Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zoglophie (talk | contribs) at 10:09, 9 April 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nils Wetterholm.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.
Purge page cache 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Wetterholm

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICIAN or WP:ACTOR. zoglophie•talk• 10:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 speedy keep‎. WP:SK1, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tao Huang (general)

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

All existing sources are offline which can't prove notability as I have found nothing literary in Google Books search. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. I'm happily withdrawing this AfD nomination. What I needed to know Necrothesp explained as "Offline sources are perfectly valid" despite identifiers were mostly missing. This AfD will help me. Thanks to all. Please close the AfD. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. If you wish to pursue a Merge with another article, you can take that on by starting with a discussion on the article talk page and the talk page of the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tufa Shujineng

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

All existing sources are offline which can't prove notability as I have found nothing literary in Google Books search. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. One, two, three, four, five. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is also this doctoral thesis - and I know that PhD level theses are a debated point within our discussion of academic RSes but it still contributes toward this being a minor notable figure. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are also 14 references to the figure in Google Scholar if you use the simplified Chinese spelling rather than the pingyin. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you propose Merge, how can you !vote as Keep? Contradictory? Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying we should Keep this one and merge the other into it. I'm sorry if I was unclear with my intention. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Meitus

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about a lawyer in the music industry, and added references. I have failed to find much significant coverage from reliable sources, however. The article in the Indianapolis Business Journal is significant coverage, but the others are passing references. I considered whether inclusion on the Billboard list would demonstrate his notability, but that is a long list (I make it 300+ names) so I am not convinced that is enough. Redirection to Carrie Newcomer might also be an option. Tacyarg (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Aden Abdulle

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

Delete: as non-notable; fails NSCIENTIST, GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Looks like there is a consensus to Keep this Justin Jin. Might not hurt to add this article to your Watchlist in case there are attempts to hijack it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jin

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

Given the previous AFD, and the recent blocks of particular users, I figured the community should scrutinize this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robert R. Williams (politician)

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as sourcing located. Would be preferable if sourcing was added to new articles at creation. (non-admin closure)‎ AusLondonder (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biography of former mayor who served for two years in the 1930s and was subsequently unsuccessful in other elections. Sole source does not appear to be about him. Article has insufficient content to actually tell us anything about him and his career. AusLondonder (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per WP:HEY. Former mayor of one of the U.S. largest cities. Decade long career in politics ending with charges, acquittal, and a recall election covered by the New York Times. I added a quite bit and there is plenty of potential for more expansion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the excellent improvement work by TulsaPoliticsFan. I agree I would have at least thought about nominating this for deletion pre-HEY but this is now a good article, and I don't think our exclusionary policy for mayors applies here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Adani

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

Since there is no prejudice against speedy renomination due to relatively low participation in the last AfD discussion, I am renominating this page for deletion again because the entire image of Karan Adani is promotional and his current page is nothing but a resume. Any mention of him, even in reputable publications like the New York Times, tends to focus trivially on his connection to his father and as a wealthy heir to the Adani Group. Within the Indian media sphere, the majority of coverage highlights things other than his achievements, which are not portrayed neutrally. Notedolly2 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete given the concerns about the previous two AfDs.
Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Reddi

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

Resume written by User:UofMMedia, now blocked, likely a COI'd editor connected with the subject's alma mater or current employer. See related discussion on WP:COIN. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article has no significant independent coverage and I could not find any. See below for source assessment. He may meet WP:NACADEMIC (although I am skeptical) as he is co-author on a few papers with >200 citations. Note that Google Scholar data is incorrect, listing at least two papers on which he is not a co-author. However, if he is a notable academic we'd essentially have to start over from scratch to obtain a neutral article. Jfire (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Pubmed listing of the Google Scholar articles.... The publications appear to be in peer reviewed journals. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22anand+reddi%22. There also does appear to be a number of global health publications and focus Ajsk123 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ Advocacy organization ~   Reddi is quoted ✘ No
Highleyman
   Dead link     ? Unknown
University of Michigan
   It's his alma mater     Dead link, but presumably routine university PR ✘ No
"Leadership"
     Failed verification ✘ No
BMC Pediatr.
   Paper co-authored by Reddi   ✘ No
The Telegraph
       Quote and brief coverage. Doesn't support claims in the article that he was the "architect". ✘ No
The Guardian
       Quote ✘ No
HuffPost Bio
   ~   ✘ No
HuffPost article
   OpEd written by Reddi   ✘ No
HuffPost article (Emanuel)
   OpEd reply   ✘ No
HuffPost article
   OpEd written by Reddi   ✘ No
Devex
       Quote ✘ No
Devex
       Single mention ✘ No
Businesswire
   Press release     ✘ No
HuffPost article
   OpEd written by Reddi   ✘ No
"Human capital contracts..."
   Paper co-authored by Reddi   ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Weak delete. For certain his publications and scientific awards do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The reason I use weak is that I find this page odd. Based upon the short business CV Google shows he has been in the corporate sector for some time. However, none of that is in the page, and as currently written he has no income and has not had any for a while. That seems flawed. Maybe WP:TNT is called for, although it looks like nobody has the energy to do the research to sort this out.
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. A merger discussion can continue editorially Star Mississippi 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald

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

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

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

I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Abdullah Ahsy

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

Procedural nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was blanked and redirected in 2013 by NorthBySouthBaranof. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Star Mississippi 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Singh (professor)

