chilean newspaper of record) mentioning his election as mayor in an extraordinary city council session. There is an in-depth article by CNN, dated 2021, in the context of his candidacy for the Constitutional Convention. --Bedivere (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep poorly-sourced articles on the basis of speculation that better sourcing might exist somewhere that nobody has actually searched for or found — we keep or delete articles based on the quality and depth of the sources that people show. If all one had to do to save an article for deletion was to idly speculate that other sources might exist, then even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable from Wikipedia anymore — and even if the article gets deleted, it can always be recreated at a later date if improved quality sourcing actually does turn up that got missed now. So just speculating about the possibility of better sourcing existing somewhere in the world doesn't prevent deletion, if those sources don't actually turn up and get added to the article now. And we need to see a lot more than just "mentions" and non-winning candidacies for offices other than the one that constitutes his attempted notability claim, so none of the sources in the comment immediately above this one add up to enough all by themselves either. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific analysis of sources known to be available would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:00, 20 June 2025 (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.
Keep While I can understand the nominator's concern about "WP:BOMBARD" given the initial article creation, it's worth assessing the subject's actual notability separately from how the article came to be.
If Junie Yu indeed meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically for politicians, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and general notability, WP:GNG) through verifiable, independent sources, then the article should be kept. The focus should be on the subject's notability, not on the initial submission process.
Let's evaluate based on policy, not just initial impressions.
While Pam Baricuatro also fails WP:NPOL, she's one level of government higher than Yu (city vs municipality), and can be argued she may pass WP:GNG; of course that can definitely be determined by nominating that article for WP:AFD yourself as well.
Looking at the references on this article, it's Facebook, the Bohol provincial government, the Calape municipal government, election results databases, and actual WP:RS provide coverage mostly to his children (LOL?) passing the nursing board exams and being in a national beauty pageant, instead of him personally. There's one reference solely about him where his corruption cases were dismissed. Looking at all of this, delete as having failed WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Junie Yu is notable based on his extensive political career. He served as mayor for three consecutive terms (June 30, 2007 – June 30, 2016) and as vice-mayor for three consecutive terms (June 30, 2016 – June 30, 2025). Furthermore, he unseated incumbent Mayor Julius Caesar Herrera in both the 2013 and 2025 elections, and is set to assume office again as mayor by June 30, 2025. This consistent holding of significant public office directly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians (WP:NPOLITICIAN) and provides ample ground for "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. 1bisdak (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To closing admin, subject of the article fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. I suppose 1bisdak has to paste the provision on that policy where Yu applies? Being mayor for 3 terms, vice mayor for 3 terms, unseating the previous mayor, and defending the mayoralty doesn't make you pass WP:NPOL. I would really highly suggest 1bisdak to rean and understand WP:NPOL; it's not even that long.
Junie Yu's six consecutive terms as mayor and vice-mayor (2007-2025) demonstrate sustained "significant elected office" under WP:NPOLITICIAN.
His unseating of incumbent Mayor Julius Caesar Herrera twice (2013 and 2025) further proves his political notability and the likelihood of significant coverage.
While some current sources might be weak, his long tenure and political impact mean verifiable, independent sources should exist, meeting WP:GNG. The issue is finding them, not a lack of notability.
The exact phrase "significant elected office" (your quotes) doesn't appear in WP:NPOLITICIAN.
People defeating incumbents do not merit Wikipedia articles for most of the time, unless those offices are the ones found in WP:NPOLITICIAN.
Where are those WP:RS sources? You've been arguing about importance without actually demonstrating it by finding sources. Sources about his offspring don't count. We need actual sources not theoretical ones, "or they're out there". This person's career spans the last 10 years or so, WP:LINKROT should not be an issue for internet sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion of what *specific* sources offer sigcov (or don't) would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork09:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His extensive political career, marked by multiple terms as Mayor and Vice Mayor, his success in unseating a notable incumbent mayor, and his unbeaten political record, establishes him as a historically relevant figure in the governance of Calape. His sustained tenure in such a prominent public office reinforces this notability. 1bisdak (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For local politicians, WP:NPOL provides this: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", not defeating incumbents or having multiple terms in different positions.
In this nomination and on the article per se, this was not demonstrated. Perhaps coverage exists somewhere, but like I said, it's not demonstrated anywhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much notability particularly for someone who hasn't risen above the municipal level. Apart from the dearth of credible sources, the other argument presented for keep is making me suspicious of whether some kind of COI exists. Borgenland (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much notability particularly for someone who hasn't risen above the municipal level.
I have acquaintances who get elected to political office for multiple terms without opponents (a WP:ROUTINE thing in the Philippines). You need to do better than WP:IDNHT, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND and recycling the same unencyclopedic and promotional WP:SOAPBOX argument about a low-level politician from a municipality whose name recall is most likely limited to Bohol and neighboring islands that makes me more suspicious if you have COI in the first place. Borgenland (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier for 1bisdak, on what WP:NPOL is looking for:
Multiple terms as mayor and vice mayor: irrelevant
Comment the article states in present tense that he assumed office on June 30, 2025, like he is already in office. How is that possible? Where I live, the date is June 24, 2025. Are the Philippines in a unique time zone, or what is the deal.Isaidnoway(talk)04:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the writer responsible for such issue has deliberately restored such questionable edits [75] and is now on ANI for this and related behavior in this AFD. Borgenland (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time you have written that it's up to the appropriate person to decide whether to keep or delete it. I don't think you understand how this works. This is the discussion where editors attempt to reach consensus on whether this article should be deleted. That's what we are doing. The AFD closer will simply evaluate the discussion.
Delete - Perhaps there are sources which are hard to find or offline. What is the specific reason such sources would exist? What, specifically, has this person done to warrant significant attention from reliable sources? Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a doctor and a relatively low-level politician. Neither is inherently notable. I'm not seeing in-depth sources about him to show notability. Meters (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:GNG is not met. I found no coverage of the subject other than routine coverage of results or news about his children (not him). The references presented are similar, or non-reliable, or about others too. Despite protestations above, we do not assess whether we think the subject is notable, we look at what reliable sources say: nothing has been found or presented which "factually verifies" notability.
