Iskandar323 (talk | contribs) Tag: Twinkle |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
<!-- Only if additions to this section do not clearly fit with one of the aforementioned categories, then please feel free to list or transclude. --> |
<!-- Only if additions to this section do not clearly fit with one of the aforementioned categories, then please feel free to list or transclude. --> |
||
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> |
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Bamford (2nd nomination)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Syed_Ali_Khansahib_Bukhari}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Syed_Ali_Khansahib_Bukhari}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rezwan Razack}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rezwan Razack}} |
Revision as of 18:09, 12 September 2021
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to People. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|People|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
watch |
People
- 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. There is no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Carole Bamford
- Carole Bamford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has extremely questionable notability and terrible, intermittent and largely primary or press release sourcing. If anything, the notability case for the organic farm discussed in the article seems stronger than that of the owner. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Terrible pr-job of an article, but she is the founder of a brand that is well-known in the UK, & the sourcing can very easily be improved with stuff like this and (not very friendly) this. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- KEEP, the founder of well known Daylesford Organics should be considered 'notable'.Rodolph (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Technical question: For companies, there is no inherited hotability. But can people inherit notability from organisations, or does that rule work both ways? I'm not asking about general notability here, but about the specifics of conveying notability from firm to founder. Daylesford Organics has notably not had its own Wikipedia article created, sourced and deemed notable yet, so perhaps that should take priority. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Hi all, I've had another go at trying to improve it and will continue to do so until it's right and acceptable. Hopefully this has addressed some issues but please feel keep the suggestions coming and I'll get better at this with each recommendation Duderood (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Duderood
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources presented in the first AFD. Consensus at that discussion was clear that the subject is notable and quality in-depth independent sources exist, but the article itself needed improvement through editing. I can't see any reason to disagree with that assessment. WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- KEEP - plenty of news exists if you Google her name. I have added a few new citations. Peter303x (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Syed Ali Khansahib Bukhari
- Syed Ali Khansahib Bukhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After removing some unrelated sources that don't mention the subject ([1] [2]), as well as some spam and a Google Maps entry (not going to link here), there are only two sources left: a commercial website for the shrine of this Sufi saint (fails WP:INDEPENDENT) and Walter Roper Lawrence's book The Valley of Kashmir, which I've searched but doesn't seem to mention the apparently obscure saint. I've searched both Google Scholar and normal Google for a reliable source to rewrite the article, but I've found none (some hits concern 'Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari, who is a different person), which makes me think that the subject does not meet our notability criteria. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hii, so it has lack of reliable sources?? Ttttt321 (talk). 15:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Part of the problem is that that the article has been done so badly, without specific citations to reliable sources (or any sources) that I cannot even tell if the article is a spoof. For example, if you are going to cite a book, you could at least provide page numbers. If you are going to cite a news site, you could at least provide the article title and the date of the article.
The only useful citations I could find in the article were the "shrine's" business site and google maps which at least confirmed that there was some sort of "shrine" to Syed Ali Alaa-Ud-Din in the village of Chewdara, which is in Budgam district, J&K. The Google maps link also told me that there was a "shrine" to Syed Said-ud-Dun on the same plot of land. So I looked at District Budgam, Places of Interest, which says:
- "TOMB OF SYED TAJ-UD-DIN AND SYED ALLA-UD-DIN"
- "ACCORDING to a legend, when Syed Taj-ud-Din arrived in Khag, the Mala Kol silently followed him from Sukh Nag to Skinderpora. Syed Taj-ud-Din first arrived in Sukh Nag where he stayed for long, and later, crossing various villages, reached Skinderpora, where he spend the rest of his life. Following his death, the mantle of spiritual guidance of people fell on his son, Syed Alla-ud-Din, who was equally a pious soul. The tombs of both the father and son, are situated in Skinderpora and attract a large number of devotees."
- Skinderpora is not shown on Google maps, but a census document for the district reveals that "Iskineder Pora" is probably an alternative spelling, and that does show on Google maps[3] - but is a village 8.6 miles (13.8 km) from Chewdara. In summary, there is not enough information to know whether the article is a spoof or not, let alone the far more ambitious task of establishing notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV at best. At worst, could potentially be a WP:HOAX given that many of the sources in the article don't actually mention the subject and no independent sources can be located.4meter4 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Rezwan Razack
- Rezwan Razack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertisement. Lack of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. Linkedin is not a reliable reference. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors—of which subject is the co-author—or the Prestige Group—of which the subject is a member. Subject is also founder of Museum of Indian Paper Money, which has a fair amount of coverage and may be notable on its own. Notability is not inherited through these, but the topics are fairly closely related to the subject. The subject also appears to be a researcher and expert in field of Indian banknotes. I've added some references (including one from the BBC) that seem to touch upon the subject more directly; I don't know enough about them to know if they are all reliable sources and article could use a copyedit to better incorporate them. —Ost (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. The subject lacks secondary sources to establish notability.defcon5 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to the book's page. I couldn't find any sources at this point that could help establish notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. 4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Rina Kay
- Rina Kay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability for musicians. Creator seems to be the subject itself. Already rejected in draft too [4] NagalimNE (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NagalimNE (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I submitted this for WP:A7 deletion as I felt that there was no assertion of notability but this was declined by an IP without comment. In any case, there are no reliable sources in the article and a source search came back empty handed so this is a clear and obvious delete. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - It contains reliable sources and the page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.205.88.123 (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I wrote some reliable sources but someone deleted them. I couldn't change anything in the article because then I would get banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallMeRina (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO.No reference at all.Non notable singer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.161.164 (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Jesse Dunford Wood
- Jesse Dunford Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is partly a procedural nomination. The person exists. He is a chef, but all - or almost all - of the references do not even mention his name. When you do a Google search on his name, you get very little of any value. Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: as per nom, only one reference mentions this chef. General notability is not satisfied here. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. There is potentially some quality RS in google books: most notably this French language book where there is a profile of him: [5]. Snippet views/ blocked pages prevent getting a closer look at what looks the most promising. (such as [6]; [7]; My university library search yielded some of his recipes in The Independent and The Guardian, and I did find some interviews in culinary magazines, but we usually don't consider that independent enough to count towards RS at AFD. His 2017 cookbook Modern British Food: Recipes from Parlour may have reviews somewhere to count towards notability. Basically, I found a few good leads but nothing that definitely establishes notability. Not convinced yet that there isn't RS out there to be confident in a delete vote either.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think he's notable, the French book mentioned is more like a travel guide, the author picks favorite things and writes a bit about them. The rest don't seem more important. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
SteveWillDoIt
- SteveWillDoIt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject lacks quality independent references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete references are basically primary and do not fulfil the principles given on WP:NYOUTUBE --Whiteguru (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Yash Thakur (Fitness Coach)
- Yash Thakur (Fitness Coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rejected draft in AFC moved directly to mainspace. Copying my comment from my talk page which should serve as rationale of this AFD:
Most of them are very obviously paid and others are written in away that it indicated they are influenced. For example, Mid-day says brandmedia, Business Standard says BS Marketing initiative, Telegraph says ABP Digital Brand Studio, DNA says 'It is a featured article' at the end, The Week says focus. The Hindi ones, I might be okay with News 18 (it still doesn't have a staff byline!). Jagran is his opinion on stuff so that's out. Patrika can't be considered WP:RS considering that they publish basically anything. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as WP:G11. The author had a chance when I moved it into draft space the first time. The fact that there was absolutely zero effort to improve it suggests that the article was created in bad faith, purely to promote (and the author admits to a COI), using poor sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - all the paid-for spam content in the world still isn't enough to pass WP:GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete blatantly spam content for references. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per all above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Spam article. Spam references. Miserable failure of GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. I discounted the 'close' argument, which seems to me to fall into 'assume bad faith' territory. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet
- Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. This article would be enough to stablish notability if it hadn't appeared in the Daily Mail. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. A dalliance with a female groom may be fit for a rag like the Daily Mail, but hardly constitutes notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Close as out of process. This AFD was launched less than 5 minutes after unrelated edits elsewhere. Absolutely zero chance WP:BEFORE was even considered. St★lwart111 04:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment user:Stalwart111, you are making allegations of what is going on in someone else's head (on several pages) and misjudging it. As has been recommended to WIkiproject Notability before, the aim when assessing CAT:NN is partly to make sure AfD is never inundated, and so I keep an eye on numbers in the system, and delay nominating until there is more space for them, and then put them in together. Monitoring and assessing CAT:NN is a difficult balancing act. We won't always get it right, but are trying our best. This deserves to be judged on its merits, or lack thereof, not on what you guess has been going on in a stranger's brain. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- What nonsense! The majority of your nominations are completed less than 2 minutes after edits elsewhere. With a massive 5-minute gap, this one is an anomaly. There's no way you're completing anything close to what WP:BEFORE requires and your nominations are just disruptive. Eventually someone will have the guts to block you. St★lwart111 00:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment user:Stalwart111, you are making allegations of what is going on in someone else's head (on several pages) and misjudging it. As has been recommended to WIkiproject Notability before, the aim when assessing CAT:NN is partly to make sure AfD is never inundated, and so I keep an eye on numbers in the system, and delay nominating until there is more space for them, and then put them in together. Monitoring and assessing CAT:NN is a difficult balancing act. We won't always get it right, but are trying our best. This deserves to be judged on its merits, or lack thereof, not on what you guess has been going on in a stranger's brain. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect Very little of the article is actually about the individual in question.2601:241:300:B610:D158:6D5E:6128:D10C (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets because the Daily Mail is not good enough coverage.--Creoda (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Wajahat Hasan
- Wajahat Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though the first afd's result was Delete but that was held in 2015. I again do not find any significant coverage and subject is non notable actor fails WP:NACTOR, References are not justified WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: This instance of the article was moved out and then copied back into mainspace, sourced only to the subject's YouTube page, where he posts music and prank videos. Searches find no evidence of attained notability, whether as a dubbing actor, music or video maker. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. The last Afd was filled with socks and SPAs, so any suspicious !votes should surely be discounted. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:NACTOR defcon5 (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: per above rationale. Chirota (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Jesse Guthrie
- Jesse Guthrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Here v. PROD as it has been previously deleted. I cannot find evidence of notability for this climber via GNG or CREATIVE. His autobiography is self published and none of his writings seem to be part of notable publications. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Needs WP:RS. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I have subscription access to the Los Angeles Times, and found zero coverage in the archives so the generic claim of coverage in that publication within the article is false. I did find one brief interview in The Washington Post, but as an interview it lacks independence. Of the other sources in the article, the only one that could be consider RS would be the book review in the climber magazine. However, this on its own is not enough to establish notability. All of the other sources are trivial mentions or lack independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 09:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Bonaventura Di Bello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I was going to stub and clean this up, but an English/Italian BEFORE shows only interviews and nothing that would meet GNG/BIO. Star Mississippi 14:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Vartkess Knadjian
- Vartkess Knadjian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable businessman. Was dePRODded in 2015, so we're here. Not mentioned at Backes & Strauss and would likely be undue to mention one CEO in a three hundred year old company's history. BEFORE only indicates name drops in connection with the company, and an interview or two. Nothing to meet WP:BIO Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Backes & Strauss where his name currently appears in the Infobox. I agree with the nominator that merging more information about this person into the article on his employer would unbalance it. A man with a job, in which role he has some coverage, but I am seeing no evidence that he has distinct biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete GNG is not met properly. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Mohammad Tiregar (Artist)
- Mohammad Tiregar (Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Only has minor roles in several notable films, though even these do not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The man has starred in several international films on Netflix, and the sites of the World News Agency abc (News), Cinema Blend (News) have named him as the main actor the cast list. He also had his first acting experience in an international film about Elly directed by Asghar Farhadi (Source). Maryam CNA (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Maryam CNA: These sources only contain trivial mentions of the subject, which are not enough to establish notability. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 17:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yeeno: There were credible sources that you tried to hide and removed a collection of information about this person from Wikipedia. (Take a look at this page).Maryam CNA (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yeeno: You tried to delete the person's pictures 1 Link 2 from Wikimedia so that you can prove your point on the talk page. Then nominate the person to delete the page so that you can trick Wikipedia administrators into deleting the article. This is not true at all. We are all on this site to improve and help. Everything about this person is real and mentioned on the biggest movie news sites, and all of his videos have been streamed on Netflix, Even if it is not the first role. You should not delete a page by trickery. Maryam CNA (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Everything about Mohammad Tiregar is real You can see everything in this (link). Thanks Maryam CNA (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Maryam CNA, I understand that you strongly disagree with the deletion of this article, but I would kindly ask you to assume good faith and read the relevant policies I have linked, before casting aspersions on me without reason. Such statements are personal attacks, and repeated violations may lead to a block.