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

non-notable NPROF, sources are SPS, and more as per Talk page Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, Delhi, and Gujarat. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete On examining what is in his apparent Scholar page, many of the papers are not his, so the h-factors of 47 and 10k citations claimed by the original editor is incorrect. His university page https://cug.irins.org/profile/100821 has 357 journal articles claimed (dubious) and an h-factor of 28. Some of the claims on his patents are also very dubious on closer inspection. I have no tolerance for anything that comes close to academic dishonesty. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why? I'm unclear on what he's being dishonest about. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not uncommon for Google Scholar profiles to be inaccurate, because Google automatically picks up publications from people with similar names and the person whose profile it is doesn't take the effort to remove them again. Being lazy about curating one's profile is not dishonest. But the article creator should know better. If the article creator is taking the GS profile as valid when it isn't, that speaks to a certain lack of care but is not in itself dishonest. If the article was created through COI editing or undeclared paid editing (for which I have no evidence) then it involves likely oversight by the subject and then honesty might come into it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an addendum, please remember that Google Scholar profiles are created by academics, and they can (should) subtract inappropriate papers which might end up there. If you go to his profile and follow the papers to look at where authors are from, e.g. this and this you will see that they have "Man Singh" authors from different locations and very different fields. There are some where the initials are different. There are other interesting issues in the Wiki page such as the statement that he is/was a Dean, which I cannot verify at his university. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking through the top-ten-cited publications on Google Scholar, I see: "Ecofriendly application", "Cassia fistula extracts": Hindawi, dubiously-reliable publisher. "Survismeter": heavy self-citations. "Decline of human anatomy", "Soil fungi for mycoremediation", "monthly high‐dose vitamin D", "Structure and Biogenesis": different affiliation, probably not by the same person. "Methods and computer program products", "Chest pain": not even the same name. At #9, finally, we have "Physicochemical and friccohesity", looking legitimate but with 93 citations. That's definitely not enough for WP:PROF#C1. Nothing else stands out in the article as a likely claim to notability, and most of its content is promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject himself is the participant in all sources on the page. The page looks more like a resume. The subject is not notable under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Fails WP:NACADEMIC with no independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Independent sources are not part of the WP:NACADEMIC requirements. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom does not WP:PROF notability.Tame Rhino (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. No P&G-based deletion argument brought up. The page does not qualify for speedy deletion under G11, and WP:TNT is not a deletion guideline, but an essay about editorial preferences. If the subject is notable but the tone is promotional, the page can be edited, perhaps from scratch. BLP violations, if any, can be removed, by selective REVDEL, if needed. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Jansson (photographer)

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

Reason: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" that has no foot notes and resume like contents. WP:TNT. There's been no substantial edits besides the name drops I've removed and content additions by model management company associated WP:SPA. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Also qualifies for deletion per reason Deletion policy reason #1 "Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion" "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion" While WP:ATD should be considered, the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors. Graywalls (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:TNT it, unless someone pulls a WP:HEY on it first. the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors is right. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd support either TNT or !draft, but I can only find the Wall Street Journal article, we'd need a few more sources about him to pass notability. This is very PROMO and badly needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it appears to meet G11, I think deletion reason is satisfied. Notability failure is not the only reason for deletion. I thought of draftifying, but last time I did that, it got undraftified by Liz. Graywalls (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: Not promotional enough for G11, but meets notability due to WSJ article, other articles in Vogue and fashion/photography magazines. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dellor

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability as well as WP:GNG. I cannot find WP:SIGCOV relating to this YouTuber on Google or Google News (except for a few isolated incidents - getting banned off Twitch doesn't make you notable). Note a lot of this article was copied from Fandom. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avarigines

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

a google search shows no such term GusChago (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GusChago (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment @Gachago can you clarify your deletion rationale? I've added a citation to a dictionary/encyclopedia of the Celts. I find it hard to put in a vote without seeing the offline sources but this is no hoax. Oblivy (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oblivy This needs the attention of an expert. I am sure when user translated the article, probably form spanish, they gave it a title of thgeir own creation because I never came across "Avarigines" and I couldn't find anything in the literature or via search engines. GusChago (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. Given that there is now an English source using that term can you sustain your position that it’s a “title of [editor’s] own creation?” If that’s your objection, then I think this is speedy keep for lack of valid deletion rationale. Oblivy (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, if borne out by the sources cited: however little we know of ancient tribes, they are inherently notable. I've done some cleanup left from the translation, for grammar, spelling, and flow, and worked on the cited sources, moving long-form citations to the bibliography. Will try to check Pomponius Mela, since he's the ultimate source, and if the citation to him is correct, then it's probably fair to assume the other citations are good—I couldn't check the last one at all, though it looks like it might be the most useful of the secondary souruces. P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pomponius Mela does mention them as described, and I've linked the citation to an edition that notes the substitution of "Autrigones" for "Avariginos". So yes, speedy keep. P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - people(s) mentioned in ancient texts are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Squire

