Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

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

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

People[edit]

Muhammad Abdul Malek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Newton[edit]

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

The article seems to attempt to inherit notability from Wayne Newton, Jerry's younger brother. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Checking the references is challenging. Jerry does appear, generally with reference to the sibling, and as a passing reference to Jerry. The article seems to be more a tribute (WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies) than anything else. Jerry was obviously notable to those who loved and respected him, but the references do not show a pass of any of WP:BIO, WP:NMUSICIAN, nor WP:NACTOR. Releasing records does not mean notability, nor does a bit part in an episode of Bonanza where he is listed as a cast member, but his part was not a named character. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator, as Jerry had a minor career as an entertainer but with no achievements on his own that satisfy our notability requirements. He is only mentioned briefly in sources about his much more famous brother. This article is probably an attempted memorial. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Narayan Reddy[edit]

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

No sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search, so it fails WP:GNG. I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF. However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to contributors and prior WP:PROD participants: @Kazamzam, Necrothesp, Rajasekhar1961, and Varunmodgil: Daask (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- multiple sources atest to being the winner of India's highest award for medical science, the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, awards from the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, and other positions that clearly pass multiple WP:PROF categories. Documenting and verifying Indian professorial records can be difficult, but this one seems quite clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ebel[edit]

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

Seeking to re-instate re-direct Tooth & Nail Records, which was initially reversed by public relations effort by Tooth & Nail involved role account. I re-instated the re-direct, but it's being challenged in Special:Diff/1226976635 and that editor requests it to go through AfD. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and California. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumo Lulu-Briggs[edit]

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Contested for an election doesn't mean he won the election for a particular office. The sources were about him contending/campaigning for the election. No credible notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, ~~Lists of people~~, Politics, Business, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Candidates who are not elected to office fail WP:NPOL. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL for not being in either the federal or state cabinet, or any of its equivalents. Fails WP:GNG for not having significant coverage in sources presented. A WP:BEFORE also doesn’t help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Din Mohammad Jurat[edit]

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

Article subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The only source of which I can find about him on Google was about him being sacked as an advisor. Nothing else more than that. Also the creator of the article seems to be a newbie which I guess hasn't practiced about the wikipedia article wizard before contributing to wikipedia. You can also visit here for further reference. Most of the reference used on this particular article headline are not corresponding to the original source. Maybe he had to fake it to make it look like its an independent reliable source. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article clearly meet the Wp:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

please have a look at these reliable sources.

- BBC (1) (2) (3) (4)
- CNN (5)
- New york times (6)
- VOA (7)
- Radio free europe (8)

Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the link you have provided still doesn't address why he was nominated for an AFD. The only reasonable news was that he was sacked. The rest of the news has nothing to do with him apart from him being sacked. Editors should take note that the article creator was the same person who voted this keep.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one ?

https://www.afghan-bios.info/index.php?option=com_afghanbios&id=795&task=view&total=1733&start=766&Itemid=2 Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Stein[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and American football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stein meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources such as [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]]. This is also WP:SIGCOV but is not independent: [[4]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan von Schenkel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a musician, and not found anything to add. I don't think he meets WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Tacyarg (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any mentions of this musician, I don't see awards or charted singles. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No verifiable source. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Grabow[edit]

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

This individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. He is among many people to have to visited most of the world's countries, but this is not particularly exceptional and does not confer notability per WP:BLP1E. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Travel and tourism, Internet, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could be something here if we had more/better sourcing. What's used now is basically databases... This is all I can find, a brief mention [5], not enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Val Ramos[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this unreferenced biography of a musician, and cannot find coverage to add. I do not think the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSIC. Tacyarg (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. Tacyarg (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Baïlo Diallo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC. Being a counsellor of the National Transition Council doesn't make one presumptively notable under NPOL so there's literally nothing to establish notability here. BEFORE doesn't help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Africa. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to National Council of the Transition. He may pass WP:NPOL as a member of the National Council of the Transition, which is the acting legislature of Guinea, but regardless the article must still surpass WP:NOPAGE in order to be a standalone article. He seems to have a fairly common name, so locating sources has been tricky. I found one source which mentions a vote he did: abstaining from voting on the Initial Finance Law (LFI) 2023 [6], but could not seem to locate much else. Curbon7 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of leaders of UNSW student organisations[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:GNG. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Education, and Lists. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, BEFORE does not show any possibility of content being suitable for inclusion elsewhere. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many entries are unreferenced. Teraplane (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandni Mistry[edit]

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

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

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

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a local councillor; there is additional local coverage from the same newspapers already referenced, but no additional national coverage. She was a councillor for less than a year, was investigated for electoral fraud but no action was taken, and she was nominated for, but did not win, an award. She is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, but I don't believe that contributes to notability (see brief discussion from 2011 here). I do not think she meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Tacyarg (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia page has already been granted a B class Wikipedia status as defined The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. This therefore is relevant page and is particularly important given that this page represents the youngest BAME councillor in the history of the city. This seems like a malicious second attempt to request deletion of the wikipedia as the country falls into a general election. All aspects of the wikipedia page have been properly referenced as approved by various sources. With reference to Royal Society of Arts, the individual is listed on their pages. Handedits (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC) (

Confirmed sockpuppet of Gowikipro, see investigation)[reply]

Hi, regarding your use of the word "malicious" to describe my deletion proposal. I reject this. I have no conflict of interest regarding this councillor or the article about her. I'm not sure what you mean by second attempt, but if you mean the AFC decline in November, that was another person. I have not opened a previous deletion discussion about this article. Tacyarg (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local councillors do not meet WP:NPOL so notability would need to be established thorough WP:GNG. There is coverage in local papers but no significant coverage beyond that. BBC coverage is about the controversy over residency which at best makes this WP:1E. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much to establish notability. An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL at a low level though may be in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not fulfill NPOL and not enough coverage to meet GNG. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Long[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Subject is not notable and the article is purely written for promotion (it even reads like a personal resume). Also, most of the content is WP:SYNTH. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yinglan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Singapore. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Li Keqiang[edit]

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

Only two Chinese supreme leaders (Mao & Jiang) have articles about their death, and his funeral was far less grand than these two. Even the death of Hu Yaobang (which triggered June 4th) don't has article about his death. Coddlebean (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Coddlebean (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coddlebean, which deletion criterion is met here? You used similar argumentation at the Early life of Mao Zedong AfD quite recently, and that article was speedily kept because you did not provide a rationale. Folly Mox (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I agree with @Folly Mox your nominations need to provide a clear rationale. Saying x similar article exists or y similar article doesn't exist isn't a rationale for deletion. The article is both on its face impressively sourced and in need of cleanup, but I don't think there's any discernible policy-based rationale here. Oblivy (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#3 – I don't see anything resembling a rationale for deletion in the nomination statement. The article looks fine at a quick glance. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per Mx. Granger; WP:CSK#3, as the nominator did not provide any rationale for deletion. Also, I disagree with the example the nominator raised. Death of Hu Yaobang [zh] did exist in zhwiki, and it is clearly notable as well since it is literally the triggering point of the June 4th Incident with many in-depth analysis from academic or media sources. The fact that it does not have an article in enwiki is simply because no one had created it yet, and this argument is clearly a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:CSK#3 as no valid deletion rationale is provided. I also concur with Mx Granger and Prince of Erebor above. S5A-0043^Talk 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Wareen[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Moved to mainspace immediate after being declined and pushed back for further work. Since there is the potential for notability to be proven I suggest the outcome be to draftify. I have also nominated the picture currently featured since the licence is in doubt. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN as presented here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When I encountered this BLP, rather than immediately nom it for deletion, I decided to give it a chance by draftifying it. However, the BLPs creator Pashtonyar moved it back to the main NS after the review was declined. The subject does not satisfy the GNG as well NSINGER, and the BLP currently relies heavily on trivial mentions and ROTM coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Saqib. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleem[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline and notability guidelines for people. likely autobiographical. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The BLP currently relies on unreliable sources. Created by a SPA so likely COI. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Good find. 86.130.244.141 (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Schleicher[edit]