- I have no intention of misleading you with any of my edits. Other editors, such as John B123 at Talk:Mohammad_Tiregar_(Artist)#About Elly, have mentioned the lack of significant coverage on the subject in the sources you cited. I assume you have read this, since you then removed the comments without explaining why. The image deletion message was placed by a bot, because the images used on that article were taken from Tiregar's twitter page and not taken by you. This is a separate matter not related to the article's deletion. I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have caused, but I recommend you take another look at the general notability guidelines before you make your next reply. Thank you. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 21:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yeeno: I did not insult you. According to Wikipedia rules, any article can be expanded and improved. I ask you to remove the delete tag so that we can improve the quality of the content by citing the source to expand this article with more resources. Thank you for replying. Maryam CNA (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Maryam CNA: Thank you for understanding. According to WP:EDITATAFD, you are encouraged to improve and expand the article while it is nominated for deletion, by addressing the points raised by other editors. The key thing I am concerned with here is that there is no significant coverage of the subject in the sources you cited. Both the Cinemablend and ABC sources you showed only mention Tiregar in a cast list, which is not significant coverage. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 21:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly non-notable.Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR currently. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Time will tell.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
James Robert Hornsby
- James Robert Hornsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like a family history project copied from somewhere, nothing to suggest that they are WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mostly copied from a 1917 newspaper obituary [8]. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Another obit [9]. 23:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to a possible WP:CV, and a complete lack of IRS sources, the subject simply does not appear to be notable. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - does not meet WP:BIO. Deus et lex (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Dominick Pezzulo
- Dominick Pezzulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a memorial and there is absolutely nothing notable about this individual besides the fact he was featured in World Trade Center (film), which already mentions him in its article. He is no different from the nearly 3,000 other people who died on 9/11. I am also nominating the following related pages because there is nothing notable about these individuals besides being featured in the same movie, which its article also mentions:
- Dave Karnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Will Jimeno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- John McLoughlin (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jason Thomas (Marine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This seems like a mean-spirited nomination. Each person is well documented and there is enough information to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to me there is a difference between someone entering a doomed building to rescue people and someone trying to get out. Maybe it is my view rather than the nominator's that is idiosyncratic. Never mind, journalists have written about these people partly to remark on mistakes in the film but also to provide more background information. For notability purposes it does not matter why journalists wrote about their subjects but whether what they wrote meets our criteria. I think the articles meet our criteria. Thincat (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This man is a hero who died while trying to save his fellow officers. Ask Will Jimeno if he thinks this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:AE40:A5B3:89C1:4A13:48F5:2940 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: All are very clearly notable via WP:GNG; a search shows that a number of sources that provide WP:SIGCOV exist on the Internet. While you are correct that we are not a memorial, that alone does not disqualify them from having an article if they pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep:In my humble opinion, there may be a distinction between a heroic rescuer and a lucky rescued. IF deletion must go ahead, delete the rescued as they were (happily) simply lucky - though their retention adds context to the (worth preserving) stories of the rescuers.ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: William Jimero should be kept since he is also now an author with two titles. All of them should be kept due to their notoriety. IMHO. OnePercent (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: A quick Google reveals all individuals above are notable in their own right for their roles in the timeline. Just an aside, which isn't relevant to the AfD or the final decision, but you could have picked a more respectful time to nominate these pages for deletion. Even if you had waited a week... --Jkaharper (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: I'd like to address John McLoughlin in particular - I came across his name in an article which in no way mentioned or addressed the aforementioned movie, and googled the name to read more about him, which led me to his Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a memorial, it is however a repository for information, including about people of note, and the experiences McLoughlin had make him a person of note for whom a Wikipedia page is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.200.79 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and note that MORE information available is preferable to LESS information, especially regarding the events surrounding 9/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.152.172 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep They are heroes and deserve their own page, what they did was remarkable and interesting. Nobody is stopping you from making a Wiki-page for the other 3000 people that died. 130.208.204.26 (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Considering their roles in a significantly historical event, I'd say the four articles should remain in line with WP:N. Deleting three of the articles, based exclusively on their inclusion in a film that is in turn based on extraordinary significant events, seems like a shoddy excuse to remove them. Also, the repeated use of "absolutely nothing notable" about the subjects seems a little, perhaps unintentionally, distasteful. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I find it disgusting that you would attempt to delete this page, you should be ashamed of yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:4901:1EB0:0:0:0:B90E (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is extraordinarily significant for someone to survive having not just one, but two 1,000+ foot skyscrapers fall on top of them. If anything, this provides context to the ~3,000 dead who may lack an article; survival was just that difficult. Wikipedia is about notability and this is pretty notable, considering the many articles being written about these men even two decades later. My response applies to all four proposed deletions. You could make your same (weak, in my opinion) argument for any number of 9/11 figures, and then all we'd be left with are 19 redundant articles about the same Middle Eastern loser. The event was as much an attack as it was a response, and what were essentially miracles of survival and/or people fighting back are as much a feature of the event as the attacks themselves and their inclusion is warranted here. Separately from my response to your proposal, considering the time, this was an extremely insensitive thing to do and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Mary Samsonite (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep At least for Will Jimeno I can't see a justification to deletion. There was a large article on his life events after 9/11 that came out in a national publication (Politico) for the 20th Anniversary, and it noted he has a published book, has done motivational speaking around the country etc. It would seem he is more notable than simply a random individual who died in the collapse of the towers and has a specific fame beyond just the fact he survived the collapse. Eth19508029 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - this whole nomination feels like it was done in bad faith, and the disregard for BLP (there's a rather large difference between "fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines" and "there is nothing notable about [person]") or WP:BEFORE. Jimeno clearly meets the GNG, having been profiled in Politico. As for the others, you could probably make the case that being portrayed in an Oliver Stone movie is evidence that person meets our notability guideline. Similarly, having received a significant national award like the 9/11 Heroes Medal of Valor also suggests notability (regardless of what one might think about some of the post-9/11 awards). Guettarda (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think this nomination is a good example of when a potentially valid nomination turns into a trainwreck due to the bundling of an obviously notable article. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that we have deleted articles on many equally brave individuals who have been decorated for their courage in action or otherwise. I'd be interested in an explanation as to why these people are notable and the others are not. Because reading this AfD, it does seem that some sort of special case is being made for them because they were involved in the events of 9/11 and were portrayed in a film about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, these people have clearly received plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Mandy La Candy
- Mandy La Candy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Single event doesn't establish enough notability for an article. WP:ONEEVENT/WP:ITEXISTS/WP:NBIO/WP:TOOSOON/WP:NOTNEWS etc... — IVORK Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — IVORK Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — IVORK Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — IVORK Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kaizenify (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not a single event. Note the range of dates on the references. Another editor, Kaizenify (talk · contribs · count), posted this as an an edit summary, and I agree: The subject is a prominent transgender in a country with hostility to LGBT and has tried to remain a voice for the community. I would remove the sentence with her former name. We generally avoid using deadnames.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: She is not living in Nigeria. Additionally if she really is that prominent, far more detail and sourcing is required. Past articles are just a paragraph talking about her Instagram posts. Miss Sahhara is different entirely, having been the first publicly open trans-woman, being directly effected by Nigerian laws and having won awards from international modelling competitions. — IVORK Talk 03:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't seem notable. J0ngM0ng (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think she is notable. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above comments, she is not notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. With sources like Pulse and Dailypost shows some relevance and according to Legit.ng here, their sexuality has encouraged more queer persons which makes them significance in a country against LGBT laws. And hence passes WP:ANYBIO. Dfertileplain (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails GNG. I fail to see how she is notable. She seems to have caused some very minor press tittering in Nigeria and that's it. ExRat (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Additionally, most of the sources should be disqualified based on WP:NOTTABLOID.4meter4 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Samuel Thayer (author)
- Samuel Thayer (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
self published author. 3 meaningless awards by a book distributor. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, lacks independent coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Midwest Book Awards, for which Thayer won first and second places in 2006 and 2010, is not a "meaningless" organization and only a "book distributor": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest_Independent_Publishers_Association. Further, the Independent Book Publisher's Association, who gives out the Benjamin Franklin Award, is also not a "book distributor": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Book_Publishers_Association.If these are "meaningless" awards, then why were they given by organizations for whom there are Wikipedia pages? Is DGG saying that Wikipedia is creating meaningless pages?Steven C. Price 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep "self-published" or not, this nomination implicitly assumes lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. There may not be enough material to write a John Muir length biography, but there appears to be enough coverage in reliable third-party sources to make a brief but complete and policy-compliant encyclopedic entry. Nationally broadcast NPR program Morning Edition calls Thayer "a leader in efforts to revive the ancient art of foraging"[1] and Mountain Home magazine calls him "one of the nation's leading experts on foraging for wild edibles".[2] Additional biographical coverage is found in outlets such as Duluth News Tribune,[3] PBS Wisconsin,[4] Isthmus alternative newspaper,[5] Civil Eats,[6] The Salt (NPR),[7] Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine,[8] and Wisconsin Life.[9] Several other sources simply include Thayer's books as recommended resources, such as The Atlantic,[10] The Austin Chronicle,[11] and The Herald Journal,[12]
- Since there are multiple reliable sources, spanning well over a decade, that give non-trivial overage of Thayer's accomplishments and biography, invoking no original research, Thayer meets basic notability criteria for biographies as well as the general notability guideline. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Schute, Nancy (April 18, 2011). "Foraging The Weeds For Wild, Healthy Greens". Morning Edition. National Public Radio.
- ^ O'Reilly, David (September 1, 2020). "Into the Woods". Mountain Home.
- ^ Renalls, Candace (January 24, 2007). "Wild diet". Duluth News Tribune.