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

I don't see any reliable source secondary coverage on this person. I do see a lot of primary sources - stuff Lyn Squire himself wrote. Unfortunately, that does not meet WP:GNG. His writings claim a few mid-level positions at the World Bank, but I can't even find coverage of those in secondary sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Wales, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to me (the article creator) a clear keep. As has produced a substantial body of academic research (with some rather high citation scores: see Google Scholar and with lots of well known co-authors (though this is only indicative of (and doesn't count for) notability)) and was editor of a well-established academic journal in their subject area. The Economic Analysis of Projects is really famous in SCBA world as the WBs summary of , operationalisation of the OECD approach. The interview at the World Bank - Oral History is interesting and the little bio at the LSE/Oxfords IGC seem reliable enough to me. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    No coverage by reliable independent sources about the subject of the article or any of his work as an individual thought leader. If the subject was really notable, he would have received some coverage given the notability of the World Bank. The high citation count of the co-authored papers at World Bank publications are more of an indication that the subject had some notable good friends at the World Bank. Contributor892z (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and no claim that meets any of the 7 rules at WP:ACADEMIC. Some citations at Google Scholar but not enough for notability I think. Contributor892z (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heavy citations on Google Scholar (multiple works with four-digit citation counts) pass WP:PROF#C1. Reviews of Employment Policy in Developing Countries (JSTOR 1973175, JSTOR 2726474) and Agricultural Household Models (JSTOR 2726474, JSTOR 1242324, ProQuest 1311343250, doi:10.1016/0304-3878(88)90028-4) also give him a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 6 publications with four digit citation counts. I don’t think it’s enough for WP:PROF#C1.Contributor892z (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kind of like saying "only one Nobel prize. I don't think it's enough." Most academics would be very happy if even a single one of their publications did so well. If this were high energy physics where collaborations of hundreds of authors routinely get more citations than that, it would be different, but in this case all publications have few authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are World Bank publications. They are not subject to academic peer review and yet always get thousands of citations. And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website. This Wiki page looks more like hidden publicity for the fiction book being written by the subject. Contributor892z (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Contributor892z, I think looking at Squire on Google Scholar he has well cited publications in several of the most respected (by academic economics and development) peer-reviewed journals: The American Economic Review (US's AEA leading Journal) , the UK's leading society's (RES) journal the Economic Journal, the Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of development economics, Economic Development and Cultural Change, amongst others. (Also I think the World Bank Economic Review is itself peer-reviewed.) I created the page because I used the Economics of Project Analysis years ago and was now using it again and looked up Squire (and Van der Tak) to find out about them. The novel surprised me, but I thought it interesting, and I am can assure you I am in no way acting with any COI and was not intending to do hidden publicity for his new book, Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)).[reply]
Re "And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website.": please don't state obvious falsehoods. [7] is a page about him at the World Bank web site, for one. There may be others but they're difficult to find among the many many pages reporting work by him at the World Bank web site. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you found a page. I couldn’t find it, so thanks for finding it. But, still, nothing notable. His employer was notable, but his role wasn’t. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.Contributor892z (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Contributor892z (talk). WP:PROF#C1 specifically says if their "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" - these World Bank papers are not, by any stretch of the imagination, research that has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. They are not the same thing as peer-reviewed academic publications. Andrei Shleifer is an economist with significant academic work in his field. Lyn Squire is just a guy who had a job at the World Bank for years and now self-published a non-notable book. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-publishing a non-notable book does nothing to negate other notable contributions. But I think this should remain omitted unless we can find reliable secondary sources. I don't think an author-association member profile counts as reliable for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored my main point - he does not have other notable contributions. His World Bank documents are not peer-reviewed academic publications. There is no reliable secondary source coverage of him, and so he fails WP:GNG by that criteria alone. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Zepelin: so, just for avoidance of doubt, are advocating for deleting the article or are you just giving a neutral comment?Contributor892z (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Fred Zepelin (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for sake of clarity, are you seriously trying to argue that American Economic Review, Journal of Development Economics, and The Economic Journal are not peer-reviewed academic journals? It seems you are joining Contributor892z in cluttering this AfD with obvious falsehoods. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have taken this personally. The paper published under his name at American Economic Review was just a discussion piece from a conference so it really didn't follow the standard peer review process. Contributor892z (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take it personally when people waste the time of multiple other editors with ridiculous arguments at AfDs and risk producing an outcome based on falsehood. It makes me wonder why you are arguing so hard that you exceed the truth rather than taking a properly neutral fact-finding approach. It also makes me wonder why you two Zs are completing each other's thoughts (the question about academic publications was really intended for the other Z) making it very confusing for me to keep straight who is who. I suppose one of you has some similar argument why all of his other academic publications are not actually academic publications despite their prima facie appearance? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No argument here. His two or three publications at the other journals are actually academic publications. And then loads of sponsored work for a notable employer, which are not actually academic publications. Contributor892z (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re The World Bank Economic Review is a respected peer-reviewed academic journal: my understanding is that the WBER is a respected (by academic economics (and especially by professional academic development economics) peer-reviewed academic journal. On it website it has a descripion of its peer-review process. A peer reviewed article in JEEA (Pantelis Kalaitzidakis, Theofanis P. Mamuneas, Thanasis Stengos, Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics, Journal of the European Economic Association, Volume 1, Issue 6, 1) list it in 37th place (see page 1349) - ahead of what I thought was the leading development economics journal (The Journal of Development Economics). Heckman & Moktan (Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2020). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the top five. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 419-470.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals. Liner & Amin (Liner, G. H., & Amin, M. (2004). Methods of ranking economics journals. Atlantic Economic Journal, 32, 140-149.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals and as it 7th in terms of X-citations in international economics journals (p. 142). Articles in it seem to me clearly academic publications. Does any one have information to the contrary? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)) ((Letting User:Contributor892z & User:Fred Zepelin know about this contribution))[reply]
@Msrasnw: the referees are from inside the World Bank. It's not an independent source, a requirement for notability. Contributor892z (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? My understanding is the WBER has lots of reviewers, most in fact, who are not at the WB. Where have you got this from? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
[citation needed]. Its chief editors are not from the World Bank. Most of its editorial board is not from the world bank. Its information for authors welcomes submissions from non-affiliates of the World Bank and explicitly says that consistency with World Bank policy is not relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: and @Msrasnw: I really don’t want to move this away from the focus, which is the notability of the subject, but I do find it relevant to raise here that there are other independent and reliable sources that don’t trust the independence of World Bank research [8]. So this is not just my personal opinion. Contributor892z (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see lots of highly cited journal articles and books for NPROF, and I think it's enough even in what can be a higher citation field, particularly as a fair bit of the work predates the internet era. I also take seriously the NAUTHOR case outlined by David Eppstein above. The combination of the two cases is solid. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IDEAS/RePEc lists him in their "top 10%" ranking of worldwide economists: [9]. His position on the listing, #2224, may not sound impressive, but we have a significantly larger number of articles on economists than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, nobody gets a good job at the World Bank without having some skills. But there are plenty of other good people out there that are top 10% of their profession and aren’t notable people. The rules for notability are clear. So the only question we have here is if his publication record is enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 and my opinion is that his publication record is not enough given that his most cited work came from publications in vehicles of his employer, which are questionable for research independence. He had a good job at a notable employer, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Contributor892z (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost everyone who publishes academically does so under the official affiliation of their employer. Publishing while having an employer does not invalidate one's publications and does not have any relevance to WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let’s forget for a moment it’s Lyn Squire and let’s pretend is a top 10% tech researcher that does research for Google, for clear profit seeking reasons. And most of their well-known material came from publications made by or sponsored by Google. We probably would be closer to an agreement that this researcher is not notable just because of their research output. And now let’s come back to Lyn Squire. Shall we have a different conclusion just because it’s the World Bank (not for profit) instead of Google (profit seeking)? Contributor892z (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at least you're consistent in packing this AfD with false and bogus arguments. We have plenty of articles on researchers at Google and Microsoft, notable among other reasons through their academic publications. Natasha Noy, Cynthia Dwork, and Mary Czerwinski are all examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Per WP:NPROF, it doesn't matter who he works for. To expand on my keep rationale, I see at least three papers with citation counts in the 1000s that were published in well-established journals; also a long tail of papers with a reasonable number of citations. In addition, e.g. the book Economic Analysis of Projects was published by a reputable academic publisher, was reprinted several times, was translated into other languages, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that he has three papers with high citation numbers from independent journals (where he wasn’t the main author though, so he may have contributed little). If that’s enough for notability, then so be it. But I don’t think it is, especially given that he wasn’t the lead author. The book doesn’t really help meeting WP:NAUTHOR unless it was the primary subject of multiple reliable independent reviews attesting the significance of the contribution of the book, which I don’t think it was. Contributor892z (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In many fields, such as economics or mathematics, the convention is that authors are listed alphabetically. In assessing WP:NPROF, I am exactly looking for several high impact papers, such as these. Meanwhile, the highly cited book _certainly_ helps meet WP:NPROF. Reviews of it include [10][11]. Other reviews of Squire's books include [12] (an edited volume), [13]. There are likely others, as much of Squire's work was before the internet era. C'mon. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Multiple publications with 1k+ citations is a clear WP:NPROF#1 pass. As stated above, c'mon. Curbon7 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good case for passing WP:PROF#C1, and a weaker one for passing WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 List of mayors of Cairns. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Eden