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

There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was wrong. Turns out that the author of the draft is different than the user that created the page. The person who created the page has been not warned however has created NUMEROUS speedily deleted articles through copyright. Assuming that the user that created the page just wanted to seem like the one who created it, even though they very obviously copied from the draft- which still exists, by the way. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I copied from the draft. This guy already has articles in Russian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Galician (?!), so I don't understand why there are issues with the English version. This is an obviously notable Jewish painter; Wikipedia has used many of his paintings across a few articles, such as on the Talmud. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Then just resubmit it, if you think it is "obviously notable" 48JCL^TALK 11:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Your argument is a different version of WP:WAX. Look at Draft:Nahal Rafiah. Just because it has a Hebrew version does not immediately make it notable. 48JCL^TALK 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally ignore Wikipedia essays and only follow the policies and guidelines, so I do not accept the premises behind WP:WAX. I agree with you that an article existing in just one other language does not make it notable; however, I get a feeling that this article about Carl Schleicher would exist without any issues in *every other language* except in English. Maybe the original creator of the draft had a poor first draft which attracted (now undue) attention? Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Austria, Italy, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, why do you think he is non-notable? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am putting this for AfD is because it is completely stolen from a draft. Also, wouldn’t it still be in draftspace, as that draft was rejected twice and never touched again? 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, I'm not sure on the specific policy implications. However, I don't think we should delete an article about a notable person if it is avoidable. Do you happen to know what the policy on this sort of thing is? FortunateSons (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the comments left by the reviewer:

Comment: This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion. You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse. In particular, see and refer to WP:NARTIST for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against. Where are his works on display? What has been written about him by art critics? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where are his works on display? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been moved back from article space to draft space. Please read the comments by the draftifying reviewer and address them. Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, please ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting. You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.) If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement, it will probably be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL^TALK 11:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That provides context, but unfortunately does not answer any of my questions? FortunateSons (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons It could be notable who knows? But all the real sources providing notability like BBC are dead links. The references are formatted very sloppily. Using ref tags to make Efns is definitely not something a normal person would do. 48JCL^TALK 03:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is less than great, agreed so far. However, being in significant need of improvement is not a deletion criteria.

The dead BBC links are a problem, and I couldn’t find an archived one, so this probably does not meet notability criteria now. FortunateSons (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hunt (journalist)[edit]

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

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Jamiebuba, who recently accepted the draft at AfC. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Environment, Internet, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Menegatto[edit]

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

This page is really bad, it's presented as an actual biography of a politician/monarch when the country in question doesn't actually exist. It presents the subject as holding actual positions and titles, which do not exist. Not to mention that the page uses a few primary sources from the micronation itself. Presenting a micronation roleplayer as a real head of state is misinformation at best. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Italy. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - there are a few fairly long media reports in addition to those on the page. There may also be more in non-English publications. On that basis, in my opinion the GNG is met. JMWt (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content from reliable secondary sources to Principality of Seborga. Insufficient independent coverage for a stand-alone article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject meets GNG (mostly established in non-English sources: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], although English sources also exist: [17][18][19]). Notability is not determined by the validity of her claims/titles/positions/offices. Many articles exist on pretenders and claimants to defunct and non-existant monarchies. The question is if Menegatto is has received significant media coverage, and the answer to that is yes. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Principality of Seborga. She is no more notable than her so-called predecessors, Giorgio and Marcello. Keivan.f^Talk 19:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per the user above. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I sincerely disagree with Di's and Celia Homeford's arguments, however I believe it indeed deserves a redirect as per the user above. Demagoras^talk 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I don't see how she's notable on her own. She can be adequately covered on the main page for Seborga. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ukraine. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, History, Military, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.

I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is his biography in the source listed.

There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Campbell[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT; subject is notable only for passing away. As this is a recent death, WP:BLP1E should probably apply here. See also WP:PSEUDO. Firestar464 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Horse racing. Firestar464 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a WP:BLP1E with little chance of WP:LASTING BrigadierG (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that as a top level 5* rider and on Team GB for FEI Nations Cup on multiple occasions she was already WP:NSPORT relevant, and lack of previous article probably more reflective of the overall poor coverage of equestrian sport on WP. Suggest that there should be enough for an article. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are achievement standards set out for equestrian sports at WP:NEQUESTRIAN - generally, a medal is required to be notable, not just participation. BrigadierG (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from this AfD, they were only ever guidelines but it was my understanding that WP:NSPORT, within which WP:NEQUESTRIAN falls, had been abandoned in favour of general WP:GNG notability, in-part so as to avoid the proliferation of single sourced historic competitors in favour of properly sourced, judged-on-their-own-merits, robust articles. A process which has clear merits, and without inbuilt asymmetry of certain sports having literally thousands of active competitors with WP:BLP articles and other sports granted three medalists at a time. If you permit a further example of the difficulties of the guidelines and how they could be perceived as a barrier to the collation of information; WP:RU/N had the criteria of only the semifinalists from the Women's World Cup, a tournament which takes place once every four years. However, in the pandemic the tournament was postponed for 18 months so a strict interpretation of the guidelines (which I saw being argued) would have no new 15-a-side female rugby union players permissible for over five and a half years. A hindrance to WP as an up-to-date information source, which an online encyclopaedia should have the capacity to excel at. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this person is only notable for passing then they fail the notability test, unless proven otherwise. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed the article about her husband, and put up an AfD for that as well. Posting here as this would've been bundled had I noticed them at the same time. Firestar464 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD nomination was a dumb move as her husband is clearly notable, and bundling the two bios would have thus been a very bad move indeed. Schwede 66 03:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article satisfies WP:GNG. Not uncommon to gain information from obituaries. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I started this article on a distinguished equestrian. Strange to see that the article on her husband was also AfD. This page has been expanded on since I started it. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KreekCraft[edit]