- ^ "Living off the Land". In Wisconsin. PBS Wisconsin. February 17, 2011.
- ^ Hardee, Howard (20 September 2018). "More Than Weeds". Isthmus. Madison, Wisconsin.
- ^ Hay, Mark E. (July 9, 2020). "Interest in Foraging Is Booming. Here's How to Do it Right". Civil Eats.
- ^ Martell, Nevin (September 28, 2013). "Birch For Breakfast? Meet Maple Syrup's Long-Lost Cousins". NPR.org.
- ^ Sheridan, Megan (Spring 2001). "Find Your Food". Wisconsin Natural Resources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
- ^ Schultz, Zac (November 26, 2015). "Professional Forager Teaches People To Find Nutrition In Nature". Wisconsin Life. Wisconsin Public Radio & PBS Wisconsin.
- ^ Shaw, Hank (28 June 2010). "A Wild Foods Library: 11 Books for Foragers". The Atlantic. June 28, 2010.
A modern forager, Samuel Thayer, has done an excellent job with the images in his self-published Nature's Garden... an excellent book if you live east of the Great Plains
- ^ Cape, Jessi (April 4, 2014). "Take a Walk on the Wild Side". The Austin Chronicle.
- ^ DeMoss, Jeffrey (October 22, 2015). "Harvesting nature's bounty in Cache Valley". The Herald Journal.
8'd say out of aour 5 + million articles, ant least a few percent are meaningless, or have no sigificance except fo the subject.The MIPC is appropriate for an article, and has one. The article gives no indi=cation thqta its awards are 1notable or erecognized. It's awards , however, are paid promotionalism for mostly self-published authors. There's one evieww in a national souce, but its one of 1 in a group review..`.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep seems notable in his niche. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR per sources provided by Animalparty.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
David Devlin
- David Devlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted in 2013. Credited as gaffer in several films, which is not inherently notable. Does not appear to have significant coverage. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - All that a BEFORE search turns up is his website, IMDb, and his instagram. Does not pass criteria for WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, WP:BASIC nor WP:ANYBIO. Not much has changed from the last deletion, still not notable per WP guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Notability not positively established. The sources about various recordings and releases seem to dissolve under more scrutiny. —ScottyWong— 16:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst
- Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that this person meets any criterion of notability. Nothing on JSTOR, no verifiable hit on Gbooks, two hits on Gnews, one of which I have added as a ref. Some previous content (which I have removed) was copied verbatim – with appropriate OTRS permission – from her website, and then translated here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Worldcat lists two albums released by Naxos, a well-known classical label, and an additional two released by ARS Produktion. The two released by Naxos are enough to pass WP:NBAND. As well, the international touring, if verified, would be an independent basis for passing WP:NBAND. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Eastmain: as far as I can tell, these are offered by Naxos Digital Services, which is a streaming service; the 2 CDs are not actually released by Naxos themselves, Naxos offers music from many publishers on their Digital Services. Looking at the track list, these are simply the two ARS CDs offered digitally, nothing more or less. Fram (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Eastmain: I always botch my pings... Fram (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not convinced by the sourcing or achievements, just a few small regional concerts (and not many even of them). Another one that at least mentions the Leschetizky award, but I'd be surprised if they actually verified it. —Kusma (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- But anyway, this is sort of what the competition was like back then, if I understand it correctly. It is for younger students now. Anyway, here is a primary source proof that the concert took place. It isn't enough to establish notability if you ask me, but it can be verified. —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I started taking a look through the article; but as you can see once the really routine stuff is removed what is left is basically this, which looks like probably a self-submitted biography as part of, you've guessed it, programme notes for a concert (K26 on that list). So Delete as failing GNG. In addition, the keeps are unconvincing, as unsupported assertions of notability and the (non-passing) of a (non-relevant) SNG (which does not override GNG anyway) aren't good arguments to the lack of coverage (which creates a WP:V issue). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete. - I think the two recordings for ARS are worth something, I agree with Fram regarding the Naxos offerings. I tried all the avenues I could think of, and found no sources not already in the article. Institut für bildnerisches Denken is a staff profile page. "Chopin als Musiker und Mensch" is a press release. Chopin-Gesellschaft is exactly the same as the previous. Schumann-Portal is a quote from a review of one of the ARS CDs, which *may* indicate that that a larger review of the topic's performance style exists. Hence the "weak" delete. It wouldn't take much more to push this into notability territory, but I don't think it's quite there yet. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC) PS I could find no trace of the supposed Sony release. A catalog # would be sufficient for wp:v. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Her two CDs (produced by her husband): Sony CC971101 (Kammermusiksaal, Beethoven-Haus Bonn) and Sony CC991203 (Carnegie Weill Hall, New York), but no traces in Internet except subjects Homepage Grimes2 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. No matter how I parse it, I can't confirm these actually exist, with or without the topic's participation. Nor do those catalog number fit within any of Sony's catalog numbering schemes. I'm becoming a bit more dubious, but I truly want to extend my appreciation for the effort you've put into this. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Seems to be self produced. It's not Sony Records, it's Sony DADC Sony Digital Audio Disc Corporation. Grimes2 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. No matter how I parse it, I can't confirm these actually exist, with or without the topic's participation. Nor do those catalog number fit within any of Sony's catalog numbering schemes. I'm becoming a bit more dubious, but I truly want to extend my appreciation for the effort you've put into this. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Her two CDs (produced by her husband): Sony CC971101 (Kammermusiksaal, Beethoven-Haus Bonn) and Sony CC991203 (Carnegie Weill Hall, New York), but no traces in Internet except subjects Homepage Grimes2 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
M. Gautham Machaiah
- M. Gautham Machaiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's someone who has done lot of work in media. But how his work would make him notable, it is not clear. Doesn't qualify WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . North America1000 00:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Nasr Mahrous
- Nasr Mahrous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only one source is given here. I am not able to find any more. Not qualifying WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Alex Roland
- Alex Roland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded by Sdkb. I believe the topic fails WP:BIO. Note that, as is common in broadcast journalism (and the source of some confusion), the Emmy awards are from a state/regional chapter and are not national Emmys; I don't personally find that the awards from NATAS chapters are notable on their own. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:JOURNALIST. I could find no significant coverage of the subject, and as the nominator said all of his work has been regional in nature. Generally we don't consider regional Emmy Awards notable.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Kashif Khan
- Kashif Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has been problematic pretty much since its creation; I'm not seeing any significant news coverage or other indicators of the page meeting GNG. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. North America1000 12:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
John Murphy (branding consultant)
- John Murphy (branding consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article currently fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sources. Iskandar 323 (talk) Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The author has since retrieved live versions of some of the broken links that had resulted in a lack of citation. These may or may not be considered enough to establish WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and the general merit of the article likely still needs discussing. Iskandar 323 (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Weighing the restoration of this article's links and the supporting bibliography, I retract my proposed deletion. Iskandar 323 (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – oppose retraction - This is a PROMO article that relies mostly on interviews (which are not independent sources) and a piece by The Marketing Society, an organization that looks like a trade association to promote marketers, meaning it is also likely not independent. My BEFORE is returning mostly churnalism. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment It is possible that many of the sources would be better directed towards an article on the company Interbrand, which does seems to have had a demonstrable and notable impact on the history of the business discipline of brand marketing. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Query Are there aspects of the article that are important for notability and rely on churnalism? Perhaps they can be addressed. Frans Fowler (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have restored the references to secondary sources, which are all reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of Murphy. (For instance, one of those sources is an interview with him broadcast by BBC Radio 4. Quite apart from the interest of its content, it shows that the BBC considers Murphy notable enough to transmit a serious programme that focuses on him.) I have also added references to two other sources that demonstrate his notability and the significance of his work. I would suggest (as does the nominator, above) that the question of notability can be resolved in favour of keeping the article.
- The nominator and I have both made some changes to the layout and style of the article since it was proposed for deletion. The general merit of the article can be discussed on the article's Talk page, as can any aspect that might be perceived as promotional.
- Indy beetle remarks (above) that The Marketing Society (one of the sources to which the article refers) "looks like a trade association to promote marketers, meaning it is also likely not independent". As far as I can see from some Web research, it doesn't promote marketers; rather, it appears to promote professional development and the exchange of best-practice expertise among marketing practitioners and teams. In particular, the piece the article refers to is an objective (sometimes critical) assessment of the past, present, and future of brand valuation, at the time it was written.
- The secondary source references that I have restored had recently been removed when the article was nominated for deletion, because they were broken. There is a how-to guide on link rot that suggests why it might be better to tag, and keep, dead links.