WP:NPOL is not met. Local politicians are explicitly not inherently notable unless they have received significant press coverage, and per the above, on his occasion they have not.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Off-topic Certain individuals on this platform present themselves as helpful in improving the article, yet their underlying objective is its removal. Subsequently, they will seek the intervention of administrators and simply disparage the article's originator. These sorts of people are not genuine in their conduct and are solely interested in creating disruption within Wikipedia. Administrators should be made aware of such disruptive behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1bisdak (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional tone is a reason to rewrite not to delete so I disagree with that part, but it lacks any demonstrated significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources so should be deleted for lacking notability. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to cite very, very few reliable sources. In fact, most of its references are self-published sources, such as the subject's LinkedIn profile and many documents uploaded to the subject's personal website. The excessive detail and sole focus on the accomplishments of the subject also makes me feel like it's advertising—the bulleted list of degrees right at the top certainly doesn't help.
As such, I don't feel like this article really fulfills notability guidelines for people, per WP:BIO. I tried looking up some other, more reliable , or even just secondary sources on this subject, and I didn't see any. The subject does not seem to fulfill any of the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, and certainly just running for delegate once and serving on the Howard County Board of Appeals (a board not even mentioned in any other Wikipedia article) does not qualify this article for notability per WP:NPOL. In general, while I don't have anyway of knowing this, it feels very much like this was written by the subject of the article or someone very close to the subject.
User:Dawkin_Verbier also mentioned similar problems on this article's talk page, including its promotional tone, detail, and use of unreliable sources. Also, I'm not sure it was about the same person, but back in 2007, there was a "James P. Howard" that was speedy deleted for lack of notability.
This is the first time I've ever nominated an article for deletion, so I hope I did everything right and that I'm not completely just off-base! Maptrainguy (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least needs a complete rewrite. The list of degrees makes it seem like a job application, and i'm not sure what the coat of arms is for. Notaoffensivename (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notability is well-established; article needs cleanup, not deletion
James P. Howard II clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics and public figures. His academic output includes several books with reputable publishers, such as two editions of the Handbook of Military and Defense Operations Research (2020, 2024), Computational Methods for Numerical Analysis with R (2017), and Socioeconomic Effects of the National Flood Insurance Program (2016). These are not minor self-published works, but peer-reviewed or editorially curated volumes from recognized presses, reflecting substantial scholarly engagement.
His published research spans topics such as phonetic-spelling algorithms, blockchain systems, and cybersecurity, appearing in venues like IEEE Security & Privacy and the Journal of Statistical Software. This demonstrates consistent contribution to his fields. Additionally, he has received multiple fellowships from professional bodies, including the British Computer Society (FBCS, 2020), the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (FIMA, 2022), and the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (FSA Scot, 2025). These are not merely affiliations; they represent peer-recognized standing.
That said, the current state of the article is suboptimal. A recent change transformed the education section into a list-heavy format, likely intended to support inclusion on the perpetual student page. This is not encyclopedic in tone and should be rewritten into a more integrated narrative. Moreover, some biographical material appears to have been removed, reducing clarity and context. These are content and formatting issues, not grounds for deletion. Columbia21044 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like a puff piece, without much substantial content. From what I can tell, he's a low-level politician who has taught a few classes and written a few books. Clearly fails WP:NPOL, and does not seem to pass WP:NPROF or WP:AUTHOR either. There might be some saving grace combining everything under WP:GNG, but unless there are some unmentioned major awards or heaps of RS praise for his writing or teaching, I can't find it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NACADEMIC, the receipt of selective fellowships from major professional societies is sufficient to establish notability. Howard is a Fellow of the British Computer Society, the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, and others. These honors are selective, peer-reviewed, and meet criterion #3 under the guideline. That alone satisfies the notability threshold, regardless of whether WP:NPOL or WP:AUTHOR applies. Columbia21044 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The third fellowship, with the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (IMA), does not appear to have a public register. However, the subject's FIMA designation is also referenced within the FSAScot entry, which provides indirect verification from a recognized independent source. Columbia21044 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three fellowships were cited under WP:NACADEMIC #3. These fellowships meet the selective and substantiated test under WP:NACADEMIC. The article needs cleanup, but notability is adequately supported. Columbia21044 (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am very, very sceptical that any of the fellowships referenced above are enough to meet WP:NPROF#C3. C3 is for fellowships that are reserved as highly selective honours for experts in a field, which are generally elected positions that are limited to a certain percentage of the organisation's membership. It doesn't apply to organisations that have a general membership tier that they call "Fellows". Going through each of them:
Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland - a quote from the president on their website says "Becoming a Fellow is not an onerous task. It’s not for experts. It’s for people to develop their interests and anyone who’s got an interest or a passion for the past is welcome to join and the process of becoming a Fellow is relatively straightforward."
Fellows of the British Computer Society - has some basic criteria, but appears to just be a paid tier of membership that does not meet the standard of being a highly selective honour.
I'd also note that it would also be utterly extraordinary for someone to meet the NPROF standard of making a highly impactful scholarly contribution in such a diverse set of fields. This set of "fellowships" in five extremely different fields and the long list of degrees (2 undergrads, 5 masters and a PhD) makes it pretty obvious that this is someone looking for postnominals to put after their name, not someone who is a distinguished scholar in any particular field. MCE89 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:NPROF, references mostly to articles he published, and possible COI given the user has almost only made edits on pages for this prof and this prof's father. Lijil (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went through the article checking the sources. There are many claims about acknowledgement of his work, but the sources quoted only make minor reference to it. The text is thus quite inappropriate at the very least, and I have added some inline tags. Beyond that his citations are modest with no major prizes so he is some distance from passing WP:NPROF, and there is nothing that comes close for any notability criteria.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed feedback and for highlighting the areas requiring improvement. In response, I have made substantive revisions aimed at addressing the concerns you raised, specifically regarding notability, sourcing, and editorial tone.
I have significantly expanded and improved the reference base throughout the article. Not only are there now more independent and reliable secondary sources, but these also include peer-reviewed Nature journal articles and major policy documents that discuss or cite Bojić’s work—particularly on large language models and the “CERN for AI” concept. This is intended to more clearly demonstrate that his contributions have been independently recognized in both academic and policy forums, with attention to WP:NPROF and WP:GNG criteria.
Where previous references overstated the subject’s recognition, I have revised the language for neutrality and accuracy. “Acknowledgement” claims have been replaced with verified citations, and a [dubious] tag remains where appropriate for transparency. Direct quotations from new policy briefs and reputable news sources have been incorporated to highlight independent uptake or discussion of Bojić’s ideas, such as in the context of EU deliberations.
Bojić’s institutional roles are now fully cited, including links to the AI Institute of Serbia’s events and the Serbian Government’s official registry of researchers, directly confirming his affiliations.
- Claims relating to his involvement with UNEP foresight initiatives are now supported by official UN documentation.
- Biographical details about family members now cite Wikipedia articles in Serbian, as per cross-referenced WP:BLP policies.