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

This streamer is not notable and this article has major BLP issues. I could not find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are mostly his own videos, as well as sites like this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and Florida. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with over 9 million subscribers I thought this would be a slam dunk, but sure enough the only coverage is low quality churnalism/AI video summaries. BrigadierG (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too thought there would a lot about KreekCraft on the internet seeing the fact that he is nearing 10 million subscribers, but all I found were these [20][21]. The article also only uses primary sources and self published sources, and the Esports articles seem very unreliable. Still can't believe no good sources on KreekCraft. I would've said draftify but theres nothing else to put in this article. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I could only find three/four reliable sources that would possibly count towards notability. The following are all reliable per WP:VGRS: Esports Insider, Venture Beat, and PCGamesN. Also, Esports Advocate is probably reliable, but Dexerto is rarely suitable for BLPs per WP:DEXERTO. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Esports Insider and Venture Beat are run-of-the-mill announcements based on the same press release which don't provide any significant coverage of KreekCraft other than to mention that he's part of the thing being announced. PCGamesN just describes what he found in one of his videos, which isn't really significant coverage in my view. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Heckman[edit]

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

No sources that pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:PROF/WP:ARTIST, and I was unable to find any additional sources that meet notability criteria after a search of my own. The majority of sources are not independent of the subject, and some do not contain significant coverage. Several parts of the article read in a promotional tone. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, and Social science. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find this nomination for the deletion of the Brad Heckman article to be both perplexing and unsubstantiated. It appears the nominator made their decision after requesting access to the Wall Street Journal article, which was behind a paywall. If this singular paywalled source was the tipping point for an AfD discussion, we need to reassess what constitutes a careless deletion nomination because this one certainly fits the bill. The Wall Street Journal article in question is entirely about the nonprofit organization that Heckman founded and led. It begs the question: What specifically about that article, which thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work, convinced the nominator that this article deserved deletion? Let's entertain the notion for a moment that the sources might not be independent of the subject, which seems to be suggested by the nomination. This presumably refers to the TEDx talk given by Heckman. Notability guidelines clearly state that the source must be independent of the subject. TEDx talks, much like interviews in Rolling Stone or other reputable publications, should not be considered non-independent simply because they involve the subject speaking about their work. This rule is better suited for sources like blogs and social media posts, not established platforms like TEDx. Additionally, articles published by universities about their alumni typically reflect the institution's pride and are usually well-researched, as evidenced by the in-depth article from Dickinson College on Heckman's life and achievements. Heckman is a published illustrator and painter, recognized by reputable organizations such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement for his artistic contributions. The mention of his nonprofit offering free mediation services is a factual statement about the organization's purpose, not an advertisement. According to WP:PROMO, a promotional tone is characterized by self-promotion and blatant advocacy, neither of which are present in this article. Wikipedia’s own guidelines suggest tagging articles with {{Promotional tone}} if necessary, rather than nominating them for deletion. I urge my fellow editors to consider these points carefully. The Brad Heckman article is well-supported by independent and reliable sources, and the nomination for deletion appears to be based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's notability and promotional content guidelines. Let's keep this informative and well-documented article. Thank you. 9t5 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 9t5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

For reference, 9t5 asked me to review this page at User talk:FormalDude § Page review. I checked to see if I had access to all the sources (since I wouldn't want to review it if I didn't) and the only one I couldn't access was the WSJ article. I didn't start reviewing until 9t5 provided me with a link to a free copy of the WSJ source on my talk page (that link now says deleted by the owner, I've reuploaded here). So no, the WSJ wasn't any "tipping point". Nonetheless, it does not contain significant coverage of Heckman, you said it yourself: it's "entirely about the nonprofit organization". It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization. When you say it "thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work" I feel like I'm not even reading the same article as you; I can't see how it verifies even a single piece of information about him. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”… the funny thing is that even without a Wall Street Journal subscription, you are still capable of reading the first paragraph of the article that states “But when I called the Peace Institute, CEO Brad Heckman confirmed my buddy's account”.. quite the thorough review you did. The pdf was set to auto-delete since I don’t have the right to redistribute what is behind a paywall. You could always drop $0.99 and read it on the Wall Street Journal’s website though. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude But since you are making absolutely untrue statements like “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”.. THIS is the Wall Street Journal article. I went ahead and re-uploaded it. 9t5 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see I missed the first two paragraphs which provide us with the one fact that Heckman is the CEO. That's still not significant coverage. Here's my assessment of the article's more promising sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
WSJ			Entirely about the company, only passing mentions of Heckman.	✘ No
TEDx Talks	This is a speech given by Heckman, clearly not independent.	~ Per RSP, must abide by WP:ABOUTSELF.		✘ No
Dickinson College	Written for and by Heckmen's alma matter, consituting a WP:COISOURCE.	~ May have been provided entirely by Heckmen without any editorial oversight.		✘ No
NYT			Only a passing mention of Heckman.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

––FormalDude (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude You literally uploaded a copy of the article with that part and most of the article cut out…? I’m more concerned about that than anything else. 9t5 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Written by alma mater”… what?! It’s published on an official university’s .edu website. You have got to be kidding me. Your speculation about universities publishing lies in order to fake the notability of their alumni is not something you need to bring with you when you sit down to review pages. That is absolutely wild to me. @FormalDude 9t5 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source being independent of the subject doesn’t mean that their commentary cannot be what the material is. The SOURCE must be independent of the subject.

Wikipedia’s words:

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Press releases, advertisements, autobiographies and ones own website are completely within our control. If we want, we don’t need to fact check before we publish those sorts off things.

What makes TEDx and other outlets reliable is the fact that the company is independent of the subject. So they won’t post something that is completely BS — they check to make sure it’s true first.

You aren’t understanding what a reference being “independent of the subject” means. 9t5 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards for assessing sources, especially when it comes to notability, are much stricter than "not posting completely BS" and "not publishing lies". Presenting an argument about notability as an argument about TEDx posting completely BS or a university publishing lies is an extreme exaggeration of the actual debate. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FormalDude: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. - WP:SIGCOV the entire article is the authors experience having met Heckman and learned about his company’s mission. You’re telling me that since the company is the main topic that it doesn’t count? That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to go around doing to editors. You’re causing issues where there doesn’t need to be. Good for you. Enjoy your AfD discussion. 9t5 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to ignore the sentence right before your quote? "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. tell me you can say with a straight face that WSJ has addressed Brad Heckman as a person directly and in detail. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this AfD after 9t5 brought it up on Discord. I'm not going to formally say Delete or Keep, but I'd like to clarify some things.

First, the WSJ article does not provide significant coverage of Brad Heckman at all. It would be significant coverage of New York Peace Institute, but that does not mean Brad Heckman automatically becomes notable for being the CEO of it.
Speeches at TEDx do not confer notability. Based on the TED brand, I'd be more inclined to believe that a TED speaker is notable, but I would not conclude notability just based on giving a speech at TED alone. TEDx is a different story, see this: Every TEDx event is independently curated by volunteers who generously invest their time to spotlight valuable ideas from and for their community. That means each speaker is selected by those volunteers without influence from sponsors, government, or any organizations. I've seen TEDx speakers spread pseudoscience, so TEDx doesn't really help establish notability.
There is some level of independence in an article published by the person's alma mater, but even if you argue that it counts towards GNG, it is still very weak and wouldn't satisfy GNG requiring multiple sources. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef I’m at least happy other people are participating.