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

So, mayors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL, neither in WP:NSUBPOL. They have to pass WP:GNG to qualify for a standalone entry. This is currently not the case here as this subject fails GNG as a matter of fact. The current sources, with the exception of Cairnes Post, do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. This is supposed to be simple for someone who understands WP:NPOL works. Cairns as a city is not significantly large based on population census. Overall, mayors should simply not be kept if they do not pass WP:GNG all in the name of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just to be fair, a WP:BEFORE did not return anything useful also. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Australia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can see, only the "Who is Cairns' likely mayor Amy Eden?" article is SIGCOV. I couldn't find anything else online. Toadspike (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. 3 of the sources are from the Electoral Commission that don't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - again, one of these marginal situations that, if there were better sourcing, I could go with a keep. Cairns is a big regional city in the northeastern side of Australia. Right now, I don't see any secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just added a number of additional sources if that helps Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NPOL is simply for presumed notability—not meeting the blanket presumption does not mean someone is not notable. The nominator concedes that the Cairns Post meets SIGCOV, and the ABC obviously meets it too. More broadly, and at the risk of opening a larger conversation, I think the presumption of notability needs to be reconsidered insofar as we apply it to Australian mayors. I readily acknowledge we are in a grey zone: mayors of microscopic rural WA councils are not inherently notable, but I contend mayors of significant population centres are notable—not just lord mayors of capital cities but also those of significant population centres like Cairns, which is the main urban area for a vast geographical region. For mine, any mayor of an LGA acknowledged as a city in Australia should be presumed notable; Australia does not abuse the "city" designation like, say, the US does, where a place with 10 people will be "X City". The idea Cairns is not a significant population centre is ludicrous; it is a major tourism destination and has one of the busiest airports in Australia (the second-busiest non-capital airport, busier than 3/8 state and territory capitals). It seems absurd to me that Wikipedia has pages for individual episodes of TV shows but would delete the profile of a mayor of a Queensland city. We lose nothing by including an article on a mayor of a major population centre. Axver (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Comparing mayors to TV shows is far fetched. The fact that Cairns has a busy airport somehow relates to the notability of the Mayor? LibStar (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axver: "...I contend mayors of significant population centres are notable... – If that's your belief, one which I don't believe is widely held, then you should propose an amendment to WP:NPOL. As of now, that's simply not how it works. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Issues with the article needing more sources can easily be addressed without the page needing to be deleted, Cairns is a notable city and notable LGA Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, if the Delete vote wins (as it appears it might) can I suggest the page is instead just redirected to List of mayors of Cairns? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Totallynotarandomalt69 Perhaps, that is doable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only suggesting in the (non-impossible) event that Eden meets wider notability in the near future, plus as the mayor of a significant city I wouldn't be surprised if her name is searched a notable amount by other wiki users Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Lotus Bank. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kafilat Araoye

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

An article about the CEO of a bank which doesn't prove notability. It's more of inherent and not a direct entry to Wikipedia. It was proposed for deletion but was deproded for redirect /merge. When it has been redirected, another editor reverted it with reasons whatsoever. It s more to civility and consensus if it's discussed. For now, it down meets GNG, but per WP:ATD, redirect to Lotus Bank SafariScribe (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradelykooper (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Hoskins

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT / WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. A rough consensus finally materialized after the last relist (thank you, Liz!). Owen× ☎ 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semzi

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCER. Sources are either passing mentions, interviews, PRs, or not even mentioning the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
  Was talking about the subject   Vanguard is reliable per WP:NGRS ~ Much like an about music interview ~ Partial
  Ditto   Guardian Nigeria is reliable per WP:NGRS   Normally, Weekend Beats sounds like PR ✘ No
  Above   Blog sites   Interview and blog post ✘ No
~ A list that mentions articles, more of featuring, no PR here ~ See editorial   List ✘ No
  No mention   Per WP:NGRS   No mention ✘ No
  No mention   Ditto   No mention ✘ No
  No metion   Per above   No mention of the subject ✘ No
  Ditto   See above   No mention ✘ No
  No mention   Okay Africa is reliable   Applied same as above ✘ No
  No mention   Not a reliable source, blog or PR   Same as above ✘ No
  Mention!   Why not?   More like PR—get away magazine mention; just mention ✘ No
  Passing mention   Per WP:NGRS   Inherent mention ✘ No
  Les or no mention   Max FM is a Lagos based television channel   Inherent notability only on Boy Source ✘ No
  Passing mention   Culture custodian is a reliable source   Still on production. Inherent notability ✘ No
  Focuses on Bad Boy Time, a Nigerian artist   Sound City TV is a Nigerian television music channel   Focus lacking on the subject ✘ No
  Passing mention   Like above   Doesn't meet notability ✘ No
  List   Rhythm and Rhyme is a blog site   List ✘ No
~ List   For the award but not for other citations   Being nominated doesn't mean notability. Per WP:ENT, the subject must have been nominated multiple times of a major award ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete: After analysis of the source above, I was convinced of the many "passing mentions", "no mention" and more generated in citing sources relating to PR. Nothing to draftify again. It doesn't meet WP:THREE for sources, WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. Each of the sources either mention, or not at all, or about a music one of an artist he had worked for previously. Delete is the "best" alternative. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 13:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In one of the discussions and sources, it submits an evidence about this act who just recently co-produced a track that has over ten credible and notable artistes from Sub-Sahara Africa featured. These artistes have their wiki pages, I believe the professional who takes up the task to fuse these different acts into a single musical project is worthy of an article on Wikipedia as well. ReoMartins (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ReoMartins It is imperative for you to know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for you to think an article should be kept. You should also importantly see WP:INHERITED. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, there is already a consensus here if by analysis of the arguments above. Isn't see the reason for relisting. Most importantly, the keep isn't strong enough or showed how the article meets inclusion. The source table can also be reviewed to see blatant addition of sources that doesn't mention the article. (Just a 'simpler' suggestion. ) — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Hehe, if I was an administrator, I would have relisted this discussion too, so don't worry, Liz made the right decision. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanderwaalforces, Sure. It's just that Liz doesn't take time analysing such deletions. Welp, it's good getting clearer consensus. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Safari Scribe, well, that's quite an insult I didn't expect to see when I was reviewing open AFD discussions tonight. I'll just leave this one for another closer to handle since you are unsatisfied with how I'm handling things. Again, this is a volunteer hobby, not a job and nothing obligates me to close or relist any AFD discussion but I try to use my best judgment. But I'll leave this one alone and someone else can eventually close it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Star Mississippi 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shi De Yang