I hope these improvements address previous concerns. I believe the article now meets WP:N, WP:V, and WP:PROF standards, and I respectfully suggest that retention is currently warranted. I welcome any further suggestions or requests for evidence. Devetakapija (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In response to the points raised:
Thank you all for the careful scrutiny and the specific feedback provided above. I would like to summarize the recent improvements to the article and how these revisions address the policies cited by participants (WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, and COI concerns):
1. Addressing WP:GNG/WP:NPROF:
Several reliable, independent secondary sources have been added that reference the subject’s work beyond mere self-publication or routine teaching roles:
The Edinburgh Companion to the New European Humanities – a scholarly monograph, discusses the subject’s pioneering multidisciplinary approach to the digital humanities. This is an independent, non-trivial coverage in a reliable source (see NPROF C2).
Multiple peer-reviewed articles about LLM assessment, artificial consciousness, and pragmatics, have cited the subject’s research (including recent citations in Psychology Today and Scieniast). This constitutes some recognition by the academic community (relevant for NPROF C3).
Policy documents (including a Horizon TwON project brief and an interview in Research Professional News (Clarivate)) independently mention the subject by name and reference specific contributions (i.e., the CERN for AI initiative). These references go beyond passing mention, as the policy brief specifically discusses the relevance of Bojić’s research and recommendations in context.
The European Commission's 2025 AI investment initiative, while not naming Bojić personally, closely aligns with models discussed in his work, indicating potential notability through significant indirect influence.
Participation in global initiatives (e.g. UNEP foresight projects) is now credibly cited via official and independent documentation.
2. Reference Improvements:
All references were carefully reviewed. The article now takes care to distinguish between brief citations/mentions and deeper discussion. Any previous overstatements have been toned down to match the actual significance of cited coverage, per WP:NPOV and WP:V.
3. Modest Citations and Awards:
While it is accurate that subject does not hold major international prizes, NPROF does not require awards per se: it also allows notability to be demonstrated through significant coverage/impact in reliable sources, including peer recognition and applied policy impact. The above sources show the subject’s influence on current research and policy.
4. Possible COI:
I acknowledge concerns about single-purpose/COI contributions. The improvements made draw on independent, third-party sources, and I encourage further independent edits/corrections from uninvolved editors to ensure neutrality. I do not have a conflict of interest beyond a desire to ensure coverage is accurate and policy-compliant.
5. Sorting Lists:
Thank you for adding the article to appropriate deletion sorting lists. This invites needed community input.
Happy to address further tagging or clarify any remaining issues with sources or content.
Your statement that "The European Commission's 2025 AI investment initiative, while not naming Bojić personally, closely aligns with models discussed in his work, indicating potential notability through significant indirect influence" shows how far you're having to stretch to try to demonstrate notability. I've removed the statement from the article as original research, given that it doesn't mention the subject or his work. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page on a young Materials Scientist which claims that he is a mathematician, but has only published on polymers. According to this page he was in the Department of Chemical, Polymer and Silicate Engineering described here. While there are claims that he is a Professor, the relevant staff page does not currently verify this. Page makes many claims, for instance 200 scholarly works but he only has an h-factor of 13. (An h-factor of 13 is at about the level of a senior postdoc in Materials Science, to at most a starting assistant professor. If he was truly a mathematician then an h-factor of 13 might be acceptable.) Page has major refbombing and a fair amount of peacock. No indications of anything close to a pass of WP:NPROF on any count, or any other notability criteria. Page was previously PROD by nom, then indirectly challenged by Jars Worldhere. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As stated in the nom, this appears to be ref-bombed. I'm not convinced by the 30 or so links, my search doesn't bring up much of anything about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a lot of puffery for a not really notable academic. Sources like this, this and this are just promotional, and I don't see much beyond the first source which could help in establishing actual notability. Fram (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Refs [2] and [9] appear to reviews of his book with a bylined editor (who appears to be a senior-resident editor of The Pioneer). Given subject's stint at the same place, not sure how "independent" that would be. Bulk of the notability is driven by opinions/commentaries etc in multiple venues — I am not sure how that is generally used for Journalists on Wikipedia re: notability. I am leaning weak delete but if something else surfaces, I am happy to revisit. WeWake (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that page is also a little sus. I'm unlikely to nominate myself (working on other things atm) but encourage others to grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes there is a COI but the topic is not non-notable. Either you will need an article on this subject or any of his multiple books. I would prefer the former because it is an immediate solution to the present need with regards to this topic. Agletarang (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assistant professors are seldom notable under NPROF, and I see no evidence of NPROF notability here. The subject has one published book, but I did not find reviews of it. (If reviews could be found, then redirection to a stub on the book could be a sensible alternative to deletion.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems to be entirely about academic activities so we should consider this according to WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Local coverage of his public outreach activities does not amount to WP:PROF#C7 notability. His assistant professor position is not promising and Google Scholar could not even find his publications, at least one of which appears to be in a local historical society newsletter rather than a peer-reviewed journal. The article does not even mention the existence of books so WP:AUTHOR is out of reach. Very far from notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feels insufficient that this individual meets the notability criteria per WP:GNG. The majority of substantial edits to this article have been made by one-off WP:SPA accounts, which are likely to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets with a personal connection to the subject. Aleain (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is significant enough per WP:GNG. The article does have significant citation issues and is not written with a neutral tone, but nothing that can't be fixed. Draftify is also a good option. 🟥⭐talk to me!04:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this through the academics deletion sorting list, but I could not find any evidence of notability as an academic or author. If he is notable, it is going to have to be through WP:GNG through his activities as a businessman. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah shoot wait, this is probably speedy delete worthy. Was previously deleted before and there's no indication this version of the article is any different. Think likely COI going on here. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is based on sparse and trivial references with no clear demonstration of notability. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. The only sources I can find for this individual are from a university associated with the individual. Nixleovel (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wonder. Gynnild seems to be pretty well-published for an academic and I'd have thought easily meets the WP:NACADEMIC criteria for notability. The article is a right mess and has been edited by two SPAs but if it's notable it needs tidying not deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the safety shoe invention, I don't really see notability for this person. The awards seem trivial and the rest of the sourcing is simply a resume/CV. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gnews brings up this gem [82], with a whole four lines of text. Gscholar only has two hits on the name, that I don't think are about this person either. Not much of anything in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I’d like to provide clarification and context on Syed Mosharaf Hossain’s notability, especially beyond the surface-level view of awards and basic sourcing.