When the discussion is between the articles author and the nominator and nobody else then what is the point? 9t5 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After cutting through all the puffery (promotional tones) in the article, I'm not seeing what makes this person notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG from my POV. Also noting that I became aware of this nomination when 9t5 was criticizing the nominator for questioning the notability of the article on the community Discord. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Can I ask a question? What is promotional sounding about it? Could you give me a few quotes so I can better understand what is even being referenced? 9t5 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to step away from this AfD and come back to it next week so that a discussion can be had. I don’t want to disrupt the conversation with my frustrations as the author of the article. I still stand by my point above. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with possible alternative of redirect to a stub on the NY Peace Institute. I'm not seeing any serious case for WP:NPROF, and I didn't find reviews of the one book. That leaves GNG. I see a lot of passing mentions along the lines of the "Ask Real Estate" bit in the NYTimes, but nothing more. I think it is well short of WP:SIGCOV. I agree that the article feels a bit promotional, but it is not so bad as for WP:TNT, and this did not factor into my !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe I like this idea. I can write up a stub for it. I am genuinely shocked by this article being an easy delete for people. So I clearly have a lot still to learn about the notability requirements. I feel embarrassed. I don’t seem to ever do anything right on this website. 9t5 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. Everyone has an article deleted at AFD. It's almost a rite of passage. The notability guidelines are just really complicated, and also sometimes out-of-date due to stonewalling, or oversimplified (GNG), or overly complex (SNGs). I've got a couple notability essays that you might find interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem LinguaeThank you. That was kind of you to say. I took it way too personal. I will leave a message on your talk page to let you know what I thought about the essays! 9t5 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Russ Woodroofe's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable sources I see in the article do not give significant coverage that would show this is a notable artist, educator or entrepreneur. The New York Times article cited in the lead sentence, for example, just quotes them giving advice on how to possibly handle a dispute with a neighbor about a dog. Elspea756 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Starmer[edit]

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

I'm not seeing evidence that the subject is independently notable of her husband, Keir Starmer. The existing article can be adequately summarised at his article. Still, we might expect more coverage if Starmer becomes Prime Minister, so it may be a question of WP:TOOSOON. Consequently, I would be content with Draftify as an alternative to deletion, assuming more sources may become available within six months that nudge the subject past the notability threshold. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Law, Politics, and United Kingdom. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least, hopefully this AfD can resolve the notability tag currently on the article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgnatiusofLondon, hey there. As creator of the article, I have no objection to draftifying it. I found as much as I could on the subject while keeping in mind that it is highly likely we will get more information in a couple of weeks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While understandable, the issue is that this exercise, completed too early, leads to trivia-collecting articles that violate policy. For example, the article contains the name of her sister, which likely fails WP:BLPNAME. There's no reason for her sister to be named if there is no independent notability. There is no deadline. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keir Starmer. This is the only way I can think of given there's no way for making this article notable. Galaxybeing (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Galaxybeing, for now at least. Hence why it should be draftified. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if Keir Starmer becomes prime minister in a month, his wife will then meet notability guidelines? TrottieTrue (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should draftify the article. If Keir Starmer becomes PM after the gen election in July as widely expected, then Victoria Starmer will likely pass the notability criteria as the spouse of the PM and the draft can go into the mainspace. Until then, I don't think she is sufficiently notable enough for a standalone article. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Jean-Albert[edit]

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

Declined prod. With only 2 google news hits, the first one not being in-depth, not enough coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar[edit]

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

I believe this is similar to Sanjog Waghere. A WP:BEFORE search on Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar has a lot of reliable sources, but they all focus on his candidacy in the 2024 Indian general election, making it a case of WP:BLP1E. Fails to meet GNG/NPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I searched for coverage about the subject other then the candidacy, but I can’t found any. These sources are because of his candidacy. WP:BLP1E simply apply here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. But I found someone who is saying “I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability.” Here. GrabUp - Talk 09:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidacy in general election is not notable. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as doctor and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Guntur Lok Sabha constituency#General Election 2024, mostly on WP:NOTPROMO grounds. Otherwise keep. I do not think the grounds for deletion raised above are policy-based. (1) NPOL avoids extending a presumption of notability to candidates, but recognizes that they are still notable if they meet the GNG. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that GNG-compliant sourcing is available. (2) The question is therefore whether BLP1E applies. But BLP1E does not apply, because a candidate in a general election for a national legislature is not someone who otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. As WP:LOWPROFILE reminds us, [p]ersons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. (3) The remaining question, although not raised above, would be whether BIO1E applies. IMO it would be questionable to interpret "one event" in BIO1E/BLP1E so broadly as to encompass an entire election campaign; that would go well beyond any ordinary or on-wiki understanding of "one event". In any event, if BIO1E does apply, it counsels us to redirect to our coverage of the event, not to delete the page outright. -- Visviva (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional Delete~~ per nomination. User:Visviva makes some good points about candidates with significant independent coverage meeting WP:NPOL, but all I can find apart from routine coverage of his candidacy is a few fawning pieces about how rich he is, per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. That said, results for his constituency will be in this week, probably Tuesday or Wednesday according to the press, so it would be helpful if the reviewing admin could keep the AFD open until it's clear whether he's won or not: he'll obviously be notable if he wins. Wikishovel (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per User:Ab207 below, now notable per WP:NPOL. Wikishovel (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The person has won the election. Passes WP:NPOL. Ab207 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: Per [22] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Astorga Junquera[edit]

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

Subject has a stable article at Spanish Wikipedia but notability according to English Wikipedia guidelines for either WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST isn't evident. I'd like to hear what others think. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, and Venezuela. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Any biography: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field- His recognized contribution to Digital Art Curation. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by whom? The term "digital art curation" does not even appear in the article. Geschichte (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding reliable sources to show notability. There are huge swaths of unreferenced material in the article about his career. IMDB and Facebook citations are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. - AlbeitPK (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article clearly meets the WP:ACADEMIC policy 4 no criteria. Because, some books written by him are taught in the university of Bangladesh, See here. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 09:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent and reliable sources are available. Also, several academic books are taught in university.Md Joni Hossain (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based arguments would be appreciated. The fact that books written by the article subject are used in university courses is not a valid argument to Keep. We delete plenty of articles on academics who have written books used in coursework somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not able to find reliable sources in English that show his academic profile, I assume they must exist in non-English languages so would appreciate it if someone could offer them for consideration. Currently there are claims on the page but, as far as I see, not much which can be verified per WP:V. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: "Dr Abu Bakar Muhammad Zakaria - Curriculum Vitae" see here. 202.134.9.128 (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, a self-published CV is not suitable for WP:V JMWt (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His tafsir is the only bengali tafsir, published and approved by Saudi government printed by King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran https://quranenc.com/en/browse/bengali_zakaria and his book "Shirk fil Qadim wal Hadis is a famous book, many scholars quoted from it including Ali al-Sallabi, his Book Hindusiat wa tasur is the most famous Islamic academic book on Hinduism in Arab world after the book "Fusulun fi Adianil Hind" written by Ziaur Rahman Azmi, and he wrote the book as his thesis in Madinah University under the supervision of Ziaur Rahman Azmi and followed him, he is an official bengali representative of Saudi religious propagation ministry who supervise the bengali section of www.islamhouse.com/bn and he has also entry in shamila library https://shamela.ws/author/1532 and there is a possibilty that he may be going to be an emeritus professor of Islamic University, Kushtia by university authority as his age is now 65.202.134.11.243 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is WP:GNG . Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. We haven't had anything offered which meets this standard in any language, so we can't WP:V the basics. Those who want to !keep cam of course rewrite thr page as/when they find acceptable sources. JMWt (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt Are you want to say that Offline Source is not acceptable? You should remain in WP:good Faith. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which offline source meets the standards of the GNG? I am remaining to assume Good Faith in the part of other contributors and don’t really see why you are suggesting otherwise. If there is an offline source that shows the importance of this person, which they’ve not written themselves, that I’ve missed then I’m happy to correct myself. JMWt (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt I mention my opinion in first comment. [Please see here]. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well, as others have already stated, being the author of university textbooks is not regarded as suitable notability for en.wiki