- Declaration of (dis)interest: I started the John Murphy article. I have never had any social, commercial, or other contact or relationship whatsoever with Murphy or any organisation or business he is involved in. I came to the subject in the course of translating a company's annual report, for which I needed to research Interbrand. Conscientious translators often do research, and Wikipedia articles such as this are an invaluable resource. Frans Fowler (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was certainly not helpful for the Interband article to be deleted earlier this year. That was a bad call. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Frans Fowler makes a compelling case, and the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Appears to pass WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Robert R. Bertrand
- Robert R. Bertrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable sound engineer. Fails WP:ANYBIO because he was only nominated for an Oscar once. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Leaning keep. I mean, sure, anyone can be nominated for one Academy Award, but this particular sound engineer seems to have had a particularly lengthy and productive career. BD2412 T 06:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BD2412. All Oscar nominees are by definition notable, even more so in this case, since the nomination was for Best Picture winner The Sting. Subject has hundreds of credits ranging over nearly half a century. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per the above and the extra info found by BD2412. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: The only secondary source that was added since I started this discussion was a wedding announcement in the Hi-Desert Star, a newspaper serving a community of 4,000 to 8,000 people. The article title starts with "Irene Scoggin", likely a member of this small community. Therefore, the paper only talks about the subject of this article because she's marrying him. If this is the best source this person can muster in "40" years of career (IMDb only notes 13 years), then this article can't be expanded beyond the stub it is and should be deleted. Way off of WP:GNG and not meeting any WP:SNG. Mottezen (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Much of Bertrand's early work as boom man was uncredited. The American Film Institute Catalog indicates that his first listed credit was in 1935. Furthermore, after decades of work on hundreds of projects, he was entrusted with the top sound position on a major studio film that won the Oscar as Best Picture and earned him an Oscar nomination. If that is still not notable then only a small number of sound men would be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. To me this sound engineer seems notable with being nominated with a Oscar and sound engineering in notable films and television programs. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
El ultimo ke zierre
- El ultimo ke zierre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The band seem to have an extensive discography which is why I thought they would satisfy WP:NBAND, but during WP:BEFORE, I could find no WP:RS discussing their career in detail. I thought I'd bring it to AfD to see if there is anything I'm missing. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment An extensive discography is not a sign of notability. Many underground punk/grindcore bands have lots of releases, but that doesn't make them notable since most of the time, nobody wrote a review of said albums; they are available in stores and on streaming media, they have some database entries, they can be downloaded from somewhere, you can buy the merch...however, none of those are reliable sites and they cannot be used in WP articles. So an extensive discography does not make a band/musician notable. On the case of this band, they don't seem very notable, but I might be wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment reply Thanks for the clarification for anyone that's unsure, but I'm aware of that. I wouldn't be arguing for someone's notability in an AfD nomination lol, I was just stating that I expected them to pass NBAND with RS but they don't, hence the nom. – DarkGlow • 20:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. The French language wikipedia article has several sources with inline citations that could possibly indicate that the band meets NBAND and/or GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I added the citations from the French language Wikipedia article mentioned by 4meter4. I think that notability is now demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Looking at the references, the last one is routine coverage which could just as well be a press release (looks like it, although it is not identified as such); the one before is largely based on an interview; and the first one is also based on statements from the promoter of the launch of the groups ultimate album. So none of these are enough to meet GNG. It might be possible that this group got coverage from local off-line sources which could amount to actual GNG, but given that the band has released multiple albums in the past twenty years (so, yeah, right in the middle of the Internet era, in Spain, a European country...), it does not bode well that nothing convincing has so far been found. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - They've stuck it out for many years but it appears that they simply haven't received any reliable coverage. As the last voter said, the recently-added sources are a nice try but they're just minor promo announcements. Unless the sources are really deep in hardcopy books and newspapers, I can find no in-depth analytical articles on the band or reliable reviews of any of their albums. Otherwise they're only visible in the usual streaming and retail services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NBAND. A discography, however extensive, doesn't meet any of the criteria listed. Ifnord (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. It appears to be borderline, though the reliability of The Times of India still remains marginal per WP:TOI. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Lakshmi Nakshathra
- Lakshmi Nakshathra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Concerns of WP:GNG and WP:N. Subject fails WP:ENT. No reliable source found on a WP:BEFORE. The sources found does not appear to be reliable. Two of the sources are interviews. There are no secondary sources found. The awards won by the subject are also not notable. No major roles in the given film too, thus it fails WP:NACTOR. A major editor of the article removed {{notability}} tag with out explaining the reason, see. Sreeram Dilak 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete:As per nom. Fails GNG. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)
- @Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: WP:PERNOM is no argument.--157.46.143.190 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Pillechan clearly states that the subject fails GNG.Sreeram Dilak 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Clearly satisfy WP:GNG, and notable as a television host, also satisfy WP:ENT for having significant roles in multiple television shows. Beside the three reliable secondary sources in the article [10][11][12] (other than interviews), there exist lots of "independent" reliable sources on the internet which are not interviews or mere mentions. A quick Google search gives significant coverage on the subject: The Times of India ([13][14][15][16][17][18]), Asianet News ([19][20][21]), Mangalam ([22]), Zee News ([23][24][25]), Vanitha ([26][27][28][29]), The Indian Express ([30][31][32]) to list a few. She was ranked among "Kochi Times Most Desirable Women on Television" in 2019 and 2020 by the Times of India. I request the closing admin to consider the merit of the arguments rather than vote counting.--157.46.143.190 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- These sources you provided did not qualify WP:GNG. Most of them are primary source. No useful secondary sources are found. --Sreeram Dilak 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:ENT with sources presented by 157.46.143.190. They're secondary and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Reply: Sources presented by the IP does not pass GNG. Those are primary sources. --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I also have concerns about the sources. Lacks secondary sources. I wouldn’t use Times of India for establishing notability See more at WP:TOI.defcon5 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As a TV hosts subject meets WP:ENT. Criterion #1 is not about having significant sources. It states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (BTW, source #1 from Youtube is dead, I tried to remove it, but it doesn't appear in the source code. Can someone tell me how this is inserted in my talk page? appears to be some kind of infobox module.) Peter303x (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Reply No reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Only primary sources found. Can you find any three sources that meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV? --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep appears to be ample sourcing provided by the anonymous editor above. I disagree with the sweeping statement that all of them fail GNG, what makes them non independent? They look okay to me. NemesisAT (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Reply most of the sources are from Times of India, which does not meet GNG and WP:N. See this too. --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The summary argument by Extraordinary Writ explains why deletion has consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Eric Baus
- Eric Baus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC; has no WP:SIGCOV on his career and has been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Just trivial mentions. No in-depth coverage. Fails WP: POET Mehmood.Husain (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOET.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Likely passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC based on his faculty bio at Regis University where he is the current Assistant Director and Faculty Advisor for the Graduate Fine Arts program at the university; a post which probably meets criteria 5 at NACADEMIC. The 2011 win of the Colorado Prize for Poetry for his book of poetry would seem to meet criteria 4c of WP:NAUTHOR. Here is a magazine interview. I found all this in a very cursory BEFORE search without seriously looking, but I would be very surprised if an award winning poet wasn't reviewed in independent RS and a named assistant chair didn't have significant publications with some independent published reviews of their work. All of this to say, have any of the delete votes seriously looked for RS?4meter4 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- How does "Assistant Director and Faculty Advisor" satisfy NACADEMIC #5. Is there even such a thing as a "named assistant chair"? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – the SNG invocations above are tenuous at best (NPROF 5 "can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level", not to lower-level academics, while a single state-level award seems pretty far afield of the "significant critical attention" required by NAUTHOR 4c), so I'm inclined to apply the GNG. Since my pretty thorough search (Google, Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Proquest, Newspapers.com) isn't finding anything that could truly be characterized as significant coverage, I'm not seeing a real basis for notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Ared Arzumanian
- Ared Arzumanian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't find any coverage about him, other than a mention about being on a panel of judges in a local talent show. Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Normally an article which had been just deleted a couple months ago and whose deletion had been endorsed at DRV would default towards delete at any new AfD. However, the DRV discussion explicitly made provisions for re-creation so that default does not apply in this case. On the whole there is a consensus of participants in this discussion, even when appropriately weighting by the previous AfD (plus DRV), to find that the topic at this time has enough coverage that it is eligible for an independent article under our notability guidelines. Equally per our guidelines, this does not mean the only appropriate way of covering the topic is an independent article and so after some time (i.e. 6 or more months) for the "dust to settle" a merge discussion may be appropriate to consider that issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Shaurya Doval
- Shaurya Doval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article that that has been deleted at least twice before at AFD and just over a month ago last time and the deletion upheld at DRV. Same concerns, BLP1E, GNG, and notability not inherited. If the article is deleted again, I ask the closing administrator to SALT it. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Dear William Please check this link to understand the discussion that went on before I submitted a new draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_August_3 Thanks! Ht24 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While the article has been poorly submitted before, the current version came through the draft process and there is a good discussion at Talk:Shaurya Doval on why the subject is notable, based on the references currently on the article. Curb Safe Charmer did good job validating the references and helping the get the article to it's current state. Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Dear @Curb Safe Charmer, Explicit, K.e.coffman, and S Marshall:, I would request you to kindly look into this and add value to the discussion as I made the edits based on inputs and opinions from all of you. Thanks! Ht24 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- ... and the catch-22 of this is that now that you've pinged us, we shouldn't !vote, because of WP:CANVASS. But it's ok. In the discussion above, there are links to the DRV and the subsequent, very thorough source assessment table on the talk page where we show our working. You can trust the AfD regulars to read, check, comprehend, think, and reach the logical conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- S Marshall, I had recently learnt the concept of WP:CANVASS but pinging you was not meant to alter the outcome but was only meant to seek your unbiased counsel in the ongoing discussion. And, as true Wikipedians, we shouldn't have a bias towards anything. Hope you get my feelings. Ht24 (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @WilliamJE: I presume you've seen the comments at DRV and the thorough assessment of the sources used in the new draft. As there are
106 sources which appear to be independent, in depth coverage in reliable sources, can you expand on the GNG concerns mentioned in your nomination? My assessment would have to be fundamentally flawed to take the number of 'qualifying' sources below the minimum threshold. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC) - Delete Fails WP:GNG Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for the 30+ AfD !votes that you've just made in rapid succession. I can't help notice the short space of time between each AfD contribution and I wonder whether you're completely confident that you've checked the sources in detail?—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- S Marshall, good one. It's a valid question. - Hatchens (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for the 30+ AfD !votes that you've just made in rapid succession. I can't help notice the short space of time between each AfD contribution and I wonder whether you're completely confident that you've checked the sources in detail?—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: In agreement with the nominator. -Hatchens (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Taking the nominator's arguments one by one:
- Does the article fail WP:GNG? This analysis of sources shows that there are
tensix references where the source is reliable and independent, and the coverage is sufficiently in depth. Therefore WP:GNG is satisfied. - Does the article fail WP:BLP1E? There are three criteria, each of which must be met for BLP1E to apply:
- reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. This is not the case here because the coverage in reliable sources cover:
- political activity
- a quasi-political campaign involving mobile clinics and career counselling sessions
- conflict of interest
- a libel case
- two notable honours
- the person is a low-profile individual. This is not the case here - this person has sought the limelight, for example by erecting billboards with his photo on them.
- the person's role in the event was not substantial or well documented. The nominator doesn't identify which one event the subject is notable for, but assuming it was the conflict of interest, for example, his role in that event is substantial. If the one event was the connection between Shaurya's business interests and his brother's, then there would be no story if Shaurya was not a substantial part of it.
- reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. This is not the case here because the coverage in reliable sources cover:
- BLP1E requires all of those criteria to be met whereas in my view, none of them are met.
- Does the article fail WP:GNG? This analysis of sources shows that there are
- Should the article be deleted on the basis of WP:INHERITED? No, because having a notable father doesn't make someone an inappropriate subject for a separate article if the son is shown to be notable in their own right, as is the case here. The 43rd president of the US isn't disqualified from having an article about them just because their dad had previously been the 41st president.
- Should this subject not have an article now because two previous AfDs resulted in delete? No, because in deletion review, the author put forward new sources and was encouraged to submit a fresh, rewritten draft featuring those sources and to submit for a thorough review at AfC, which they have done.
- Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Liz there is something wrong about this article and also about this AfD. Since you moved back this entity from a draft to namespace which was earlier executed with a possible intent to bypass this. I have checked the sources - most of them lack WP:SIGCOV and the usage of such sources in the article lacks WP:NPOV in interpretation. Also, as per WP:BLP1E only one single event (but as a general news of filing a legal case against someone... can legal cases be counted notable?) that's basically the "conflict of interest" one which led to a "libel case" and then there is a closure statement which include "an apology" from the person who has been sued in the first place - the AfC reviewer have considered all these sub events seperately. Why? Secondly most of the prominent news sources starts with or includes "Doval's son" who happens to be incumbent intelligence chief of the country. On top of that, how that can be compared with 41st and 43rd president logic? The entity is not walking on his father's footstep i.e, he is not part of government apparatus. His current affiliation is independent from his Father and that too not notable. It seems... either its a top notch colluding or its pure ignorance of Wikipedia rules at editor's level. A clarity should lead to consensus.