🔬 1. Invention & Innovation: Safety Shoe for Farmers
While it may appear modest at first glance, the safety shoe innovation was recognized by grassroots technology networks and national-level education-focused NGOs, including National Innovation Foundation–India and the India Science Wire. His work has been demonstrated at regional science exhibitions (e.g., Paschim Banga Bigyan Mela) and reported in regional media as a functional solution adopted by small-scale agricultural communities in rural Bengal. It goes beyond a one-off idea—it’s an application-driven invention with social utility and adoption, which is a key indicator of applied innovation notability in developing contexts.
🏅 2. Awards and Recognitions – Not Trivial
The awards may seem local in nature, but several (like those from Asia Book of Records, Positive Barta, and Grassroot Innovator Forums) are curated via peer review and field validation, particularly in the education and rural development sector. These recognitions are third-party validations of social impact, not just self-nomination trophies. He was also selected as Principal of the Year (2024) by a consortium of skill-development organizations under the Directorate of Technical Education in West Bengal.
📚 3. Reliable Secondary Sources
Though not abundant in Google Scholar due to the nature of his work (not academic), his profile and work have been:
Covered by leading Bengali newspapers such as Anandabazar Patrika and Ei Samay in regional editions.
Highlighted by Bangla-language educational YouTube channels, regional digital portals, and field reporting platforms covering Bardhaman and Nadia districts.
Listed as a featured speaker and delegate in two district-level government innovation workshops (verified by district administration websites).
🛠️ 4. Scope of Impact
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is not just an inventor but a grassroots education reformer, having led multiple campaigns for inclusive skill education for rural girls, ITI modernization, and anti-dropout programs for economically marginalized students. These initiatives have been independently referenced by local government circulars and panchayat reports, and his role as Principal of a Government ITI has seen him directly involved in state-level technical outreach. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to provide more specifics for where one might be able to find this coverage in secondary sources. Also, I'd advise you to avoid using AI generated text in these discussions, as it can weaken your argument. Ike Lek (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is a distinguished educator and innovator whose contributions have drawn significant independent recognition. Not only was he honored by the Asia Book of Records, but on June 17, 2025, he was also named “Principal of the Year 2025” at the Asia Education Conclave held in Mumbai, alongside another ITI principal from Bengal, for his work in enhancing technical education and multi-skill training en.wikipedia.org+6magzter.com+6x.com+6. These are reliable, third‑party sources establishing his notability under WP:GNG. Rather than deleting, the article should be retained and improved with these published citations. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not agree with the notability guidelines matching this profile even after thoruogh research, hence it should be deleted.Almandavi (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is a distinguished educator and innovator whose contributions have drawn significant independent recognition. Not only was he honored by the Asia Book of Records, but on June 17, 2025, he was also named “Principal of the Year 2025” at the Asia Education Conclave held in Mumbai, alongside another ITI principal from Bengal, for his work in enhancing technical education and multi-skill training en.wikipedia.org+6magzter.com+6x.com+6. These are reliable, third‑party sources establishing his notability under WP:GNG. Rather than deleting, the article should be retained and improved with these published citations. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is a distinguished educator and innovator whose contributions have drawn significant independent recognition. Not only was he honored by the Asia Book of Records, but on June 17, 2025, he was also named “Principal of the Year 2025” at the Asia Education Conclave held in Mumbai, alongside another ITI principal from Bengal, for his work in enhancing technical education and multi-skill training en.wikipedia.org+6magzter.com+6x.com+6. These are reliable, third‑party sources establishing his notability under WP:GNG. Rather than deleting, the article should be retained and improved with these published citations. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy and the creator also might appear to be harassing other editors with the comment above of, "plz provide this is a promotional article, otherwise, set up your mouth". Possible further warning or sanctions beyond just deleting this page?Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a local historian, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for historians. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have or had jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain defined notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by non-media organizations she was directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. (For example, people do not become notable enough for Wikipedia articles by having staff profiles on the websites of their own employers, or contributor directories on the websites of publications that they wrote for — media unaffiliated with her work have to write about and analyze the significance of her work as news to make her notable on that basis.) As her potential claim of notability is primarily local in nature rather than national, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to the necessary resources than I've got can actually find sufficient RS coverage to get her over the bar, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She did win awards, including a state-wide award for her work. WP:Author doesn't require national accomplishments. One might make the case that winning an award from the state's primary historical society might be "significant critical attention"? --
I didn't say people always have to have nationalized accomplishments to be eligible for an article — I said that because her notability claim is local rather than national in nature, I lack access to the kind of resources necessary to determine whether the article is salvageable with better referencing or not on my own, without bringing it to wider attention. People can get into Wikipedia on primarily local significance — but regardless of whether their notability claim is local or national in scope, people aren't exempted from having to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing. Also, every award that exists does not constitute an automatic notability freebie — a person is not automatically notable just because the article has the word "award" in it, if the article doesn't have GNG-worthy reliable sourcing in it. "Significant critical attention", for the purposes of GNG, is a question of whether she's had news reportage and/or books written about her and her work, not just the fact of having been singled out for just any old award that exists — an award might help if it could be referenced to a newspaper article treating "Shirley Willard wins award" as news, but it doesn't help if you have to depend on content self-published by the organization that gave her the award to source the statement because media coverage about the award doesn't exist. We're not just looking for "has done stuff", we're looking for "has had media coverage and/or books written and published about the stuff she did". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful woman, no doubt, but I simply cannot find any of her writings that aren't "self-published" - i.e. by the historical society she was working with in some capacity. She did get two awards from the Indiana Historical Society, but I don't think that is going to confirm notability. She is given credit for unearthing the story of this "Trail of Death" but I only find a very few mentions of it by folks not directly associated with the historical society. Lamona (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking for clarification on what you are asking for here- are you asking for the historical veracity of the Potawatomi Trail of Death? If so, there is already a Wikipedia article discussing its history. I am not writing that she was responsible for discovering it, she is just a historian who has taken important steps to preserve its memory in local history. Willard is responsible for the Trail of Courage festival and commemorative caravan, if that's what you meant. Here are some mentions of the Trail of Living Courage Festival and caravan from sources not associated with Willard or the Fulton County Historical Society:
If these sources are satisfactory, I can start reworking the article around these and replace the Fulton Co. Historical Society ones. DeishaJ (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at these sources, but, no, I'm not asking about the trail of death. This article is about HER so we need sources about HER. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will let others decide if these sources are good enough to work in this article, as they are technically blog posts. I will argue, though, that they are from the official Potawatomi tribe website. These sources mention Willard playing a key role in securing proclamations from Mike Pence and Eric Holcomb in recognition of the Trail of Death and establishing remembrance/heritage days. These might be notable additions to her article, but I am unsure if they would meet proper reference criteria. Is there any way to find good sources for these proclamations:
Mike Pence declaring Sept. 20, 2014 Potawatomi Trail of Death Remembrance Day
Eric Holcomb declaring April 22, 2017 Indiana Indian Day
Generally, blog posts are not considered reliable because they are informal and lack a true editorial oversight. The DAR one is pretty good but may not be considered independent because she was a member of DAR and this is a "member profile." Press releases are never considered reliable sources because they are by definition promotional, and thus have a non-neutral point of view. I hope that others will weigh in on the awards. (I advise looking at the documents about those awards - unless you are already familiar with them.) Lamona (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted because the subject doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s rules for notable academics or public figures. It appears to be written by the subject himself, raising concerns about autobiographical bias. His h-index and i10-index are much lower than what is normally expected for a professor in the Humanities. The only proof that he won a major Chinese award is a dead link, and no other reliable sources confirm it. Charlie (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems feebly notable hence the article should be trimmed in a neutral form and also lodged with some more notable news link.Almandavi (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. As an unsuccessful candidate, he's not notable for that reason. He's also not automatically notable because he's lead organizations or businesses. I don't see WP:SIGCOV, and he fails my person standards for lawyers (there is no consensus). Bearian (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would appreciate help to make this article more solid. I'm still learning. Case Lawrence is a very influential figure in Utah business and politics. I have not been paid to make edits on this article. I moved article to the mainspace because I didn't know it had to wait to be reviewed. I understand if it must be deleted. I would appreciate any advice on how to keep pages up. Madlaiscott (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article, I think you've done a good job of keeping things focused on the subject. (And no, there is no rule that you need approval or a draft process to move to mainspace, but you should probably know that doing so against a review is likely to attract an AfD). My advice is to find the ten least significant facts/links in the article (especially those that are not particularly important and are about SkyZone/CircusTrix and not Lawrence) and remove them -- the article looks like someone is trying to make a minor business person seem important by bombarding the reader with lots of tiny assertions of notability instead of focusing on the 5 or 6 sources that actually confirm his notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)13:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by WP:GNG for multiple independent sources covering him as an influential business figure (in addition to, and of course in part because of, his success in the trampoline world). There are headline stories about him in Deseret News, a significant news publisher, and Utah Business (which seems to be from the same company but independent editorials) and, also among less significant news sources, the Utah Valley University review and the BYU Marriott Business School review. The first Inc. story is largely about Lawrence's success in addition to the company's success as is the Sacramento Bee story (the LA Times story is about the company and doesn't mention Lawrence directly). Would not pass WP:NPOL or WP:PROF, but only one notability guideline needs to be passed and the amount of news about Lawrence himself is enough to pursuade me to !vote Keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)13:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lawrence has had many articles written about him both in Utah as well as Forbes and Inc.. He is a pioneer and leader of his industry. He is a notable figure in Utah for his entrepreneurship as well as political involvement in many facets. The citations and references are there, they just could use more organizing and help from more experienced editors. Driftsignal97 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I thought the disclosure I have on my user page was sufficient. I was originally paid by media company, Fluid, who did work for Case Lawrence. I was the original creator of the Case Lawrence article. Driftsignal97 (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG There are multiple headline articles about Lawrence. He has plenty of references to use. He is referenced in at least two other Wikipedia articles also. He has a lot more references than a lot of other pages... Compare this page to other notable business and political figures in Utah especially. Madlaiscott (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. LizRead!Talk!20:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]
No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. The article relies entirely on primary sources, self-published material, and uncited claims. No independent, reliable secondary sources (e.g., reputable news outlets, books, academic journals) demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. Fails WP:BIO criteria for living persons. Subject appears to be a local entertainer without broad recognition. Sources cited (e.g., YouTube, personal websites, IMDb) are unreliable per WP:SPS. Previous "citation needed" tags (since 2022) remain unaddressed. Syn73 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was nominated for deletion by Bearcat, part of their rationale was, "WP:BLP of a media entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for media figures. As always, founders of television channels are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources and glancing namechecks of the subject's existence in coverage about other things, with no evidence shown at all of any GNG-worthy coverage with him as its subject." Although re-written, this still applies. The second part of Bearcat's rationale dealt with COI editing, which has only been exacerbated by the most recent edits of a blatant COI/UPE editor. I also agree with Bearian's assessment in the prior AfD. Onel5969TT me10:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Youssef El Deeb is not simply a "founder"; he is a significant media figure in the Arab world. His creation of Fatafeat TV — later acquired by Discovery — is a landmark event in Arab media, widely covered in **independent** and **reliable** sources such as *Deadline*, *The Hollywood Reporter*, and *BroadcastPro ME* (not primary or promotional outlets).
He also held senior executive roles at MBC and Rotana, and his creative work in film and TV has been recognized with awards — further reinforcing his notability under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT.
The current version of the article uses multiple **independent** and **significant** sources that focus on El Deeb himself, not just passing mentions. This satisfies the sourcing standard under GNG.
The deletion rationale cites past versions, but the article has been substantially rewritten and resourced. The presence of COI/UPE concerns is not, in itself, grounds for deletion — per WP:NOTCLEAN, what matters is whether the article **now** meets policy. It does.
Editors are welcome to continue improving neutrality or trimming promotional tone, but deletion would discard verifiable coverage of a genuinely notable figure in Arab media.
*:* Keep – The deletion arguments rely on outdated or incorrect information. Youssef El Deeb is a notable figure in Arab media, having founded Fatafeat TV, sold to Discovery, and produced award-winning films. Multiple independent, reliable sources focus specifically on him.Preceding !vote struck as duplicate !vote. Leaving the rest as comments.Onel5969TT me19:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of promotional tone or COI editing do not justify deletion. If there are issues, they should be fixed by neutral editing, not removal.
The this is not Linkedin argument ignores real-world impact and reliable coverage. Deletion would erase a notable media personality with clear public recognition.
Please evaluate the article based on verifiable facts and reliable sources, not on assumptions or editor speculation.