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

Page has two unsourced sections, proposed deletion was removed with two citations added - these two citations have not satisfied the need for reliable, secondary citations on this page, of which I have previously been unable to find. CommissarDoggoTalk? 11:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. "New Century article". 新世纪 [New Century]. 1995. Retrieved 2024-04-05 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "释德扬俗名史万峰。 1967 年出生在河南太康县一个干部家庭。童年时期,他的邻居(一个出家少林寺又返俗的老人)经常向他讲起当年身穿大红袈裟,遍游名山大川的游僧生活,并私下向他传授一些少林功夫,使他幼小的心灵充满了当和尚和学习少林武术的向往。 1983 年初中一毕业,他便向父母提出了到少林寺出家的要求。在他软硬磨下,父母亲也只好同意了他的选择。他来到了梦寐以求的少林寺,拜在首座僧素喜禅师门下为徒,成了年龄最小的一名和尚。寺里生活清苦枯燥,处处受到清规戒律的约束不说,光是练功的苦,就让他吃不消。"

      From Google Translate: "Shi Deyang's common name is Shi Wanfeng. Born in 1967 in Taikang County, Henan into a cadre family. During his childhood, his neighbor (an old man who became a monk in the Shaolin Temple and returned to secular life) often told him about the life of a wandering monk who wore red cassocks and traveled to famous mountains and rivers. He also taught him some Shaolin Kungfu privately, which made his young mind Full of yearning to become a monk and learn Shaolin martial arts. After graduating from junior high school in 1983, he asked his parents to become a monk in the Shaolin Temple. After being pushed hard by him, his parents had no choice but to agree to his choice. He came to the Shaolin Temple that he dreamed of and became a disciple under the first monk, Zen Master Suxi, and became the youngest monk. Life in the temple was hard and boring, and not only was he bound by strict rules and regulations, but the hardship of practicing martial arts was too much for him."

    2. Zhong, Yulan 钟玉岚 (2015-05-26). "少林功夫大师释德扬西班牙传功讲禅" [Shaolin Kung Fu Master Shi De Yang teaches Kung Fu and Zen in Spain] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02. Retrieved 2024-04-02.

      The article notes: "释德扬大师１９６８年出生，１５岁开始习武，是少林功夫第３１代传人，曾担任多年少林寺武僧总教练。释德扬大师的徒弟中，比较为人熟知的当属电影《功夫》中“苦力强”、《叶问》中“武痴林”的扮演者释行宇。"

      From Google Translate: "Master Shi Deyang was born in 1968 and started practicing martial arts at the age of 15. He is the 31st generation successor of Shaolin Kung Fu and has served as the head coach of Shaolin Temple monks for many years. Among Master Shi Deyang's apprentices, the more well-known ones are Shi Xingyu, who played "Coolie Strong" in the movie Kung Fu Hustle and "Wu Chi Lin" in Ip Man."

    3. Wu, Bo 吴渤 (2007-09-25). "少林武术总教头自认是功夫本科生(组图)" [The chief Shaolin martial arts instructor considers himself a Kung Fu undergraduate (photo)]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-02. Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "德扬大师现在是少林寺辈分最高的人，住持的辈分比他还低了两辈。对于有人说释永信是佛门CEO，每天开宝马，用手提电脑，有几个秘书，有大学生提出，这似乎有悖于僧人刻苦修行的形象，而德扬大师回应：“这有什么不可以的。”"

      From Google Translate: "Master Deyang is now the most senior person in Shaolin Temple, and abbot Shi Yongxin is two generations below him. Some college students said that Shi Yongxin is the CEO of Buddhism. He drives a BMW every day, uses a laptop, and has several secretaries. This seems to go against the image of a monk practicing hard. Master Deyang responded: "What's wrong with this?""

    4. Pearce, Elisha (2015-09-24). "Shaolin Grand Master lends praise". Penrith City Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-04-05.

      The article notes: "The Emerald Dragon Martial Arts Academy hosted Grand Master Shi De Yang from the Shaolin Monastery in China — a 1500-year-old temple. He is the 31st Grand Master of the fighting monks and has lived in the monastery since he was nine. Considered the world's finest exponent of Shaolin kung fu, Shi De Yang was in Australia because the centre director, David Greenland, is his student."

    5. Welsch, Chris (1996-10-27). "Zen, then and now - Inspired by a childhood love of the TV show 'Kung Fu,' a traveler visits the real Shaolin Temple. Appropriate to the place where Zen began, it's hard to say which is more improbable - the fiction or the reality". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-04-05.

      The article notes: "On the wall were posters of the monk we had come to see, Shi De Yang. At 28, he is one of the senior monks, in charge of teaching initiates kung fu and Buddhist doctrine. One of the posters shows Shi standing on a mountain top kicking straight up into the air - literally doing the splits vertically, the flat of his foot aimed at the sky, an intense mask of martial resolve on his face. The posters were from performance tours of Japan. He entered the room from his study in the adjoining room. He wore an orange robe that left one of his baroquely muscled shoulders bare. He shook our hands and, signaling for us to wait, disappeared outside. He returned smiling, with three ice-cold bottles of water."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shi De Yang (simplified Chinese: 释德扬; traditional Chinese: 釋德揚) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Of the sources provided, the first and third seem to be the only ones appropriate. The first because it's a good resource for his early life and how he came to be a monk and the third because it seems to be a pretty good interview.
    The second is more "he was here" than "this is about him" alongside some basic facts, which I suppose would assist the article, the fourth is much the same with less usefulness aside from where he's based (Works? Studies? Please correct me here, I'm genuinely curious) and the fifth more speaks to his character than anything else, alongside being a passing mention in a rather long article.
    There are still large swathes of the article that are completely unsourced as of yet, which really is the main concern here. CommissarDoggoTalk? 12:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already know that you're willing to improve this article, so would you be willing to remove these unsourced sections and replace them with sourced content? You seem to be the best placed to do so. CommissarDoggoTalk? 12:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krister Sundelin

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

Can't find sources actually discussing him to show notability. There is a Swedish article but that doesn't have such sources either. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gilbert (journalist)

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

I literary found nothing for the topic's existence here. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. czar 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia De La Rama

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

This one is sort of on the edge here but, after a search, I found one article (an opinion) online, in addition to the articles here which seem to only make references to her in passing (as the wife of Sukarno). She does seem to notable for appearing in two films but in secondary roles. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [14]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [15] [16]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moesa Pancho

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

The tempo articles are advertisements, and the rest seem to be largely copies of that advertisement. Hence, seems to fail WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [17]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [18] [19]. And there also other notable sources from CNN and a book that was cited in the article [20] [21] 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Sandstein 09:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Jyoti Rajput