- Also, pinging DGG, and Timtrent. Despite knowing it, this might invoke WP:CANVASS and I apologize for that but I am not able to refrain myself from such poor interpretation of wikipedia guidelines. - Hatchens (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't feel canvassed, nor influenced in any opinion I may or may not develop and may or may not express. I view this as being asked to take a look and form my own view. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- This article was nominated for deletion at this AFD and then an editor moved it to Draft space. This has happened a few times recently, usually, I'm guessing, as a way to avoid possible deletion. This is disruptive so I moved the article from Draft space back to main space so this discussion could continue. That was my only involvement and I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Dear Liz, WilliamJE, I am new to Wikipedia and this is the first AfC submitted by me. I wasn't expecting it to be highly controversial and that there would be so many people responding to it. That's why I moved this article to draft with the intent to make it better by adding more relevant information and reliable links to add credibility to my work. And also to resolve the unnecessary disagreements, accusations, and counter-accusations among the fellow Wikipedians over an article. Had I known that my act would be seen in a negative light, I wouldn't have done that. Ht24 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ht24 Please do not be concerned. We discuss things in order to reach consensus. Opposing views are relevant and important. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Dear Liz, WilliamJE, I am new to Wikipedia and this is the first AfC submitted by me. I wasn't expecting it to be highly controversial and that there would be so many people responding to it. That's why I moved this article to draft with the intent to make it better by adding more relevant information and reliable links to add credibility to my work. And also to resolve the unnecessary disagreements, accusations, and counter-accusations among the fellow Wikipedians over an article. Had I known that my act would be seen in a negative light, I wouldn't have done that. Ht24 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep:Delete: I have been asked to come here and offer a considered opinion. I have studied the source assessment table on the article's talk page, and the various arguments here to seek to see what the problem might be. Initially I found it hard to understand why the person had an article at all, struggling with obvious notability. While not a policy, I favour WP:SPEAKSELF. I'm still struggling with that. My view is that obvious notability is noteasilydiscernible,but that sufficient independent sources have found the person to be worth writing about. WIkipedia's role is to record what others say about a person or a topic.I view this as an article which, while deserving significant improvement, passesfails WP:BIO and WP:GNG FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have made a further study and realised that I had bamboozled myself by precisely the thing I look out for at AFC. I had made too cursory a scan of the references, confusing quantity with quality. I apologise. I have read them im detail im the cold light of day. I have modified my opinion above. There is no notability save that inherited from his father (etc). He happens to be part of the same family. The references lack substance about him. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I should have worked this out yesterday when I was struggling to find notability. Instead of waiting and thinkkimng further I offered mhy opinion while tired, alwasya foolish thingh to do. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I may have been notified, but obviouly the ed. who pinged me had not the least idea how I would vote: I do not consider that canvassing. I think the individual has no significance in the Real World, except for being the the son of his father. I cannot imagine that any of the activities would have gotten. any coverage otherwise, so the relevant rule is NOT INHERITED.When his ather's infence leads him eventualyto haveacareerand ruputation of his own, to theextentthat hearticles mention the father in a short commentonly, then he might become notable . DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:DGG, if Doval was American he would totally have an article. Would you vote to delete Ashley Biden?—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ashley Biden's father is Head of State; Doval's father is only National Security Advisor; . I don't think. we have any assumption about children of cabinet ministers and people at a similar level. But there is no bias in favor of the US--if anything, apparently a bias against including them: For children of USPresidents, checking in List_of_children_of_the_presidents_of_the_United_States I see we only include all legitimate (& most illegitimate) children who lived to be an adult from Jefferson through John Quincy Adams and Hoover to Ford . From Carter to the present we include only selected ones.--in fact, we have deleted articles' n Obama's children and on Barron Trump. So recent precedent is that we include them only if they are notable themselves. As for Ashley Biden, she isI think older than Shaurya Doval, andcertanly has engaged in many more activities, some of which might be enough for notability on her own (but the article is an example of tabloid-style coverage). I am about to nominate the article on her husband--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Krein DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:DGG, if Doval was American he would totally have an article. Would you vote to delete Ashley Biden?—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I was the nominator of the 2nd AfD, and nothing appears to have changed between the two versions of the article. My assessment remains the same, from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaurya Doval (2nd nomination): A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; and unremarkable professional and "public policy thinker". What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Notability is not inherited from the subject's father, Ajit Doval. There's a minor controversy that relates to a nn think tank, but this insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, since having been canvassed isn't stopping anyone else !voting. The source assessment table shows that there are more than two reliable, independent sources that have written articles about Doval. This simple test shows that Doval is notable. And it's really important to have a simple test -- so that anyone can tell if the article they propose to write is about something notable. As soon as we start undermining that simple test by deleting articles that pass, then it loses its value because editors won't be able to write new content without going through a committee process first.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- pass at AfC simply means the reviewer thinks the article would probably pass AfD. it is not and never was intended to be the actual process for deciding on content, but rather just a screen to keep out the imposible and improve the borderline. Considering pass afc to imply will certainly also pass afd would mean that about 90% of drafts in afc would be declined, because very few articles are submitted there that will certainly pass afd --it basically takes a class B article on an unambiguously notable subject in a field where nobody disputes the criteria for notability to be certain of passing AfD, considering its notorious variation. The proof of that is that almost no experienced editor has a 100% record of the articles they !vote keep actually passing, . Even if we interpreted "passing afc", as being certain that it ought to be kept at afd, it still won't be 100%, because experienced editors disagree on many articles--hence the afd process.
- So far from afc requiring a committee, any new editor can write an article and get it into mainspace if any one reviewer thinks it has a decent change. the committee process is afd, and here it takes its chances with every article written by anyone. Not all afc passes come here, only the questioned ones. I haven't tried to do a query, but I think about 90% of what passes afd does get kept in WP without undergoing afd at all, because most reviewers are properly conservative . (the actual problem is the opposite--some are too conservative and will not pass valid stubs or articles with good references but without correct citation format. It's perfectly right that thecommunity, not a single reviewer, should decide on acceptability as an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG, @S Marshall to underline that, I would have accepted this at AFC because it is, in my view, borderline, and has a better than 50% chance again in my view of surviving a deletion process, but have opined to delete it at AfD because I feel it to be on the wrong side of the border. While this is a paradox, it is not an incorrect set of views. I'm pleased that AFC allows borderline drafts through, and am equally pleased that AfD weeds some out. Community consensus beats the opinion of a reviewer any day. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about AFC, I'm talking about the GNG pass. Count the sources, 1 2 3, are they reliable? Oh yes, they are. Are they independent? Yup. Are they about Doval? Yes indeed. So this is a bright line GNG pass. I would have written this, in the honest and sincere belief that it's allowed. When we start capriciously deleting content that's a bright line GNG pass, we're undermining the purpose of the rule, which is to allow people to write, safe in the knowledge that their content meets our inclusion criteria.—S Marshall T/C 07:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- S Marshall, Link 1 is about the entity being part of a constituted panel of American think tanks Center for American Progress - cannot be counted as credible per se as we all know how think tanks operate around the world - they call themselves non-partisan type but most of them are not. Link 2 is from The Economic Times, part of WP:TOI which tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government ref. WP:RSP. Link 3 is from The Wire (India) which challenges the narrative or origin of the entity. If that link has been used properly then a lot of WP:PUFFERY would have been removed in the first instance itself. To further elaborate the puffery, please follow the following text from the article; 1. "He became the party's convenor for good governance in the state" and 2. "Doval conceptualized 'Bemisaal Garhwal' under the banner of 'Buland Uttarakhand' which aims to improve the quality of education and health in Uttarakhand." Now, if we look at the - Citation Links 9 to 13... it's a pure case of WP: CITEKILL. My mind boggles, how come these important inputs have been missed by the reviewers? (not one but by many) Yes, the entity has the potential to have a Wikipedia page but not now, maybe in near future and that too depends on how this entity evolves down the line. Because right now I'm not able to understand how we should classify or categorize him. Shall we count him as an entrepreneur/businessman? - no, because he has not been part of any notable business or business house. Shall we count him as a politician? - no, because he has not won a single election at the federal or state level. Shall we count him as an academician? - no, because he has no academic credentials (related to his think tank) to support via Google Scholar, Scopus, or any major bibliographical index. Nevertheless, whatever would be the verdict of this AfD - it would have my full support. But, it's high time for us as editors/reviewers to start introspecting about our involvement in such AfD discussions which directly undermines the very essence of this platform and at the same moment... wastes everyone's time. I apologize to everyone for my blunt comment. - Hatchens (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about AFC, I'm talking about the GNG pass. Count the sources, 1 2 3, are they reliable? Oh yes, they are. Are they independent? Yup. Are they about Doval? Yes indeed. So this is a bright line GNG pass. I would have written this, in the honest and sincere belief that it's allowed. When we start capriciously deleting content that's a bright line GNG pass, we're undermining the purpose of the rule, which is to allow people to write, safe in the knowledge that their content meets our inclusion criteria.—S Marshall T/C 07:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – Per rationale by Curb Safe Charmer, The source analysis, which I agree with and also learnt a few things from. There are enough sources to demonstrate that GNG is met and that 1E does not apply.Princess of Ara 19:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: S Marshall, We all are involved in a civilized discussion so kindly don't get agitated and try to be polite. I apologize for those so-called "scattershot arguments" as you have termed them. Maybe I lack the level of intelligence required to address your level of thought process. So, please bear with me for the following additions to those "scattershot arguments". When I raised the issue of puffery; you being a strong advocate for this entity could have addressed it by voluntarily editing the page and getting qualified as per WP:HEY. But, you will not because you think that you can play the ball by calling shots from outside and try to influence the AfD by changing the basic definitions of the arguments by calling them "scattershots". Its typical astroturfing tactic.Now, let's discuss the links. According to you, it's me who has raised the concerns about the number of citations. You're correct. So, now your goal post has changed from LINK 1, 2, and 3 to LINK 9, 10, and 11 which happens to be from the stable of Indian Express and Hindustan Times - out of which the first two links can be counted as the part of WP:RSP. Let's ignore that hijacked discussion on HT in the last AfD. Since the first link is in a native language I guess a simple google chrome online translation can reveal enough information behind it. I wonder why are you not able to read or shown any intent to translate the links despite endorsing this entity with such great conviction. See, I never endorse anybody without checking the facts (no matter what language it is published). By the way, it seems Ht24 and you share a great camaraderie. Excellent, we always encourage such teaming up but without undermining the Wikipedia guidelines. Now, as you have noticed that I admitted that "the entity has the potential to have a Wikipedia page", with which you concur, but this is NOT THAT PAGE. It means the entity qualifies for WP:TOOSOON - a straight and simple interpretation. I guess you might have missed it but it's ok, I am here to remind you and keep you on track.Now, as you have rightly noticed I'm not able to classify or categorize this entity. As you also agree with my concern and as you said on the talk page that "he is, at best, an aspiring politician"... well my dear friend that's not the actual reason for WP:NPOL qualification. You got to win some elections - federal or state. And, for god sake, don't compare this such nice gentleman with Paul the Octopus - this is not a valid reason to compare at all. In fact, as a well-versed reviewer or editor, one shouldn't compare pages. Every entity qualifies for a Wikipedia page on its own merit. Finally, as you figured it out that I chastised those who are wasting everyone's time and you do agree with my view. So, I thank you for your understanding and looking forward to your kind support in the near future. -Hatchens (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep. While I can definitely see merits to DDG's argument that notability is not inherited and the concerns raised over whether or not these sources would have been written without the subject's familial connections, the fact of the matter is the sources do exist and Shaurya Doval is the main subject of multiple sources in reliable independent publications. As such, GNG has been met.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It passes WP:BASIC and is certainly a boring article about nepotism, but if being interesting was a requirement, we'd be deleting many more articles on Wikipedia. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is no obligation for us s to have a separate article for everyonepassingthe GNG. We've always combined information on fmaily memberswho haveno specfc accomplismentsof their own: it does not lose the information or the references, andits easy enough to find. What it lacks is the prestige from having a separate WP page. I don't think that's enough basis for an article, when the coverage is so closely related to the iondividual's position in the family. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- DGG, I would recommend a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation on the basis of three major attempts to create this entity's page in last 3 months. Based on its outcome, a decision can be taken for SALTING There is a high possibility Ht24 is a WP:SPA, having WP:COI. And as per it's editing history, the user has worked on three pages of same political party and marked one for an AfD to throw us off from the track. - Hatchens (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG I agree that this article could possibly be selectively merged and redirected to Ajit Doval, but I don’t think it’s a mandatory option. At AFD, merge is really only the best outcome when it’s the only option when a subject doesn’t meet GNG. This one does, so a merge discussion at WP:PAM without the threat of deletion is really the proper forum to make that decision. I would suggest making a formal merge proposal after this AFD closes (provided it is kept). Best.