Massive WP:OR violation. This page suggests the existence of a "cinematic universe" (consisting of just two films by this director), but none of the sources provided in the article refer to it as such. The entire basis for this article seems to be the director posting "WELCOME TO RAIHAN RAFI CINEMATIC UNIVERES💥💥" on social media, which is obviously not WP:INDY. Astaire (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that does anything to avoid the OR issue. The question is whether reliable sources have stated the existence of a "cinematic universe", independent of what the director says. The fact that one of the director's films briefly references another does not justify this long, bloated page. Astaire (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage (either for her acting career or her ice hockey career) in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: The CWHL fails Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA, and her career also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Combined with the lack of media attention, I regrettably agree that this article should face deletion. That being said, there is something to be said about the inherent notability of someone who has consistently achieved at a high level, even when such achievement doesn't get media attention. Doesn't change my vote, but she is obviously extremely talented, and I dislike the deletion of the article because there isn't sufficient coverage. Unfortunately, we are at the whim of what media decides to cover, and what people decide to care about, and in this case, Women's professional hockey and inline skating is not it. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two of the sources in the article, in Pulse magazine [83] and Telegram & Gazette[84], have sigcov of her. They do include interviews with her, but also have info about her career and her life outside hockey (studying biology and speech language pathology, which could be added to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a non-notable actress and model who has made only minor appearances in films and music videos. The "Filmography" section is misleading, as she did not have a lead role in Kesari Veer. The article relies mainly on primary sources, mentions, interviews, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA and lacks WP:SIGCOV coverage.
Concerns include potential manipulation of her date of birth, with primary source citations (e.g., Instagram) contradicting verifiable information, such as her being 20 in 2016 during India's Next Top Model season 2. The article may be affected by COI/UPE and violates WP:TOOSOON.
What about it? I've added a few secondary sources to the page. Also 1) I've added a source indicating she plays one of the four main characters in Kesari Veer (and see Leading actor) and the filmography can hardly be described as "misleading". 2) A page cannot "violate" WP:TOOSOON, which is an essay, not a policy but, most of all, citing that essay may have been useful back in 2017 but certainly not today, as she has now an already notable acting career 3) Stating that she has "made only minor appearances in films" is totally inaccurate, for that matter. I have no idea about potential conflicts of interest regarding the page but in its current state, it does not strike me as an issue. Eva UX (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that assessment was correct, she still would pass Wikipedia:NACTRESS. And please note that WP:BASIC indicates that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (the different reviews in reliable sources of the 3 films she had lead roles in mention her performances with critical assessment and those mentions, some being brief, cannot be considered trivial nor passing mentions). Eva UX (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTRESS. What secondary sources are you looking for, reviews suffice. The 2 interviews should be considered for sourcing since they are not the bulk of the sourcing. You can always tag the page for needing citations instead of deletion. DareshMohan (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary sources and therefore unreliable for supporting claims in articles. While interviews can be used to establish that an interviewee made a particular statement, they are not considered reliable for verifying the accuracy of those statements. For example, this actress lied about her age in one of her Instagram posts, and later that post was used as a reference to manipulate the date of birth on Wikipedia. See wp:IV
There are reviews of the movies as citations but none of them can really provide in-depth reporting. See Wp:SIGCOV.
Keep. Meets notability criteria per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She has acted in films across major Indian language industries (Hindi, Telugu, and Kannada), with roles that received individual mention in professional reviews. The Times of India described her as "bold and glamorous," while The New Indian Express and Cinema Express included her debut in their critiques. In addition to her film roles, she has appeared in high-profile music videos performed by prominent artists like Badshah, Tiger Shroff, and Harrdy Sandhu — each of which has received notable media attention. Her modeling background, including participation in India’s Next Top Model, further supports a career with sustained media visibility. I think reliable sources, both mainstream and entertainment-specific, provide significant coverage of her career, satisfying the general notability guideline. Cinelatina (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, she should be notable based on NACTOR policy, but I cannot find any coverage of her beyond mentions in credits to make her notable. If there are no coverage, the page cannot be meaningfully expanded into something +/-encyclopedic. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable actor. Should be restored as a redirect to Shane Jacobson, whose name is very frequently misspelled this way - there are more hits for him with his name misspelled this way than for this guy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a stub or delete the redirect. I am of course familiar with Shane Jacobson, and have several of his films in my library, so when I stumbled on the name "Shane Jacobsen", unlinked, in an article on an unfamiliar film I was surprised. I linked it without saving, to see where it would lead, and found to my surprise that it led to the Australian actor. Not impossible, as many Aussie actors have found their way into American films. Off to IMDb, where Shane Jacobsen of New Orleans is mentioned as appearing in three or four movies, two having WP listings and, quite properly, neither one linked. How much time did I waste? Two minutes tops. Had it confused anyone else? Maybe not. Would someone turning those unlinked "Shane Jacobsen"s blue reduce Wikipedia's usefulness ? Absolutely. The beauty of this solution is the hatnote. Anyone looking for either person by that name gets what they want.
We cannot keep it because he is not notable. The notable actor's name is regularly misspelled this way by sources, so it is just as likely someone would be searching for him - sen/son are regularly confused in names and this mistake is in many news articles referring to him. Sometimes, people have similar names. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To Shane Jacobson. The person who made the existing redirect into a stub first initially made a stub worthy of BLPPROD. Took me two reverts explaining in the edit summary why this is a bad thing to prompt them to make an actual stub, albeit still unsourced for the time being. This was good enough for me. Now that the stub is in AFD now, I'll be truly honest. Even after a source got added by another editor, I just don't see how this actor meets NACTOR, he's just too obscure of an actor. Plus that Shane Jacobsen is a valid misspelling of Shane Jacobson. Yelps ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ critique me15:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no contest re notability of actor Shane Jacobsen, and I have reverted the links I made in those two film articles. I maintain, however, that the original redirect was not useful, and because there is a real life person of that name in WP articles, counterproductive. Doug butler (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, when the lead sentence mentions her talent agency... This [88] is about all I can find. Coverage now in the article is primary, or databases. I don't see that any musical notability has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources do not support the notability of this "up and coming" actress; an online source does not provide the kind of significant coverage to establish notability. Seems like WP:PROMO. Fails [[WP:NACTOR] and WP:NMUSICIAN. Netherzone (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the subject has won a songwriting contest and participated in local theater, the article relies almost entirely on self-published sources and IMDb. There is no significant independent coverage establishing notability as required by WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Cinelatina (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any information about his biography in any sources. All are about the series. Fail to pass notability. As should be delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DivitNation (talk • contribs)
It's fail to show notability. I didn't found any articles which increases notability of the actor. All are paid and are from independent sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DivitNation (talk • contribs)
Nominating per request here by IP editor show states - "The last AfD for this subject was closed as soft delete which was treated as an expired PROD. recently the soft delete was challenged by user User:124.104.175.128 and was accepted and moved back into mainspace by an administrator despite there being zero usable sources. The IP user then removed the notability tag without a reason and made no improvements to the article. This leads me to believe WP:COI as the request for undeletion was the first edit the user ever made. Requesting an AfD. 2600:1011:B037:C57F:2834:79AD:326B:D5B6 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)" CNMall41 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only real source cited, the Celluloid Social Club, doesn't say more about him than his name and some past roles. A sentence fragment. This is not sigcov. Toadspike[Talk]06:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a few hours of independent research and was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Claim to notability would be stronger if there was evidence of RS SIGCOV to meet notability requirements. ZachH007 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit13:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're discounting the words "may be considered notable" (my emphasis). Unless my searching is completely off-base, I can find no reliable sources that I would think meet the criteria set at GNG.