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

Subject is marginally notable - has played supporting roles in a web series and a TV miniseries. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it's worth, I never offer my opinion in an AfD without preparation. On the substance of your protest: She has been once and once only in a somewhat notable creation where her role is secondary to the two protagonists. To bring it home more clearly, she's not qualified for a leading role award in it. The other appearance concerns Special Ops 1.5: The Himmat Story where she has a truly small role. And there are actors in it with more filmic appearances who rightly do not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Apparently, you are confusing significant roles with insignificant ones. But we carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I confusing significant with insignificant? Oh, that's really bad then. I'll think about it when recounting the 7 occurrences of her character's name in the plot. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. ✗plicit 12:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Oladele

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

Rejected at WP:AFC fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it's important to realise that while this article is terribly written, it can be saved, because there is SIGCOV and a multitude of reliable sources available online. I'm not interested in trying to revive it only for it to get deleted, but if it is kept I think all it needs is a bit of TLC and it'll be perfectly fine. Obviously, it needs moving, but that's not an issue for here. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. I can't close this as Soft Deletion due to its previous AFD but there also isn't a consensus here to Delete. With no future participation after two relisting, I'm closing this as No consensus as there is not enough (or any) participation other than the nominator to determine a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalia Novaes

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

Non-notable model. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidullah Khan (Bagram captive)

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

While this article clearly meets WP:GNG, it does not seem to meet WP:BLP1E given that the subject is only notable for one event. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The consistent media coverage surrounding him makes it unclear why WP:BLP1E would be applicable in this case.--—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part 1: "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." (In this case, his detainment). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we have so many BLPs on extrajudicial prisoners of the US, who also fall under the WP:BLP1E criteria? I believe GNG take precedence. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, this is because they are notable for something they did before and or after in these cases. (For example, being a militant, or a particularly notable trial.) Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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) ToadetteEdit! 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Aiyar

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

non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Registered Agents Inc.. There is consensus against keeping this as a biographical article given that the person is apparently covered only in the context of his businesses, but there is no consensus to outright delete. Which leaves us with a redirect as the only possible outcome. Sandstein 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keen