- DGG, I would recommend a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation on the basis of three major attempts to create this entity's page in last 3 months. Based on its outcome, a decision can be taken for SALTING There is a high possibility Ht24 is a WP:SPA, having WP:COI. And as per it's editing history, the user has worked on three pages of same political party and marked one for an AfD to throw us off from the track. - Hatchens (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- a merge can reasonably be done directly--I tend not to like unnecessary bureaucratic steps.Of course, merge does have the "advantage" of being a much less visible process. A even less visible way that sometimes has been employed is to ensure that the basic information is added to the main article, and then redirect--this takes no discussion whatsoever unless it is noticed and challenged. I try to be more forthright: If a decision however absurd goes against my view, I wait an appropriate interval and try again; if it goes repeatedly against my view, I stop trying. There are at least half a million equally dubious articles to work on.
- But looking again, I think my merge suggestion was not correct. In this particular instance, it's the present discussion which is aberrant. The argument that he should be included as the son of an official is against policy., There could however be an actual reason for keeping in his personal role. I doubt there is, but it is that which should have been argued, and the individual notability would be the think tank if anything. What I think the closer shoulddo is relist, and ask that it be argued on that basis alone, But if accepted, that leaves the choice between doing nothing and letting the article stand, placing another afd in a few months, or goin to deletion review. I don't think it important enough to be worth trying further, and my inclination would be to let what ever might be the closing stand.. As I said yesterday, there are half a million articles this dubious or worse. I'd go after the ones that are worse. It's rarely worth fighting to delete an individual article against strong opposition unless there's an important principle at issue, If you think there is , I suggest AfD4 in 6 months. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: Re your comment "The argument that he should be included as the son of an official is against policy", is anyone suggesting that as the 'keep' reason in this discussion? I am not seeing anyone arguing the article should be kept on that basis. I am only seeing editors assert what you describe as "individual notability". Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Sure, he's the son of a prominent figure; that does not mean we discount all coverage of him, only that coverage which is directly the result of the family relationship. And I'm genuinely baffled as to why sources such as [33], [34], [35], [36], and [37] are not seen as qualifying toward GNG. They are all reliable; they are all intellectually independent; and they all contain substantive content about the subject of the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with V93. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Keerthana Sabarish
- Keerthana Sabarish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources found on a WP: BEFORE. Requesting speedy delete. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Draftify: Seems notable. Let it go through AFC process. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete searched in English and Malayalam and found no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: No significant coverage found. Fails WP:SINGER.defcon5 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Jesse_Singal
- Jesse_Singal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This biographical page was previously deleted due to not meeting notability requirements Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal
In the interspersing time the subject does not appear to have gained notability, going from being a Senior Editor in NYMag, to self published.
A claim to notability is a book he published, however a search of bestseller lists shows the book did not reach them and holds about 100,000# in book sales ranking with Bookmarks noting it had a tepid reception. [38]. I worry that if we gave the 100,000th top book a page, we would have to give every obscure book ranking better a page as well.
The final claim to his notability is that he was involved in a journalism controversy during 2018 which CJR briefly summarized here[39]. However it appears to have died down and he has no longer obtained publications on the subject making it appear to be a case of wp:BIO1E.
To conclude I don’t see what has changed from last time which held an overwhelming consensus for delete apart from a decline in the subjects publication prominence and a wp:BIO1E event that died down. Apart from a brief critical mention in CJR I do not see WP:SIGCOV that could meet WP:BASIC Freepsbane (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- As an addendum I am concerned that most of the article is wp:BIO1E with the remaining segments dedicated to his podcast and obscure book when neither are notable. If we give everyone who gets a page a large promotional section to their book, even if it was not commercially successful or notable in reception, then surely every self published author would be clamoring for a page where they can advertise their books at Wikipedia. At the very least the book section reads like vanity advertising for an obscure product and should be trimmed. To a lesser extent the section on his podcast/self publishing career is needless promotion as well, it does little but cite self published and primary sources often by authors connected to the subject. Again it concerns me that if we are too permissive with promotion, every marginally notable blogger will be getting Wikipedia puff pieces on their obscure books and blogs. Freepsbane (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would encourage all parties involved in this current iteration of the article @Newimpartial: @-sche: @Colin M: and the editors from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal @E.M.Gregory: @BigHaz: @Johnpacklambert: to contribute their wisdom to this discussion. Apologies if my grammar is poor my friends, English is not my first language.Freepsbane (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. wp:BIO1E does not really apply here. There is RS coverage spanning 4 years and several areas. Much of the information mentioned in the nomination (e.g. the sales figures and reception of his book) are irrelevant to WP:N. The article that was deleted in 2017 was a single ten-word sentence, so the concerns raised in that deletion discussion don't have a lot of applicability here. Also, while not a reason to keep per se, it's worth noting the article is currently linked from 17 other mainspace pages. Colin M (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, his previously deleted article was not ten sentences, it was essentially this but without the wp:BIO1E. Indeed in some ways it compared favorably as it did not have large sections dedicated to book promotion. I ask, can you establish he meets wp:BASIC? His book was what you held as entitling him to an article however it’s very obscure and instead of qualifying him it is receiving promotion. Is it his publication prominence as muckrack says he’s had almost zero articles published in the last two years? Or is it merely a few primary sources from a wp:BIO1E that died down. If the later is all we have then our article is possibly less viable than last times. Also many of those 17 sources you note are self published (his own blog has to provide biographical detail as he is too obscure for a paper of record [40][41] the podcast source is a link to his Patreon[42]), and the remainder by authors who say they have social ties to him(Walker is said to be in arguments with him, Gillespie who wrote a promotional piece was according to muckrack his Reason editor[43]). They are primary sources and often part of the story.Freepsbane (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:BIO1E is about whether a person deserves an article separate from some other notable event, which doesn't apply here. Between commentary on the Atlantic article, commentary on his writing, and reviews of his book, WP:GNG is met. An AfD from years ago on a much shorter article and book sales numbers are irrelevant. There is no need to worry about some sort of precedent being set when we already have GNG and the like to guide us. Crossroads -talk- 04:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- With all due respect I don’t see how WP:GNG is met, Criterion one falls so short Singal’s biography and self published sites have to makeup much of the article, the controversy articles describe that single event but little else. Criterion 3 and 5 is failed, we lack secondary sources and worse yet, many are not independent either from people who are related to his disputes, or his editor from Reason. What we have to build from is either limited to the incident or self published or not independent. It does not seem a foundation for an article.Freepsbane (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. - per reasons already stated above by crossroads and Colin M -Pengortm (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would be grateful if you could enlighten me as to what writing? Muckrack shows minimal publications in the last two years. As for the book, which reviews? There are many non notable books with mixed reviews[44] out there. And most sold much better. In fact, many best seller list books did not get a Wikipedia page? Should give them one?Freepsbane (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- This article is not about Singal's book. Whether the book is notable is irrelevant. Colin M (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is he notable then? He has minimal publications and no notability that could meet wp:BASIC. Even his biography has to quote his own websites.Freepsbane (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe he is. That's why I !voted "keep". Colin M (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you believe that is good, if you can give examples that is even better. Instead of taking it on faith, tell us how he is notable? I can’t see signs of any publication notability, and the book is not notable, so surely it must be more than the primary sources from one event.Freepsbane (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe he is. That's why I !voted "keep". Colin M (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is he notable then? He has minimal publications and no notability that could meet wp:BASIC. Even his biography has to quote his own websites.Freepsbane (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Abstain / comment: as I said on the talk page last month, the article is very borderline. I looked last year for sources to see if I could create an article, and didn't find enough that I felt the notability guidelines were met. Even now, after someone else did create the article, a fifth of its (limited) references being Singal himself is not great, and it puts a cap on how detailed the article is able to be, but I've seen other articles at about this level judged to meet GNG, so... -sche (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The subject has established notability and significant coverage is cited and there is more coverage found in the search engines. However, no honorary mentions or awards in mass media, nor any demonstration of impact and major contributions to his industry. Multi7001 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: he has a popular podcast, has bylined in several major publications, and has a book out. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt: This is an article that keeps coming back, and while it comes back different every time it also lends itself to the suspicion that there may be other factors at play here (such as the fan base) trying to get an article for the author here. Taken by the skeletal frame of the article GNG is not met, there are references to freelance journalism but nothing that anchors him as a journalist, a podcast that is well short of record setting or ground breaking, and a book that has yet to show any meaningful impact on himself or the subject area. I think it toosoon for an article, but I would prefer since this has been CSD'd and AFD'd repeatedly to have a future version reviewed by unbiased eyes and moved out to the main space when he is firmly anchored as notable and meets the criteria for inclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR as he has significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Additionally, the idea that this is a fan page is somewhat ridiculous as a significant portion of the article is devoted to criticism of the subject by LBTQ publications and activists for his perceived transphobia.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - the article has issues, but the sources indicate that the subject meets WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: While the article could probably use some consolidation to achieve a more encyclopedic tone, Singal and/or his works have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. To add to sources already in the article, consider:
- Gordon, Jeremy (31 August 2021). "The Rhetoric of Pop Psychology". The Nation.
- Satel, Sally (11 April 2021). "The Quick Fix Review: A Bias Toward Easy Answers". Wall Street Journal.
- Pesca, Mike (30 June 2018). "Who's Allowed to Tell Trans Stories?". Slate Magazine. (+ The Gist podcast coverage)
- Hannam, Paddy (April 9, 2021). "'Implicit bias is overhyped'". Spiked.
- This list intentionally does not include any of several gossipy one-off bits offering no more than recaps or hot takes of individual tweets or twitter spats involving Singal, which can also be found by simple Google Search. Between trans writing, a book, and a podcast, notability is sufficiently demonstrated. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Berkay Çatak
- Berkay Çatak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First discussion closed as no consensus a month ago. Most sources in the article are about his creation, Gören Duyan. These make the company notable, not him. "Kimdir?" kind of sources are dismissed on trwiki as they are mostly, regardless of the publisher, not independent (explanation). The only source that contributes to notability is the Hürriyet one, which means this person doesn't meet GNG.