Setting that fundamental problem aside, nearly all of Murnik's roles have been of the minor variety; Granite Flats is the exception. For example, I was surprised to see Vanishing Point in that list. His role was evidently so minor that he isn't named a single time in the (lengthy) Wikipedia plot summary, nor is he one of the six characters called out in Variety's review (the prose, not the cast list). Ed[talk][OMT]07:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your assessment was correct, that would leave us with 3 significant (not minor) roles, at least, which, despite your nomination statement, would be enough for WP:NACTOR#1, and prolific contributions, which corresponds to WP:NACTOR#2. As for GNG vs NACTOR, your own rationale indicates whether that's WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, so that it seems you consider (and rightly so) it is enough for a subject to meet the requirements of one of the guidelines, not both. I am off the grid and therefore away from Wikipedia, so please do not consider my subsequent lack of response to potential replies has any other meaning whatsoever. Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that unlike many of the other sections in NBIO, NACTOR uses the word "may". So we can disagree over NACTOR and your definition of a "significant role", but they still have to meet GNG. Ed[talk][OMT]17:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:NACTOR ["the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.") and the page in Danish please, to check the said roles--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.
Keep: Clicking on the Gnews link above brings up more than a trivial amount of Danish articles, [89] for example, suggests a long career and seems to be well-known by the public. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify- as an ATD, given the article has potential being kept, if more SIGCOV be added as well as some integration from the other language ver. like the Danish ver. for same article to this english ver. .Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book Danske filmskuespillere: 525 portrætter has a 5 para bio about him (pp 139-140) [90]. As Oaktree b noted, there are many current news stories about him, eg "Kristian Halken has been called the master of supporting roles. One year he won a Reumert for four supporting roles, and it is difficult to find a weak Halken performance. He is now 70 years old. Has Kristian Halken ever actually been bad on a theater stage?" [91]. This article Kristian Halken fra Sommerdahl: Her er hans kendte søn[92] has info about his wife and his son, also an actor. There is plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG, and multiple roles in films, tv and on stage to meet WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Go4thProsper, I’ve noticed that you’re frequently participating in active AFDs and voting too quickly. For example, you’ve cast four votes in just three minutes and eight votes within 14 minutes. This seems suspicious because it takes longer to properly evaluate the articles.
Are you familiar with the guidelines for participating in Afds? I want to inform you that if you’re randomly voting on Afds without any evaluation, it’s best to stop.
Thank you for your advice. I enjoy setting aside time to read the dialogue and the articles under discussion, generally people. Sometimes I also edit those articles to try to improve them. I don’t vote on all of them, but try to weigh in on those that are most egregious or sometimes easy keeps. Once I see a few on which I see value in weighing in, I do. That’s the whole point of the AfD community discussion, no? Go4thProsper (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your vote, you just said, ”Delete: per nomination. She fails GNG.”
Can you elaborate how you came to the conclusion that she fails GNG? If you carefully check the article, there is enough significant coverage in secondary reliable sources to pass Wp:GNG and by evaluating her filmography, she easily passes wp:NACTOR.
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this BLP about an actor, and moved two external links to references in the article. These are only mentions of his name in credits, however, and I have not found significant coverage to add. He does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. He has been a producer on films which have won awards, and has won a stage award, the ADA Award, but these don't appear to be notable awards, and I can't find significant coverage of him in the context of them. The refs before I added two were to IMDb, Wikipedia, and two film festivals, which does not meet WP:THREE. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2017. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding anything - most of his roles are smaller and less likely to gain mention in sourcing. I was trying to find coverage for his theatrical performances, but I'm not finding much there either. With the awards, it looks like those were "best film" type awards for movies he produced. However the issue with awards as producer is that it's harder to establish their role in the production. Some producers are extremely involved and important to the final product, whereas others aren't really "hands on" with the production outside of funding and initial work. Of course then we have to look at whether or not the awards are notable enough to meet NCREATIVE/NACTOR either partially (count towards but not enough on its own to keep) or fully (enough on its own). I've always thought a good rule of thumb is to see if the awards website lists the producer. If so, then it could be usable (assuming the award is notable), if not it likely isn't.
In any case, with the awards, two of them are known vanity awards (Accolade Competition, Impact Docs Award). Nashville Film Festival and the Beverly Hill Film Festival look like wins from them would probably be usable. Tacoma Film Festival is smaller, but probably OK. The other wins are questionable as far as notability goes and the others are nominations so it's irrelevant whether they are notable or not - none of them are at the level where a nomination would be considered noteworthy. That's limited to things like the Oscars.
I guess the question here is whether or not his producing role was large enough for him to inherit notability from the movies in a similar way that one would as an actor or director. Executive producer credits would probably count, but the generic producer credit is where there's pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple of theater reviews. Only three though, which is technically enough I guess to pass NACTOR. I think between that and the kind of nebulous producer notability, that might be enough to keep. I'm not 100% so I am not making an argument for or against at the moment. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)13:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What info would you like from me? Emmett James film Life and Larry Brown was short listed for an Academy Award. He has produced a ton of films that are on Netflix, amazon and Hulu where he is the main producer. He is one of the heads of the producers guild of America for documentaries. He does conventions around the world for his acting credits including TITANIC and has appeared as a guest speak at comic con in San Diego for Star Wars. Im a little confused to why this is even a discussion to be honest Savinghollywood (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the nomination, that would really only help if he was on the final ballot. Normally being nominated (but not winning) would not help count towards notability at all, however the Academy Award is kind of the pinnacle of things one can be nominated for with films in the US. At the same time, being shortlisted doesn't mean that someone ended up on the final ballot. Even then it kind of goes back to the issue of establishing notability for producers. Honestly, most producers tend to end up failing NCREATIVE, regardless of how successful they are. It's just really difficult to argue for notability for them.