I'm not saying that you are not offering an opinion in good faith, but I am saying that this is not a policy reason for !keep JMWt (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 see here, his book about hinduism is highly praised in Zad TV by Muhammad al-Munajjid and the presenter also telephoned the publisher and requested hum to translate the book in English. His book Hindusiat wa Tasur was highly praised by Abdullah bin Salam al-Batati in the program "Al-Khajanah" of Zad TV owned by Muhammad Al-Munajjid and wished to be translated in English giving the book highly importance as a detailed work on Hinduism from the Islamic perspective.^[1] His book Ash-Shirk fil-Qadim Wal Hadith has been partially translated into Indonesian by Abu Umamah Arif Hidayatullah as "Syirik pada Zaman Dahulu dan Sekarang".^[2]^[3] Besides, the same translator also translated some of his other works into Indonesian language.^[4]

202.134.14.139 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Redwine[edit]

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

Current sources don't show sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG and film/tv credits don't pass WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up in-depth sources which showed notability. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao[edit]

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

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[23]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[24]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).

But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.

Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[25] in Calamur.

If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [26] and [27] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to pass notability, sources 6 and 11 are the best. I also found this [28] and [29]. The last one I posted seems to suggest political notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing lots of keep opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. "Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input" is close to nonsense. "Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Ahmadullah[edit]

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

Reference are self published, primary sources and promotional. These sources do not establish notability of the person. AlbeitPK (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bangladeshi newspaper constantly covered significance news and column about Sheikh Ahmadullah. This proves that he has fulfilled WP:GNG. I suspect the removal proponent is aggressively trying to remove Ahmadullah and his organization's articles. Because in recent times he has proposed the removal of these two. And he didn't make any edits on the wiki other than these. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 08:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable person. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent and reliable sources are available. Ontor22 (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it has been variously asserted by nom and the current majority for keep that the sources do/don't establish GNG, there has been no discussion of individual sources that could move towards decisively substantiating such evaluations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [30] Kaler Kantho, [31] Jugantor, [32] Republic TV and many more notable, reliable and established news link can be presented about him. See google search [33] [34] [35] 202.134.11.243 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amber K[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article is a BLP of a non-notable author, references are self-published sources inc Facebook. No particular claim of notability, says she's exec director of some company but that's not immediately verifiable from their home page. She taught some courses at some organisations, that seems to be about it. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Paganism, Illinois, and Wisconsin. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep, see amazon link

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Amber-K/author/B0958H3NY3?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

I have her Covencraft on my shelf.

I have no idea who you think you are when a simple google search can confirm

A)who she is

B)what books she wrote.

I say we nominate your account for deletion Timknit (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can write a book, we need confirmation of critical reviews of her books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Timknit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, I can't find book reviews. I don't see anything other than books for sale on the usual platforms. Nothing for biographical notability as I can't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: The page is in need of expansion and updating, not deletion. Amber K has writing books since the 1980s, the selection listed on the page is incomplete, as a cursory search for "Almber K bibliography" will indicate. Reviews of her books are likewise easily found on reviews sites, such as Goodreads, and her publisher's official sites as well. Ardantane, her "some company", is an independent, registered 501c3 non-profit corporation established in 1996 in the state of New Mexico and is one of the few Nationally recognized Pagan Schools in the United States. She is also a former First Officer (President) of Covenant of the Goddess (COG), an international organization of Wicca and Witchraft covens and practitioners, whih was founded in 1975. Amber K is also the originator of COG's Youth Service Award "The Hart and Crescent", which was originally designed for those in Scouting, may be earned by youth who are not Scouts as well.

When I have time, I will work on improving the article, provided that it is kept.

(POV: As an aside, I find it questionable that a new Wikipedian's earliest activities on the platform are to suggest articles for deletion.) Ashareem (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the Goodreads reviews but I don't belive user generated content counts towards notability any more than the period of time over which books were written or the particular tax registration of a given organisation. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content can't be used for notability; that's part of the issue, can't seem to find any critical reviews in sites that aren't blogs or user-generated sites Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, also failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe she is more notable as a religious leader rather than an author? There's a 1993 Santa Fe New Mexican article (page 1, page 2) on the reaction of her local community to her work; a 2003 article (page 1, page 2) in the Albuquerque Journal on how she helped found a pagan learning center, Ardantane; a 2008 interview in the Santa Fe Reporter; and coverage of a ceremony in 2022 from The Santa Fe New Mexican (alternate link). There's also some info on her on in the Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft (Llewellyn Worldwide, 2000) by Raven Grimassi – see pages 9, 10, 19, and 246. Maybe someone else can find more coverage, given this history? Best, Bridget (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe. I think some of that is a little letter-to-the-editor type of routine coverage, so I'd like to see something a bit more distant from the subject, but I could be convinced in that direction. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DandelionAndBurdock: There were some correspondences, like letter to the editors, in newspapers in New Mexico and Wisconsin, but these aren't. After searching a bit more I found this article that briefly mentions she was elected leader (National First Officer) of Covenant of the Goddess in 1985. She contributed to Spiritual Parenting in the New Age (The Crossing Press, 1989), which was reviewed in the New York Daily News among other outlets. Bridget (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly brought up sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what happened. IMO writing those notable books may meet NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Surikov (diplomat)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Recently deceased Russian diplomat. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	1. www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject.	2. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2017 No. 348 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Mozambique”" . Archived from the original on 2019-01-26 . Retrieved 2017-09-14 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject.	3. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 16, 2018 No. 76 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Kingdom of Swaziland on a part-time basis”" . Archived from the original on 2018-02-16 . Retrieved 2018-02-16 .
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	4. ^ www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Obit based on government sources, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	5. ^ "Russian Ambassador to Mozambique Died" . TACC (in Russian) . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .

BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, and an interview, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 02:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First and foremost, lower your tone while nominating the article for deletion. Secondly, government decrees can be used as secondary sources as if you can type the full name in a Russian, many sources will pop up, (in Russian of course), apart from the official government statement. Here's my third point, he is the ambassador to Mozambique, the highest office of any diplomat in office. Would you delete the ambassador of the United States of Mozambique for that reason? Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

he is the ambassador to Mozambique, the highest office of any diplomat in office Ambassadors are not inherently notable, several hundred have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Africa, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 of the sources are primary. The other is routine coverage of his unfortunate death. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm leaning to keep, but if if it's drafted... I wouldn't be surprised as well.Ivan Milenin (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion leans delete at the time of this relist, but further participation would be beneficial for establishing a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I decided to keep because even if the some coverage had been lacking, I found some source that could suffice these... [36] [37] [38] Ivan Milenin (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking your duplicate vote. Editors can comment all they want (within limits) but can only cast one vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua[edit]

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

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/weak keep There's coverage of his World Cup appearances, and his post playing career in law. I think there's enough here for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22 The coverage I see are stats pages and mentions. I do not see any in-depth coverage on the individual which is needed to show notability. If you see such coverage, please post the links. Shinadamina (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a good dig and didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. I have a feeling given his post-rugby career in law and Tongan politics there might be good sources in the Tongan language, but I wasn't able to unearth any. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is credible a good impact of this article. Though it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and the sources were few of database results. I am quite certain that the article individual exists and has been covered in little coverage this, and others. A redirect/draftify should work better here against deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as his rugby playing career, which included playing in all four of Tonga's matches at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, he became a prominent lawyer in Tonga, serving as president of the Tongan Law Society and as a member of the 2009 Tongan Constitutional and Electoral Commission. He was a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa (Sustainable Nation-Building Party), and was a candidate in Tongan general elections in 2008, 2010 and 2014. Paora (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be a alot easier if the people who wanted to keep the article shared the sources, or even better, added them to and expanded the article. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusking Pimentel[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dominican Republic, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I looked into it and found the following new sources which are independent and have significant coverage: [39], [40], [41]. This a notable subject and fulfills the WP:NPOL as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddygypsy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Also, {{page creator}} and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please include a signature with your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article meets WP:GNG as far as I can tell. If the sources are reliable and fully backed up being the host of a notable TV show possibly meets WP:ENT. The NPOL may not be for here. Why not redirect to the show? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't quibble on whether they had a significant role (eswiki article on the show is no help since it only goes up to 2008 and has even fewer references than ours), but ENT specifically says multiple, SafariScribe, and I don't think I've seen anything that claims they were part of any other notable production. I also don't see anything that could really be considered GNG or BASIC-level SIGCOV, anything beyond bare mentions seem to be routine coverage surrounding the announcement, excluded by SBST. No objection to redirect though, I just didn't want to BLAR since I anticipated an objection was not unlikely. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a second opinion on the sources offered in this discussion and if a Redirect target article was identified. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Mitsuoka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Argentina. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with the SkateToday article already in the article in addition to [[42]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions[edit]

Academics and educators[edit]

Patricia Sauthoff[edit]

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

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Potter[edit]

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Try https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/27/ > his name in Maryland newspapers. The Frederick News-Post seems to carry the most coverage, with hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Bucci[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is apparently some sort of public school teacher/pianist. I could not find any indication of notability. BLP has had no non-circular references since 2006. The result of the previous AfD in 2007 was no consensus. I am unable to apply BLPPROD due to external links. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing came up on Google. Found two archived references from his Italian article, which are questionable per "WP:TEACHER" RolandSimon (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Italy. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Music, Education, and Italy. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Narayan Reddy[edit]

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

No sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search, so it fails WP:GNG. I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF. However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to contributors and prior WP:PROD participants: @Kazamzam, Necrothesp, Rajasekhar1961, and Varunmodgil: Daask (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- multiple sources atest to being the winner of India's highest award for medical science, the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, awards from the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, and other positions that clearly pass multiple WP:PROF categories. Documenting and verifying Indian professorial records can be difficult, but this one seems quite clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Hultgren[edit]

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

He was no doubt a metallurgist, and I see that he wrote about metallurgy, but I do not see a lot of reliable secondary sources that would constitute significant coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences in 1930 and of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1945 so passes criterion 3 of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the four pages in w:sv:Jernkontorets Annaler referenced in the English article, Swedish Wikipedia references an entry in Vem är vem inom handel och industri?: 1944–1945, so that would be a couple of different sources having significant coverage. /Julle (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a third source for WP:GNG we have this clipping from a Swedish mining guild, Sancte Örjens gille [sv]. And the two academy memberships give a double pass to WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Third party sources. WP:GN applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree there were no source but since the article define itself, the nominator may have bypassed WP:BEFORE. An elected member of a notable society meets WP:ANYBIO and as such, there is possibility of meeting WP:GNG and sources. Clean up is the best way of cleaning such articles. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Julle -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Walker (educator)[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, South Africa, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Robinson (scientist)[edit]

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

I don't doubt that he was indeed librarian of the Yorkshire Philosphical Society during the dates given but in no world is that a claim to notability. In 1850 he was listed as auditor and council member of the same,^[5] and that's all I got from a BEFORE. Seems like a very odd choice for an article to be honest. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "برنامج الخزانة 33 - الشيخ عبد الله بن سالم البطاطي - حسان الغامدي". YouTube. 11 December 2016. Retrieved 26 January 2023.
^ Yusufpati, Miftah H. (18 March 1920). "Dialog Nabi Musa dan Firaun Tentang Tuhan dalam Al-Qur'an". SINDOnews.com (in Indonesian).
^ "Abu Bakar Zakaria". IslamHouse.com (Indonesian) (in Indonesian). Retrieved 26 January 2023.
^ "Syaikh Abu Bakar Muhammad Zakaria – Manhajuna" (in Indonesian). manhajuna.com. Retrieved 28 December 2023.
^ Annual Report of the Yorkshire Philsophical Society MDCCCL

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too little here to justify notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a little while, I thought this Henry Robinson might have been the civil engineer who was the author of "River Pollution" and Sewerage and Sewer Disposal (1896). I don't think that Henry Robinson is notable either, but his writing was at least influential in the late 19th century debate in England about whether rivers were inherently "self-cleaning" or whether pollution needed to be managed. However, they're not the same person. This is clearly about the Henry Robinson who is the subject of this "article"; his son Charles Best Norcliffe discusses his "late" father. That was published in 1884, so the author of the 1896 book cannot be the same man. With that in mind, I have absolutely no idea what this article was trying to accomplish. I think I can find references for the claims it makes, but why? There's nothing here or, so far as I can tell, elsewhere to suggest any particular level of notability or importance. Lubal (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough here for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
delete the only references to him were in the YPS minutes and the York directories. I suspect that he may have been a fine fellow, but not especially notable even during his lifetime — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this him [43]? Talks a bit about the person, but still not enough for keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that Henry Robinson wrote in the 17th century, while the article's Henry Robinson was active in the mid-1800s. Lubal (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleem[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline and notability guidelines for people. likely autobiographical. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The BLP currently relies on unreliable sources. Created by a SPA so likely COI. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Good find. 86.130.244.141 (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Aeschliman[edit]