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

First, unless it can somehow be confirmed that this guy is the owner of this company (and even if he is) I don’t know how this is notable other than part of the company article. There is an allegation of ownership in the reference article, but his ownership (or even employment) is denied by the company’s lawyer said that this guy acted as an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee. Second, Weird story about an unnamed landscaping company to ___domain registrar? I’m not sure how this is notable. If anything, he maybe gets a mention on the underlying company pages that he’s allegedly the owner if even that hits the bar, but i don’t see that he deserves his own article. Third, my gut feeling is that this appears to be a hit piece as there are allegations of neo nazi ties, etc. Caution must be exercised in these types of allegations. The Registered Agents Inc. Company confirmed ownership of Epik in the press release cite (as of Feb 2024, not 2023), but there doesn’t seem to be anything but an allegation about Keen and this could be considered libelous without a more solid citation. But again, my feeling is that this article is a hit piece if the guy even actually exists. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Something is rotten about this deletion from the nominator, who suddenly came back on en.wiki after a ten-year hiatus and seems to have had issues within the registered agent topic area in the past; three soild sources for the article from mainstream outlets about the subject, and a rationale that may be over the line and hitting WP:NLT regarding allegations being libelous. Epik is also heavily known for hosting sites most hosts wouldn't touch and has been exhaustively documented. @Dougieb:, please declare any conflicts of interest immediately and reel back the legal threats because that's not how we play at all in article or AfD spaces. I am also pinging @Amigao: and @Grayfell:, who dealt with a certain editor, Dunkinidaho (talk · contribs) who has been trying to remove Keen's name from the Epik article despite the Wired/WaPo sourcing; also declare if you are related to that account. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about addressing the crux of my AFD rather than attacking the messenger? MY AFD is not WP:NLT because I didn’t make a threat, I just reasonably suggested that before tagging someone a Neo Nazi (which could be considered per se defamation), perhaps there should be some solid ground for doing so. Having read the cited articles (which the actual crux of one is using fake personas), it is not even clear whether “Dan Keen” even exists which is how I ended up here in the first place today. You are mirepresenting that there are “three solid sources” for Dan Keen existing much less being owning this company or being associated with Neo Nazis. The only source mentioning him is the Wired article which ALLEGES that he owns the company, but later notes that the company said he was an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee of the company. Why is there no other source anywhere tying this guy to the company anywhere? I it another fake name as described in the cited articles? The Epik company is “heavily known for hosting sites most wouldn’t touch”, that is not in question, but this isn’t about that. This is about the claim that this guy owns it, and if he bought it, is he a Neo Nazi? If there is anything substantive tying this guy (if he exists) to either company, please point it out because I’m interested myself, but everything I’ve found just cites the Wired article. No I’m not related to Dunkinidaho , however from what I’ve seen, the Registered Agent Inc. Company appears to be based in Idaho, so there is your clue. If Keen does exist and his company did buy Epik, are they still hosting these sites? Or did they boot them? From the press release it seems the latter, so if this is not a hit piece, why mention it? I have zero conflicts of interest and actually want someone to prove me wrong here and put up something substantial. But in the meantime, this smells like a hit piece which would be funny if the guy ends up being another of the alleged “fake personas.” @Amigao seems to have had issues with sourcing in the past, so there is that. Dougieb (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As MrSchimpf explains, this nomination was your first edit in almost exactly ten years. You also have a warning on your talk page for adding spam to National Registered Agents, Inc. back in 2008. You're not helping your case by getting all indignant and verbose about the obvious WP:COI issues this raises. Oh, and WP:NLT absolutely does apply here. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I haven’t edited in ten years. The former disputed article about National Registered Agents Inc. Back in 2008 was not even SPAM. I believe this was a long time before this Registered Agents Inc. Thing ever started. There is no reasonable argument that Keen is notable - if he even exists. If anything, he’s a footnote in the Registered Agents Inc article as a footnote that he is the alleged owner. It is not helpful to have disinformation and mischaracterization of Wired articles as legitimate content. National Registered Agents was a legit major company eventually acquired by CT Corporation which is a subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, a multi-billion $ publicly traded company.
What is suspect is reading the cites on this article and trying to reconcile them with the hit piece that is the Keen article. I’ve found two potential Dan Keens and nothing connects together. I hope that you can find something to substantiate both his ownership of these companies and his existence. Perhaps the community working together can do this. The cited article is literally about fake personas, and signs point to Keen being one of them. If biographies of imaginary people are a thing on Wikipedia now, yay for that. Nate’s contention that there are “three solid sources” for the article is also very telling. Note that I didn’t even bother to correct the blatant factual disconnects between the article and the cites, but submitted AFD instead. You want me to correct the errors instead? Because then the accusations would really fly. What is Adigao’s agenda here? That is the question. Dougieb (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the community working together can do this. this isn't what AFD is for. See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:OR. Currently sources do not suggest he is a fake persona, so using that possibility as a reason to delete the article is misleading, at best. Sources say that according to multiple sources Keen is the founder and owner of the company. That a company founded on secrecy and technically-legal obfuscation would be evasive about this is too boring to bother with. If you have reliable sources, propose them. Alternately, if you have a valid, policy-based reason the current sources are insufficient, explain that reason. If, instead, you think this is a WP:BLP issue, make that case directly, but don't just throw out a bunch of reasons in the hopes that one will stick, because that is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s only a WP:BLP issue if he’s real. If turns out he’s real then yeah the nazi thing would need to be cleaned up. Let’s say he is real… okay he buys this ___domain registrar that hosted nazi stuff, then he (new owner) gets rid of the nazi stuff, so is it still appropriate to tie him to the Nazi stuff? The company sure. Dougieb (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dougieb, if you think a WP:GREL source like Wired is disinformation, the place to raise that and make your case is WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it’s disinformation per se. I just think maybe they were duped into this Keen thing perhaps to distract from Havre. Dougieb (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLT very-Specifically does not apply here, Grayfell. It is a very heavy link to accuse a fellow editor, IMO, thank you for making me aware of it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We follow what the WP:RSes state. According to the Feb 8th Wired article, "[T]he founder and owner of Registered Agents...is a man named Dan Keen." The March 5th Wired article is a more in-depth investigation of Dan Keen and the company he founded, Registered Agents Inc., following the acquisition of Epik. It should be noted that WP:NLT is hard Wikipedia policy. Agreed with MrSchimpf that we need to get any COI issues here openly declared in accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID. - Amigao (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you don’t have ulterior motives and are being objective, I would think you would also want to include that in the same article, the company denied that “Keen” is an employee or owner. I suspect “Keen” may be one of the fake personas, but if so, why does the company lawyer say he was a “consultant in the acquisition?” There are a couple Dan Keens I found and I’m trying to find out more about them to see if they are “the” Dan Keen. The Wired article states, “ In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition.” So… which is it? And if we find this guy and even if he is an owner or employee, does this warrant his own article? Or should this be merged since his only notariety appears to be his connection to this company. Dougieb (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several reliable sources discuss Keen in sufficient depth, thus meeting WP:NBIO. Per the cited sources, including Epik's own press release, Keen's company isn't merely acting as a registered agent for Epik, it is providing registered agent services to Epik's customers. More sources and more context would, obviously, be welcome. There are potential WP:BLP issues here, but these would have to be addressed directly, not obliquely as a WP:CRYBLP attempt to censor the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the same exact source. All of these sources end up back at the same source. WP:CRYBLP doesn’t really apply (yet?) because someone first needs to establish that it is even an existing person much less living. The only “Dan Keen” i can find is a musician/producer and while its not impossible that it is actually him, I am unable to connect the dots so maybe someone else can succeed where I have failed. [MrSchimpf] “keenly” (LOL) above noted that there was a user [DunkinIdaho] who has been attempting to edit the page - and the underlying company does have a connection to Idaho, so that is interesting to me. As far as notability, this would be okay if we first could substantiate that the guy exists at all. Since the press release from the company says that he was a “consultant” in the acquisition, that’s the only thing I see that suggests that he does exist, but this company has been accused in the same article of using fake personas and fake names, so it is a dead end. I’m not saying to censor the article at all. Actually I should have suggested AFD-Merging it into the company article. Dougieb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses reliable sources to 'establish' that he exists. For us to try and do that ourselves would be original research. A press release is usable as a primary source, but we generally do not use press releases for contested information, and we do not attempt to interpret primary sources in this way, either, as that is also a form of original research.