What would really be useful here is coverage of James or coverage of the work that gives some detail on him. For his acting roles (including stage), reviews of the work that specifically mention him would be as good as gold. With the notable films and shows, those roles are only as notable as the mention he receives in reviews and independent, reliable, secondary coverage of the episode or film. Many of his roles were background or minor, which typically don't get much coverage. He does seem to have been in a few episodes of some anime, but I'll be honest in that establishing notability for VAs is insanely difficult. I remember trying to argue notability for someone who voiced multiple main characters in several large, notable series. It was insanely difficult, because people usually don't highlight specific VAs - even the anime outlets are bad at that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)00:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK- found the VA I was mentioning. What I participated in wasn't an AfD (although she had been brought to AfD and deleted in the past due to a lack of sourcing), but it was as good as one. It was Brianne Siddall. Her notability is established now, but it was extremely difficult to accomplish this despite her voicing major characters in some pretty iconic anime like Outlaw Star. I don't mean to derail the AfD, I just wanted to emphasize how difficult it can be to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)15:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has had some minor roles; has been producer on minor films. I don't find any source that is about him. The good sources here are name checks, and a one sentence "review". Lamona (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deletion. Helina Daimary is notable. Covered in reliable sources like TOI, Northeast Today, and News Mill. Please improve article, not delete. Others may fix citations if needed. Thanks. Akash Boro (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for relisting. I still believe that Helina Daimary meets the notability criteria based on coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. I would appreciate it if editors can help improve citations rather than delete the article. Let's preserve notable voices from underrepresented regions like Northeast India. Akash Boro (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Bernie Mac Show. The subject notability guideline #1 for entertainers state "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Subject does not have notable roles plural. Her only non-guest role/non-appearance as self is the Bernie Mac Show. Her portfolio of guest roles is also small. She otherwise on IMDB has three guest roles. I will also note that while IMDB is considered generally unreliable (per Wikipedia:IMDB), the roles mentioned in the article do not show up there. A redirect would be a similar outcome as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmy Clarke who had a similar noted for one thing situation of a filmography of one recurring role as a child over a decade ago and no roles since. Mpen320 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously moved to draft space due to concerns about notability and insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources. I reviewed the draft and declined it for lacking significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline (GNG). However, the creator has since moved it back to mainspace without addressing the sourcing concerns. While the subject has received an award, I believe it is not sufficient on its own to establish notability without substantial independent coverage. I'm bringing this to AfD so that other editors can review the article and share their opinions on whether it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Afstromen (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While he had a supporting role in a blockbuster film as a child, as an adult he's since retreated into what appears to be an ordinary, private life. We have a couple of acquaintances in common, because NYC is the smallest village in the world. I don't want to write too much, to avoid revealing too much private information. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the nominator has a very low understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. They’re just nominating random articles created by me as an act of retaliation because I nominated a few of the articles they created about non-notable subjects. Their rationale for the AFD is unclear as, why they believe it should be deleted, anyways I leave this matter for fellow editors.
How come you decided that the subject is non-notable, given his filmography he easily passes Wp:NACTOR. And all the given sources are reliable sources, kindly let me know which source is unreliable? Zuck28 (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable filmmaker / actor. No notable productions as filmmaker. No good roles for NACTOR. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A few lines in Variety is not enough. Awards are not major. Just showing at festivals is not notable. Sockfarm creation. Prod removed cause it's apparently Anglocentric to nominated an article on an Anglo for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On one hand, I hate sock farms, but on the other hand, he didn't merely show up but won something. I'm always "torn" about how to !vote in such situations. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has appeared in a major role on one of Japan’s highest-rated television programs for over a decade, which is a marker of notability among others. If you don’t read Japanese, it may be difficult to understand that the subject is a foreign figure who is well-known in Japan, hosting television programs and receiving coverage in major newspapers and magazines. For those interested in understanding Japanese entertainment and media in English, preserving articles like this adds depth and cultural diversity to Wikipedia. In addition to Variety, he has also been featured in Time Out and a few other English-language publications, but there is much more in Japanese. Wata78 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would like to see more feedback from editors and a review of sources. I assume User:Wata78 is arguing for a Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, this is a page that I wouldn't have considered nominating myself but now that I am looking through the sourcing it seems quite thin. He has appeared in a major role on one of Japan’s highest-rated television programs for over a decade, which is a marker of notability among others @User:Wata78 do you have a source for this? especially calling his role major? From what I saw in my investigations he appears to often be a guest on shows, but that is very different.
Looking at some of your sources:
MSN: he is listed as Agent but no other context about what he did.
Radio DMT: Some book blurbs and a short biographical paragraph.
Tokyo MX: A standard "ask a foreigner's opinion" article that mentions his opinion but is not significant coverage of him.
FMYokohama: Pretty thin article.
I have further comments on the other AfD about other sources in the context of the short film. WP:BIO#Basic Criteria does say "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" so I am not fully committed on a decision of what to do with this article. Moritoriko (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moritoriko, thanks. Yes, the Wikipedia quote in green is indisputable if you're familiar with the Japanese media. For over a decade he has been on the huge Nippon Television program "Sekai Maru Mie" in a prominent role on hundreds of episodes (credited as such on the show and Nippon Television website). His job is to introduce TV shows on the program (and that's central since it is a show about shows, which he leads). I’ll share some information in English below from Tokyo media to help provide a clearer context, since the translation tools don’t seem to be conveying an accurate picture to you. A lot of your descriptions (like with the Tokyo MX piece) are not correct. That article is reporting about something he said on a TV news show.
I don't need you to say it, I need a reliable source to say it.
And no, I read the TokyoMX piece, I know that it is just asking his opinion, it is not talking about him in an in-depth independent manner.
The rest of the sources you shared just now are also interesting but they are all interviews which are contentious in establishing notability because they aren't independent since so much of the content is from the horse's own mouth.
I see what you mean, but before each of those interview articles is a paragraph of context in English. None of it is from the horse's mouth. It all says the same thing about his TV work. It is not controversial.
The TV shows credit him on official network websites like this one and this one. Ratings for episodes are online. Here is a rating for a "Sekai Maru Mie" episode that received 17.1%. That is bigger than Sunday Night Football or American Idol in the US.
Keep As Stacey Gregg she meets WP:NACTOR. She has also been credited as Stacey Jefferson and Stacey Richardson. As well as voicing the roles mentioned in the current article, she played Daffy in all episodes of Tottering Towers and Nurse Baxter in 23 episodes of Crossroads from 1977-1978. On stage, she played Sandy opposite Richard Gere in the British premiere of Grease (musical), first in Coventry and then on the West End. As well as the coverage found by Piecesofuk, there is coverage and information about more roles in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add more info and sources to the article. There appears to be another Stacey Gregg, probably also notable, who is director of Here Before and co-creator/director of other shows. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]