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

This is another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Italy, Switzerland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, with redirection also being an option if anyone other than a blocked sock is interested in making a stub on the notable book. I see a notable book with reviews (and also respectable citations in a low citation field), but little other evidence of notability. WP:BLP1E at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the problems of puffery and COI authoring etc before the gutting of the entry ... he seems to me to pass WP:Author as his book has been primary subject of multiple independent reviews and an article on him might therefor be useful. An article on the book would seem to me odd, but a brief article on the author mentioning the books would seems OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Had another look (thanks to User:JoelleJay's ping) and think the book's publishers WE & DI and reviews in some marginal journals raise enough fringish worries to make my keep based on the book not so wise. Perhaps he is more known as a journalist in the National Review but notability is not so clear enough to me to justify. Preface by Malcolm Muggeridge to, and praise from Rowan Williams for, the book were the things that I now think mislead me. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. This is about a "survey" (as the book is self-described) published in 2019 by "Discovery Institute," a Seattle-based think tank, which was later translated into French. At the risk of stating the obvious, if the guide or the author were notable, sockpuppets and primary sources wouldn't have been necessary for the article creation. The guide reviews aren't found in reliable sources and appear (as is sometimes the case with unknown manuals) to be provided by the author's associates. There don't appear to be any reliable sources for the author either. In addition to failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR, the article reads like a peacock marketing piece that runs into further WP:GNG problems when considering a ten-year or twenty-year test. 174.197.67.208 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per FRINGE and our notability guidelines. As noted above, this guy is affiliated[44] with the Discovery Institute, a disinformation-spewing intelligent design think tank. The Restoration edition is not reliably published -- it went through Discovery Institute Press,[45] a fact that is strangely absent from the article. Its reviews include several in unreliable sources like Evolution News (DI magazine) and/or do not satisfy WP:FRIND's criterion (bolded) The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book.
The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @Msrasnw. Also ping @David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For me, one book (even in multiple editions) is never enough for WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be no evidence of WP:PROF notability. No objection to redirecting to an article on the book, if anyone cares to make an article on the book. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me that the book takes a fringe anti-science position, whether it is reliably published, or whether the reviews are positive or negative; all that matters for AUTHOR or for notability of the book is the number and depth of mainstream (per WP:FRINGE) reliably published reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Hughes[edit]

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

This article is a sockpuppet production. After the sock was blocked, I removed all primary sources. I was left with only two, one of which has the subject talking about another topic (his school) in an interview. This subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Please see history for an extensive record of puffery. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah--this is where this came from: a socking case of COI-puffery. JFHJr, in such cases, don't even bother cleaning up the article; not doing so makes the fluff stand out nicely. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I try to present each specimen in its most favorable light. And without extraneous reading. Anyone wondering about the application of my edits can see the history. Thank you for your comment. I always appreciate your input. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  For everyone's consideration and time-sinking availability, this version is what we are talking about. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  ~~I'm opposed to you wanting to delete this article. Looks like an attempt at illegitimate blanking.~~ Wikiviewer2 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I am also opposed, who is crossing out wikipedia user's statements? Jane asia (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  
  Same question! Why are Wikipedia user statements being crossed out? I'm genuinely curious as to why someone would be so determined to delete an article about a legitimate, leading practitioner in the field of international education. Annabella25 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, South Africa, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Independent coverage seems to be limited. Deb (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not really, in the article you took down there were at least 10 independent references and there are many more out there, just look through the web!~~ 213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm left wondering: who is striking through Wikipedia user's statements, and for what reason?? Annabella25 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~I was surprised to see the previous article removed. Dr Hughes is well known in international education. Have you googled him? Why should the article be reduced or deleted, according to who?~~ 213.55.220.222 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not removed, and "well known" should be supported by reliable secondary sources. "Have you googled him" is not a reasonable or helpful question to ask. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's easy to find articles on him:
  
  https://www.k12digest.com/designing-and-implementing-educational-systems-for-the-future/
  
  https://www.internationalschoolparent.com/articles/interview-with-dr-conrad-hughes-ecole-internationale-de-geneve-ecolint/
  
  https://www.letemps.ch/economie/chatgpt-fait-son-chemin-dans-les-ecoles-privees
  
  Have you seen all the things he's published with UNESCO?
  
  It seems a bit weird to want to remove him, is there some personal vendetta going on here?
  
  - Lefka1 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  That's two interviews (WP:BLPSPS) and coverage that includes Hughes talking about a different topic (the in-depth coverage is not about Hughes but AI in private schools). How does that approach WP:ANYBIO? JFHJr (㊟) 20:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  ~~So why are you deleting those two interviews? In the article you removed there were lots of sources~~ Wikiviewer2 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Wikiviewer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  The interviews have not been deleted. They're still at their URLs for anyone who googles this subject to find. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  He has clearly made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in education, just by his publications for the World Economic Forum, Springer, The Conversation, his doctoral research, and dozens of articles. He's a well respected scholar. This alone meets WP:ANYBIO Lefka1 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  I agree! Now, I'm genuinely curious about the motivation behind someone's relentless effort to delete an article about a reputable, leading practitioner in the field of international education. Annabella25 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  You or whoever removed the first article took out lots of independent references. There's an interview with the International Baccalaureate for example. That's not a primary source, why are you removing it? There was also an article in the TES about him and by Cambridge's SHAPE. I am opposed to your proposal to delete this. 213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm about to block a socking account. The nay-sayers here likely have conflicts of interest, but worse than that they lack a proper understanding of what Wikipedia is and what the processes are. Interviews and whatnot do not count towards notability. If there is an "enduring historical record in education", there will be secondary sources that say that. That someone published articles also does not make them notable--unless others have written about those articles. If there's any more socking, this AfD will be semi-protected. Oh, Lefka1, if you make any more comments about "personal vendetta" or whatever, I will happily block you too. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm intrigued by the controversy surrounding this article. I have no axe to grind about Hughes, one way or another, and I don't necessarily espouse his views, but - whether one likes it or not - he is unquestionably prominent and influential in international education, and increasingly so. Are the editors who propose the deletion of the article familiar with this field?

International educators throughout the world would be puzzled to hear that quite a small article devoted to Hughes has been earmarked for deletion, on the grounds of insufficient notability. An article providing some basic, sober information, free of "puffery", about who Hughes is and does fulfills Wikipedia's responsibility to inform its vast reading public, in an objective and neutral manner, about noteworthy people and topics, with the support of solid citations. I can't say I care enough about the Hughes article to do extensive research on its behalf, but as far as secondary sources go, you might look at the reputed TES journal (29 May 2020, "Rethinking school: a special issue", by Alistair McConville), the McKay interview with Hughes on World Radio Switzerland (29 February 2024), or the June 2024 "Formation" supplement ("Ces écoles centenaires") of Bilan magazine, page 4). So my advice, as an experienced Wikipedia reader (though not editor) would be DO NOT DELETE. All those in the field of international education understand why there is an article about Hughes in Wikipedia, regardless of whether they share his well-known educational goals.