Interestingly the article of Gören Duyan and this person have been created across multiple projects by the same user, even in languages they don't speak, a pattern that most of the time points towards a COI. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- keep, it was already discussed a month ago, i don't think the second one is needed. My previous review: "Meets the notability criteria. There are many news on the person. An encyclopedic content was created with the resources provided.".--𝘋𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘴 ϟ Heyyo? 17:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to King of the Claddagh. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Martin Oliver (Claddagh)
- Martin Oliver (Claddagh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD would be merge to King of the Claddagh. Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE. The topic needs work but it's easy to find sources such as this and that. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. The first (Irish Times) source listed is substantively about something else. The subject is mentioned but once in the article. A trivial passing mention. The second (Irish Examiner) source is about a different person. (The subject under discussion died in 1972. The Irish Examiner article is about a funeral which took place in 2020. The names may be the same/similar. But the subjects are not.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- That depends what you think the topic is. AFAIC, what we have here is a traditional fishing family (the Olivers) who are well known and respected in Claddagh. The family members and their boats and history attract attention and coverage. As there's scope for improvement, policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to King of the Claddagh. (As any notability and coverage is associated with the subject's time as "King of the Claddagh".) In terms of the main claim to notability (holder of an honorary title), we might expect WP:NPOL to be met. And it wouldn't appear to be. (The "King of the Claddagh" is a largely ceremonial title and not an "international, national, or [..] state/province–wide office".) In terms of WP:GNG, all coverage seems substantively linked to his "time in office". (Otherwise, surviving a storm, owning a fishing vessel, selling same, and undertaking ceremonial duties at the oyster festival wouldn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to King of the Claddagh. Spleodrach (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to King of the Claddagh per Guliolopez. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Zach Hadel
- Zach Hadel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. No major reliable sources from Google. Most references do not cover this subject in depth: more pertinent to Smiling Friends than for a stand-alone article. ‒overthrows 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep? Did you also make sure to check sources under his YouTube alias "psychicpebbles"? The subject was originally both a Newgrounds and YouTube animator, and under his name, I saw that his videos received coverage in The Daily Dot and Kotaku; the former talking about his popular KONY 2012 video and the latter about his animated video on the Arrow in the knee meme. That should just barely cross the threshold for notability under WP:WEB, along with his contributions to Smiling Friends. Also, I'm not entirely sure of the reliability of Legit.ng, but at a glance I saw it was used in over 500 articles, one of which was a Good Article. If it's a reliable outlet, then I would use this source. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I would also be for keeping. He has more than 1 million subscribers, not mentioning his contributions to Smiling Friends. The video Arrow in the knee, which he animated, has been viewed over 20 million times... I would say, in his field he is well known. Tec Tom (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Notability is there, though more borderline in this case, and more sources exist as pointed out above. Sro23 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Gina Haley
- Gina Haley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to be notable per criteria at WP:ARTIST NE Ent 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NE Ent 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Weak KeepOn second thought, Weak Delete. Although she meets the bare minimum of coverage with reliable sources (2), she wouldn't have gotten the coverage if not for her famous father, although articles do appear to be about her rather than him. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The Los Angeles and Houston newspaper articles cited in the article are significant RS. Add to those her Rockabilly Hall of Fame entry (see here) and there is enough RS to pass criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO). Additionally, there is some coverage in google books; although mainly in connection with her covering songs by her father or speaking about him to biographers on her father.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete (or Redirect to Bill Haley): The Rockabilly Hall of Fame does not appear to be an RS, and even if it were, inclusion on that site does not indicate notability. The LA Times article is significant coverage but is a primarily sourced interview -- a non-independent human interest story of someone at the time who was not notable - "Together, they are trying to break her into the music business. Her problem is getting somebody to take notice". The Houston Press article is similar: "Gina already has some gigs lined up and she's trying to secure investors who believe in her potential". I can't see RS sigcov of her work. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Pablo de León
- Pablo de León (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Successful, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. I couldn't establish notability from the other language WP articles or Google search. Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The subject may be notable but no significant coverage is cited. Multi7001 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Vincent DeLeon
- Vincent DeLeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable audio engineer and songwriter Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
- Logs:
2019-08 move to → Draft:Vincent DeLeon
- --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Joseph Annamkutty Jose
- Joseph Annamkutty Jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actor. Subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Article is currently tagged for notability concerns. Most of the sources are press release and interviews. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete: Seems notable as a radio jockey. I found some sources on doing a WP:Before, but not enough to meet GNG. Happy to change my vote to keep if someone comes up with WP:THREE. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 15:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom.Henriklars (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability guideline.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Sources have been provided, and not rebutted; promotional material seems to have been dumped. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Naya Dane (singer)
- Naya Dane (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NMUSICBIO and was rejected twice in AFC earlier [45] TheChronium 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
WeakKeep There's a few Nigerian music sources like TooXclusive,[46] City People Magazine,[47] and Hip Hop World Magazine.[48] I don't know any of these but they're apparently notable publications. This seems like enough to meet gng. The page needs some work but I've already cleaned it up a lot. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)- Strong Delete — Per apt rationale by TheChronium I’m an expert in Nigeria-related sources and I can say expressly say that none of the sources used in the article establish notability. A before search turns up nothing cogent. Celestina007 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BuySomeApples. Seems to have enough independent RS to pass criteria 1 WP:NMUSICBIO. Celestina007's and the nominator's arguments are not convincing. We have three independent publications with reasonably in-depth coverage, and said sources are quality enough to have their own wikipedia pages and are independently notable media. I'm not seeing anything about the publications themselves to indicate they are unreliable, so in the absence of a cogent argument for deletion it's a keep.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - promotional article by blocked COI account. Best to not waste proper volunteers' time with spam like this. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BuySomeApples and 4meter4. Celestina007 hasn't stated why articles in three notable publications don't establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Sayantani Guhathakurta
- Sayantani Guhathakurta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACTOR which says, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The actress has surely roles in multiple films/shows that might be notable or not but I do not find anything that's significant with this actress, of course, when we say "multiple". ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Also, kindly refer to Talk:Sayantani Guhathakurta to know how & why the AfD discussion call has been taken by the nominator. -Hatchens (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Hatchens:, hey there, I have been following this discussion lately. I'd like to know your views on WP:NACTOR, (precisely what has been already quoted): Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
- I'd want your clarification if having played main roles in 11 feature length commercial movies and 4 popular Television shows doesn't qualify as being "significant role". I understand that you have some valid arguments with the appreciative tone of the article (which can be fixed) but isn't deleteing this article pushing the ball too far? This article gas gone through multiple reviews from draft stage to mainspace, I'm sure the other reviewers who have reviewed this article were not "Paid". Then why should we delete a perfectly noteable and well cited article which exists not just in English but also in other languages?
- Thank you
- Innocentbunny TALK 02:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article didn't came through "multiple reviews" because it was directly published in the mainspace, rather than being submitted to AfC. That said, you should take back your wrong statements. I'm not able to find that "she has had main/lead roles in those few movies/series which have articles on Wikipedia". Can you provide reliable sources indicating that "her roles weren't just roles but main significant roles...". ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is not "well cited". There are about nine citation tags. In such case, it is definitely not "perfectly notable". Did you even look at the history and condition of article? I guess no. That's why you are making absurd statements. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- TheAafi, these couple of IDs should focus on enhancing the page so that WP:HEY can be applied. But, instead of doing that they are more keen to justify their opinions. Have you seen the commonality... none of these two IDs talks about the RED FLAGs we raised or questioned. - Hatchens (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is not "well cited". There are about nine citation tags. In such case, it is definitely not "perfectly notable". Did you even look at the history and condition of article? I guess no. That's why you are making absurd statements. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article didn't came through "multiple reviews" because it was directly published in the mainspace, rather than being submitted to AfC. That said, you should take back your wrong statements. I'm not able to find that "she has had main/lead roles in those few movies/series which have articles on Wikipedia". Can you provide reliable sources indicating that "her roles weren't just roles but main significant roles...". ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Leaving aside the drama of paid editing/coi, it's clear that the actress in question has quite a lot of press in The Times of India where she is the main subject. However, these sources are essentially tabloid type articles rather than serious journalism, and they don't really serve any purpose beyond publicity. (i.e. no serious criticism or review of her work) However, they do indicate a certain level of celebrity and verify that she's had roles within some notable projects which does indicate a certain degree of notability. However, ultimately without any serious reviews of her work it is impossible to determine the significance of these roles in relation to the criteria at WP:NACTRESS, and on their own I don't think they are quality enough RS to meet GNG either. It's possible that some reviews of the films themselves, possibly in foreign language references, could verify that she does meet NACTRESS, but in the absence of any sources of quality deletion is the best option.4meter4 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete An early-stage actor who is getting some coverage in a single newspaper, known for supporting early-stage actors. Most of it is interviews, consisting of supporting a specific film. There is very little coverage apart from that, indicating she is non-notable. In the Chikati Gadilo Chithakotudu where she plays the ghost, she is casted 12th. Non-notable at this time. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, for failing to meet WP:NACTOR. Ifnord (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Checked all the notable films/TV serials that are notable (listed on this page) and she is part of. None of them have her in significant role. One proxy to figure this (not a great golden rule but helps) is to check the position in which the subject is listed in the cast section. I usually consider top 2 (sometimes 3 depending on context) as significant roles. Here, if we were being liberal, Chikati Gadilo Chithakotudu could be counted as a significant role (mind you, if we were being liberal which we may decide not to because of all the COI and more). And even if we were, WP:NACTOR required 'multiple' significant roles. If you should argue against this, you should demonstrate how any of the other roles are significant. One way to do this is to establish how she has maximum or next to maximum screen time in any film or show. At the moment, this is not qualifying. In future, it might be. And if you decide to create it in future, do consult the closing admin or other editors involved so that we would all save some time. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. She doesn't appear in any significant roles in multiple movies or etc. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)
- Redirect to Chikati Gadilo Chithakotudu: From a quick look at article, I can see several uncited claims and the sources added are not significant in-depth coverage to qualify for an article under WP:GNG. Neither is WP:NACTOR met, the aforesaid film is the only one in which she had a major role and redirecting to it would be better than deletion imo. She needs one or two more significant roles in a notable production and she will clear WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Bambi Northwood-Blyth
- Bambi Northwood-Blyth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't see significant coverage and that should not just passing mentions about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And Press Releases/Paid releases are not allowed such as PRNewswire. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This model has been on the covers of prestigious magazines such as Vogue Japan, Elle Australia etc and is a well known face. I do not agree with the suggestion to delete. Google her name and see the number of articles about her to prove her note-worthy existence and body of work. She is a model of notability and was a host of Channel V which is broadcast around Australia. Cites provided are from credible publications that include interviews with her - something these publications wouldn't seek or publish as a feature if she wasn't noteable. These reputable sources include W Magazine, Grazia Magazine, Wonderland, Marie Claire, Sydney Morning Herald etc.Grapepinky (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete non notable model. Fails WP:GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - there's a huge volume of vapid nonsense out there covering everything from her personal relationships to individual (yes, individual) outfits on any given day. It's questionable whether the totality of that volume meets our significant coverage requirements. But we also have articles like this, this, and this (and various things of similar quality). Some of that is equally vapid but it rises (as far as I'm concerned) to the level of significant coverage, and those are certainly reliable sources. So that's enough for me. St★lwart111 07:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Stalwart111. Lots of reliable RS. Passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
C S Burrough
- C S Burrough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG can't see any reliable coverage TheChronium 14:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, didn't see your names up here. New to process.