By the way, I notice that some previous contributions to this discussion have been crossed out. Why, by whom, and on what authority? Those deleted comments are somewhat assertive, but by no means rude or irresponsible. I hope that this is not how Wikipedia functions, with certain editors censoring the reasonable contributions of others. 83.79.254.53 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - You were blocked as User:Tamara Santerra pursuant to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove and now you're participating in this discussion logged out (block evasion). Why do you think it's okay for you to continue trying to participate here? (pinging @Bbb23: if you have 30 seconds for followup, as blocking admin for Tamara) JFHJr (㊟) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've heard this speaker in conferences, he's well know in international education circles. But when I go to wikipedia I see someone is trying to delete the page. I am opposed to this page being deleted. Jane asia (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- @Drmies, since your comment re page protection, we've gotten 2 new SPAs here, 1 more SPA at this page's talk; a blocked sock trying to vote here as an IP; a second IP that certainly belongs to one of the others; and more talk about a personal bias motivation (vendetta). If you have time today, could you please SPP this discussion? Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - JFHJr, just let it roll. Don't respond. Tag them as SPAs if you like, and straighten out their indenting. I ran CU on a couple and they're all roughly in the same area, but not enough for me to block them on technical grounds. I bet this will all be over soon. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seeing no evidence that article's subject is sufficiently notable re: WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR.The article itself is quite poor.Boredintheevening (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Hughes is a widely known figure in international education. To anybody who is knowledgeable about this field, that's obvious. I'm surprised that this can be such a controversial issue. Basic research about Hughes will confirm his notability. 77.59.138.101 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion proposal is not controversial. It does not require controversy to happen. Just a crappy article and crappy sources. The only controversy here is all the WP:SOCKs, who are apparently determined to edit logged-out after blocks (editing logged-out is much like editing naked, leaves very little in doubt). You're making it much easier to tie a single sock to multiple IPs, so thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Dr. Hughes is a prominent figure in international education, widely respected for his significant contributions. He has authored two important books and numerous articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and he leads one of the oldest and most esteemed international schools in the world. His direct involvement with UNESCO and other international organizations, as well as his frequent invitations as a keynote speaker to global events, further underscore his expertise and influence in the field. Moreover, he holds two PhDs! Any attempt to delete his Wikipedia article may be motivated by personal bias rather than factual grounds. It's deeply troubling and shameful to witness someone of such high regard being placed in such a situation. Annabella25 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – WP:ANYBIO is clearly not met, and I can't see how he meets WP:NACADEMIC either. As pointed out (repeatedly) above, secondary sources are required, and they simply aren't there. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best case for notability is via NAUTHOR, but this would require multiple reviews of multiple works in reliable sources. Reviews are not evident, and I did not find them on my search; noting that searching is complicated by the subject's common name. The history of sockpuppetry and promotionalism here is indeed concerning. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Falls short of WP:GNG (the one Tribune de Genève article) and of WP:AUTHOR (I could only find two reviews of one book [46] [47]). Weak because he's partway there on both criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul (scientist)[edit]

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

Unnotable individual fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines see WP:SIGCOV. Most of the existing sources are unreliable and not independent of the subject. The individual also has no significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Scotland. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 15:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – After being appointed to a personal chair, Paul was appointed director of a cancer institute and then during his tenure the research capability was transformed with the Beatson becoming an internationally acclaimed organisation. He was awarded an honorary Dsc. The obituary published in the Independent included that "During his most productive years his publications were among the 1,000 most-cited scientific papers in the world". Clearly meets WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a hint: when someone gets an obituary in the top journal of their field, they have made a significant impact on their field. Also with an obituary in The Independent, etc. speedy keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above he passes WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, supporting/agreeing with the comments above. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Heckman[edit]

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

No sources that pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:PROF/WP:ARTIST, and I was unable to find any additional sources that meet notability criteria after a search of my own. The majority of sources are not independent of the subject, and some do not contain significant coverage. Several parts of the article read in a promotional tone. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, and Social science. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find this nomination for the deletion of the Brad Heckman article to be both perplexing and unsubstantiated. It appears the nominator made their decision after requesting access to the Wall Street Journal article, which was behind a paywall. If this singular paywalled source was the tipping point for an AfD discussion, we need to reassess what constitutes a careless deletion nomination because this one certainly fits the bill. The Wall Street Journal article in question is entirely about the nonprofit organization that Heckman founded and led. It begs the question: What specifically about that article, which thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work, convinced the nominator that this article deserved deletion? Let's entertain the notion for a moment that the sources might not be independent of the subject, which seems to be suggested by the nomination. This presumably refers to the TEDx talk given by Heckman. Notability guidelines clearly state that the source must be independent of the subject. TEDx talks, much like interviews in Rolling Stone or other reputable publications, should not be considered non-independent simply because they involve the subject speaking about their work. This rule is better suited for sources like blogs and social media posts, not established platforms like TEDx. Additionally, articles published by universities about their alumni typically reflect the institution's pride and are usually well-researched, as evidenced by the in-depth article from Dickinson College on Heckman's life and achievements. Heckman is a published illustrator and painter, recognized by reputable organizations such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement for his artistic contributions. The mention of his nonprofit offering free mediation services is a factual statement about the organization's purpose, not an advertisement. According to WP:PROMO, a promotional tone is characterized by self-promotion and blatant advocacy, neither of which are present in this article. Wikipedia’s own guidelines suggest tagging articles with {{Promotional tone}} if necessary, rather than nominating them for deletion. I urge my fellow editors to consider these points carefully. The Brad Heckman article is well-supported by independent and reliable sources, and the nomination for deletion appears to be based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's notability and promotional content guidelines. Let's keep this informative and well-documented article. Thank you. 9t5 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 9t5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

For reference, 9t5 asked me to review this page at User talk:FormalDude § Page review. I checked to see if I had access to all the sources (since I wouldn't want to review it if I didn't) and the only one I couldn't access was the WSJ article. I didn't start reviewing until 9t5 provided me with a link to a free copy of the WSJ source on my talk page (that link now says deleted by the owner, I've reuploaded here). So no, the WSJ wasn't any "tipping point". Nonetheless, it does not contain significant coverage of Heckman, you said it yourself: it's "entirely about the nonprofit organization". It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization. When you say it "thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work" I feel like I'm not even reading the same article as you; I can't see how it verifies even a single piece of information about him. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”… the funny thing is that even without a Wall Street Journal subscription, you are still capable of reading the first paragraph of the article that states “But when I called the Peace Institute, CEO Brad Heckman confirmed my buddy's account”.. quite the thorough review you did. The pdf was set to auto-delete since I don’t have the right to redistribute what is behind a paywall. You could always drop $0.99 and read it on the Wall Street Journal’s website though. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude But since you are making absolutely untrue statements like “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”.. THIS is the Wall Street Journal article. I went ahead and re-uploaded it. 9t5 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see I missed the first two paragraphs which provide us with the one fact that Heckman is the CEO. That's still not significant coverage. Here's my assessment of the article's more promising sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
WSJ			Entirely about the company, only passing mentions of Heckman.	✘ No
TEDx Talks	This is a speech given by Heckman, clearly not independent.	~ Per RSP, must abide by WP:ABOUTSELF.		✘ No
Dickinson College	Written for and by Heckmen's alma matter, consituting a WP:COISOURCE.	~ May have been provided entirely by Heckmen without any editorial oversight.		✘ No
NYT			Only a passing mention of Heckman.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.