Per the note below, all newspaper references have been added via Newspapers.com. John Michael Vore is listed, separately as: John (Mike) Vore, Michael Vore, John Vore, J. Michael Vore, John (Michael Vore). Never lived in Kansas, never lived in Montana.
I believe the Author issues have been resolved by my not participating except for minor edits?
Informatics411 (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Ref bombed promo complete with official portrait. I would more inclined to consider otherwise if the SMH ref was more than a capsule review. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable public figure with bestselling literary works, well written and sourced biography, well improved since first flagged for deletion. QLitBabel (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Jay Russell
- Jay Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable director. A WP:BEFORE search hasn't turned up any significant coverage, nor does any of the existing references. Further, they don't appear to meet the requirements of WP:Director; they appear to come close to #3, but as far as I can tell they don't meet the second condition of it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. Director of several notable films which have been widely reviewed in multiple independent RS; including Variety, Billboard, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and The Chicago Tribune among many others. Clearly a competent WP:BEFORE search was not done. See below for a small sampling of quality RS. I didn't even bother to check google books, but I would bet there is a considerable amount of RS to be found there is well.4meter4 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- "OUTTAKES: THE SEQUEL RAILROAD TIES". Los Angeles Times. 24 August 1986. p. M36.
- Maslin, Janet (26 February 1988). "Film: Wilford Brimley Stars in 'End of the Line'". The New York Times. p. C15.
- Rich (February 24, 1988). "Film review: End Of The Line". Variety. 330 (5): 12.
- Barbara McIntosh (3 April 1988). "Stony Reception In Little Rock: Film by Mary Steenburgen Draws Cries of Foul in Arkansas 'End of the Line'". The Washington Post. p. G1.
- Smith, Sid (21 August 1988). "Video: A small film brings home fine acting". Chicago Tribune. p. M20.
- Koehler, Robert (January 10, 2000). "Film Reviews: 'SKIP'S' LYRICAL TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE". Variety. 377 (8): 109, 113.
- Kerrigan, Mike (Jan 1, 2000). "REVIEWS: MY DOG SKIP". Boxoffice. 136: 62.
- Kehr, Dave (11 October 2002). "FILM REVIEW: You Only Live Once, But You Can Make It Last". The New York Times. p. E20.
- Scott, A O. (12 Jan 2000). "FILM REVIEW: Fetch, Boy! Fetch the Wisdom of the Ages! Good Boy! MY DOG SKIP Fetch, Boy! Fetch the Wisdom of the Ages! Good Boy!". The New York Times. p. E1.
- Rehak, Melanie (6 October 2002). "FILM: Falling for a Children's Tale of an Age-Old Wish". The New York Times. p. A15.
- Lyman, Rick (21 January 2000). "AT THE MOVIES: In the Running For an Oscar A Clearer 'Window' Favorite Foreign Films Tale of a Dog". The New York Times. p. E22.
- French, Philip (13 August 2000). "Pet storks, pet dogs and a turkey: OTHER FILMS". The Observer. p. D9.
- "Charts: WINNERS Top 10 UK films". The Guardian. 25 October 2002. p. B31.
- Manohla Dargis (1 October 2004). "With Many a Fear and Tear, Firefighters Prove Their Mettle". The New York Times. p. E12.
- To lead; I haven't checked all of those sources, as the absence of links, despite links being readily available for at least some of them (for example: [49][50][51][52]) makes it an extended process that I am not currently willing to go through. However, as best I can tell, these all constitute significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of films that Russell has directed. If this is incorrect, please let me know.
- Now, WP:CREATIVE#3 requires directors to have directed works that are considered "significant or well known". Note that in the context of the notability of people, "significant" is a higher standard than "notable"; a film or award can be notable without being significant. As such, establishing that the individual has created notable works, as I believe you have done, is not sufficient, and thus I don't believe that CREATIVE#3 has been met. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- BilledMammal You are obviously new to AFD. Criteria 3 states, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or (emphasis on the "or") of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; ". In order to establish notability for directors, we merely have demonstrate that their works (i.e. the films they have directed) have been the subject of multiple published independent reviews (because of the important word "or"). Basically, just three of the reviews above are enough to establish criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE. We have way more evidence than that. Further, I think the fact that his films received multiple independent reviews in both national and international press and were made with several major film studios, some of them grossing over 100 million dollars, clearly establishes that his works are well known. One does not get reviewed in The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc. without becoming well known. His works have been reviewed by major critics like Siskel and Ebert, [53], [54], (on TV no less). You aren't going to find anyone willing to go along with your line of reasoning. This was a poorly thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Basically, just three of the reviews above are enough to establish criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE
- I think we've got a disagreement over which section the "or" applies to. In my opinion, it doesn't extend over the period; they have to meet both the second sentence and the first. Think about it; if someone asks you to go down to the shop saying "Please get me some bread. In addition, please get me some cheese or some ham" - would you just get them ham and think you have satisfied their request?
clearly establishes that his works are well known
- I'm not sure I agree with that; "well known" is defined as "known or recognized by many people", and I don't believe contemporary reviews or decent box office receipts are sufficient to demonstrate that. I believe we would need evidence of broad and extended impact, evidence that we don't have. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- BilledMammal You are obviously new to AFD. Criteria 3 states, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or (emphasis on the "or") of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; ". In order to establish notability for directors, we merely have demonstrate that their works (i.e. the films they have directed) have been the subject of multiple published independent reviews (because of the important word "or"). Basically, just three of the reviews above are enough to establish criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE. We have way more evidence than that. Further, I think the fact that his films received multiple independent reviews in both national and international press and were made with several major film studios, some of them grossing over 100 million dollars, clearly establishes that his works are well known. One does not get reviewed in The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc. without becoming well known. His works have been reviewed by major critics like Siskel and Ebert, [53], [54], (on TV no less). You aren't going to find anyone willing to go along with your line of reasoning. This was a poorly thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per 4meter4's comprehensive list, although I'd argue it's barely even necessary in this case, since having directed two individual movies with a >100M USD gross effectively settles the question for notability right there and then; of course people are going to write about those enough to satisfy
NACTORNDIRECTOR. If we were to decide to throw this guy out, we might have to introduce an additional CSD rule just to deal with all the other articles on creative professionals that would suddenly become equally ripe for the chop. AngryHarpytalk 07:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- I fully agree that 4meter4 has demonstrated that Jay Russell has directed multiple notable films. However, I think you are a little mistaken on which policy applies; one might easily think that actors sit under WP:CREATIVE, but they actually sit under WP:ENTERTAINER (which is where WP:NACTOR links). The requirements of ENTERTAINER are considerably less stringent than CREATIVE, requiring just that an actor has held a significant role in two notable films. For the CREATIVE, however, it isn't sufficient to have directed one or even a hundred notable films (though if they had directed a hundred such films, it would be easy to prove they meet GNG); it requires them to have directed a "significant or well known" film. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- My mistake, guess I shouldn't have typed this out immediately after waking up; I've struck and corrected to NDIRECTOR, which is the shortcut my sleepy brain was actually shooting for. Nevertheless:
...such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (...) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews
– it has been demonstrated that option B is effortlessly passed. AngryHarpytalk 08:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)- All good; fair enough. It seems you are of the same opinion as 4meter4 as to how the "or" splits that paragraph, but to me it doesn't seem logical to split it like that. I've crossed out the portion of the paragraph that becomes irrelevant when we assume "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is true, with the first representing 4meter4's understanding of reach of the "or" statement, and the second representing mine.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating
a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) orof multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; orThe person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject
of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) orof multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or
- To me, the first sentence doesn't make any sense, though perhaps I have misunderstood their understanding of the reach?BilledMammal (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're all on the same page about the second option being the correct one, but even so, what's really the issue?
a significant or well-known work or collective body of work
makes for some highly subjective qualifiers, I've certainly never seen any of his films, but The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep alone is sitting at 12k monthly views as of right now, fourteen years after coming out – as far as I'm concerned, that's entirely sufficient to label it as "well-known". AngryHarpytalk 08:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)- Thank you for clarifying; it seems I misinterpreted your position on this matter being the same as theirs, and I'm glad I can now understand the point you are making. However, I'm not sure I agree with it; while it is a decent number, extrapolating out from the top 1000 film articles by page views per month, I would put it at approximately the 35,000 most viewed film article (just outside the top 10%) and in my opinion we would be applying the classifier of "well known" too broadly if we accepted it as so on the basis of that. BilledMammal (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's still a little time for other people to chime in, but I think you'll find that the general reading of these rules isn't quite as, say, technocratic. I mean, we have an article on Keoni Waxman, whose main claim to fame is having directed a disturbing number of late-career Steven Seagall vehicles, one a bigger flop than the next one, and here's a YouTube video about the film I mentioned above, published in May 2021 and sitting at 2.5M views, seemingly considerably above that channel's average. I'm aware that I'm deep into WP:ATA-territory here, but the policy-based argument has been made and, to me, is airtight. Also, your observation above doesn't take the film's age into account, as new releases will naturally attract higher numbers and we don't have data from 2007 available, but that's mostly on me for highlighting the figure in the first place. AngryHarpytalk 09:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying; it seems I misinterpreted your position on this matter being the same as theirs, and I'm glad I can now understand the point you are making. However, I'm not sure I agree with it; while it is a decent number, extrapolating out from the top 1000 film articles by page views per month, I would put it at approximately the 35,000 most viewed film article (just outside the top 10%) and in my opinion we would be applying the classifier of "well known" too broadly if we accepted it as so on the basis of that. BilledMammal (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're all on the same page about the second option being the correct one, but even so, what's really the issue?
- All good; fair enough. It seems you are of the same opinion as 4meter4 as to how the "or" splits that paragraph, but to me it doesn't seem logical to split it like that. I've crossed out the portion of the paragraph that becomes irrelevant when we assume "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is true, with the first representing 4meter4's understanding of reach of the "or" statement, and the second representing mine.
- My mistake, guess I shouldn't have typed this out immediately after waking up; I've struck and corrected to NDIRECTOR, which is the shortcut my sleepy brain was actually shooting for. Nevertheless:
- Keep per WP:NDIRECTOR per AngryHarpy and 4Meter4 ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, easily meets WP:NDIRECTOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Ryan Monro
- Ryan Monro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN/WP:BASIC. No coverage outside of mentions in band coverage. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Cat Empire. The biographical tidbits in this article are non-notable and his activities outside the band have received none of the coverage required for individual notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references. He's also a programmer. He is mentioned in the Speaking clock article because he is also notable for creating a web-based simulation, Online Time Service Home Page, of the Australian "Talking Clock" 1194 service, described here: Silva, Kristian (2019-10-16). "When Telstra shut down the Talking Clock, one man took the time to salvage it". ABC News. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Bold third relist chasing more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: The article is about his work with the clock which makes multiple things he is known for. Article does need to be cleaned up. FiddleheadLady (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.