If you have some reason to think this source is unreliable, you should explain that, because your personal inability to verify the source is not a valid reason. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can verify the source. The guy doesn’t seem to exist other than in a Wired article. It is just bizarre. Why isn’t there something else on this guy out there? Nobody is that far off the grid. I just suspect it is another fake name in this group of other fake names. I’d love to use another source… where is it?! In one group people discuss that apparently Keen can’t be served with legal service because no process server can find him or even verify that he exists. That’s original research (and hearsay), so I wouldn’t put it in an article. But what is up here? Nobody is that invisible. Dougieb (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Keen's existence is not the issue. As you've pointed out twice, a company attorney claimed did not deny his existence but merely stated that Keen acted as a "consultant." Given that Wikipedia follows what WP:RSes state as a matter of policy, do you have a WP:RS that contradicts the other reliable sources cited in the article? Amigao (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! Existence, neither here nor there. Learning more about CRYCRYBLP from Grayfell or following WP:RS seems very distractive to me as well, at least currently. If we were to AGF and assume both your wired articles to be a single, independent and reliable source (and it doesn't possibly need in-text attribution to "Ex-Employees" added to furnish it's info)... Where's other WP:SIGCOV so that it can overcome a potential WP:GNG issue here and be more clarifying? Dunkinidaho (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOFT DELETE/DRAFTIFY - The tldr to me is this:
1. This page is NOT enyclopedic in substance AND the author's motives seem...off.
2. This doesn't have a snowballs chance of surviving as a NPOV BLP unless this story develops and builds into something with more sources.
3. The only sources with the subject's name attached are two related stories, both from Wired. I don't think that meets notability standards for a BLP. These sources are non-independent of eachother.
4. If the editor's true intent was to provide information from a neutral point of view, and NOT low-key doxx the subject, this page would be about Registered Agents Inc and Keen would have a section within it. That way you would avoid any BLP drama, the information on this page lives there, and you can follow a chain of facts if you want to know more. But I don't think neutral or straight facts are the intent here.
Expanded reasoning:
The page was written by an established editor here who must know sourcing is thin and is trying to make up for weak sourcing with other articles that mention Registered Agents Inc, which is arguably the actual subject of both Wired articles, and that's certainly the case with everything else that's been used as a source on the Dan Keen page. That's why I suggested on the talk page of this article that the real subject is Registered Agents Inc, just like the actual owner of Epik is also Registered Agents Inc. That's fact and there's plenty of sourcing for ownership of that property (public business records and news articles) just like there's plenty of internal wikipedia sourcing for how to treat a company infobox, but @Grayfell and @Amigao only seem to like rules when those rules back their opinions.
I'm not saying Keen shouldn't be mentioned when talking about Registered Agents Inc. or Epik. But the desire to disregard the company and make a page for Keen when sourcing seems thin, and when asked why not make it a Registered Agents Inc page, their reaction was to tattoo my talk page with a COI tag? That just feels gross. Why not just talk to me first? Also, I’m fairly new here, but is there a non-nefarious reason you purposely Transcluded the UW-paid template onto my page instead of protocol? Your first branding was responded to, promptly, and now you've now done so twice.
For the record, no one is paying me to edit this. I have no vested interest in this company or person, and I very much dislike now being associated with whatever weird corporate shill/thing DougieB is that kicked this thing off (thanks @MrSchimpf. good luck on your deck-stacking attempt--for reference, please see edit history here (keep: as Per nate). that's just lame).
Anyway, I've said Keen's role is unclear in the company because in the Wired article, the company's formal response was to say that Keen isn't an employee or the owner and that Wired's facts were "patently false." On the other side of that is quotes from ex-employees of a business that uses aliases to do most things.
It's wild that that's the company that bought the Alt Right's ___domain registrar and then was on twitter calling the Alt Right "beta snowflakes" after kicking Kiwi Farms off their platform. Not only is that objectively funny, the whole thing sounds nuts (albeit not too nuts to warrant a mention of Epik’s termination in either article.)
I didn't even know the Alt Right had a ___domain registrar until a couple months ago, but back then if you’d asked me, I would've also thought the Wiki-editorial community had a much more academic agenda. Dunkinidaho (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know the Alt Right had a ___domain registrar until a couple months ago You were adding PR to the Epik page in June of 2023. Before that you had made only ten edits (enough to get autoconfirmed) and have made a grand total of 36 edits. Your willingness to lecture and insult more experienced editors about Wikipedia policy suggest that this isn't your first account. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "PR" I contributed to the Epik page in June of 2023 should look very familiar. It's the 5th source cited here on this page you're currently defending. You're absolutely right. My Expanded Reasoning did exhibit some "willingness" to stray from discussing this Articles' wiki merit...
As a newer editor (first account, unfortunately) I will be keeping my future responses limited to the substance of the Dan Keen page, as you did in your response to it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL… bro I got your “weird corporate shill/thing” right here. As was noted, I haven’t made an edit in probably ten years but was compelled here because this just doesn’t add up. The only Keen i can find anywhere is some musician and he doesn’t seem like a guy that owns and runs a couple giant companies. It just smelled of a hit piece, but is it a hit piece if the guy doesn’t actually exist? It would hold up a little better if the whole thing wasn’t about alleged fake personas and names. TBH I probably would have let the whole thing drop, but then I also got a COI from the article’s author which made me say hmm… If this guy exists and owns these two apparently large companies, there HAS to be something somewhere on him, right?Dougieb (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Epik article. Keen as a standalone page fails WP:GNG as there's nothing notable about Keen aside from Epik and Registered Agents, Inc. The Wired article mentions Keen 15 times, but sources everything to the accounts of anonymous ex-employees, such as: "Keen is described by former employees as a driven but eccentric businessman who is prone to micromanagement and sudden shifts in mood." and "Keen dresses modestly, former employees say, wearing shorts and flannel shirts, and is an avid skier and outdoorsman". What other WP:SIGCOV is there on Keen himself? BBQboffingrill me 17:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, the Feb 8th Wired article mentions him 8 times while the more in-depth March 5th Wired article mentions him 15 times. - Amigao (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also amenable to delete. BBQboffingrill me 06:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (or merge) to Epik article. There isn’t even sufficient information (to me anyway) to demonstrate conclusively that Keen exists. The Wired article is the only source and the article talks about how the company allegedly uses fake names and personas. Is this just another fake name? If he does exist, the article could be considered libelous as it alleges neo nazi ties which IF he did purchase Epik, it isn’t clear that they still do. Also, the way the article was written omitting that in the same article that the Companies denied that Keen is an employee or owner suggested to me that there was ulterior motive in its creation.Dougieb (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Epik. This person is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable secondary sources except where the sources are actually covering the company. Optionally also delete before redirecting, since having this article history isn't particularly helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per rationales below. Thank you each for your perspectives. JFHJr (㊟) 05:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This subject does not appear to meet minimum notability standards. The primary or only citations of note are the Wired articles, and those alone seem insufficient. Consider: if the subject was mentioned positively in only a couple of articles like this, would this person merit having biographical articles? There's a much better case for Wikipedia biography for Chris Xu, founder of Shein, for instance -- but, he has no bio article here, either. While notability can be established with relatively few sources, it's typically established with more substantive references than this. There's a lot of what appears to be complete tangents here in the Afd discussion as to the concerns that there has been some COI involved in the nomination for deletion, but all of that seems extraneous to the question of whether the article should exist at all. Again, if the degree of promotion of the person in those articles were the same, but the overall sentiment was positive, would they alone be sufficient to base bio notability upon? Not at all. Those articles established a factoid about possible ownership that appears notable enough to mention in the Epik article, but it's not enough to flesh out an article about Keen. (Simply adding facts about the Registered Agents company instead of specifics about him is also not sufficient to flesh out his article.) Also, I do not see why this name should be a redirect for the Epik article as this is not an alternate name for it, nor would it be likely for someone seeking Keen to desire to be presented with Epik.WmLawson (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Given that some editors are now arguing for a Redirect option, I'm relisting this discussion for a few more days, perhaps a full week. Since there is a challenge to the article sources as being insufficient, a formal source analysis would be helpful to whomever closes this discussion. And while it's unusual for an editor to return after a decade away to nominate an article for deletion, some of these Keep opinions look like they are in reaction to suspicions about the nominator, instead of focusing on the merits of the article. If another editor had made this nomination, would you still advocate Keeping it? No accusations, I'm just posing the question. Also, I don't really see a BLP issue with this article as all of the "neo-Nazi" allusions are directed to the company's policies, not the owner or any other individual so they are not being made against a "living person" but a business.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only sources in the article that reference Keen at all are the two Wired stories. While I would agree that these would count toward the bare minimum on GNG, other factors argue against his notability: (1) Per WP:NSUSTAINED, we would want to see Keen's notability sustained over a longer period of time, not just the past month or so since the Wired coverage began to reference him. (2) Keen's notability, such as it is, seems to be related to Registered Agents Inc's purchase of Epik, so WP:BLP1E applies. He is by all (aka two in a single magazine) accounts a low-profile person, not accused of any crime, and that also argues against notability. (3) The two reliable sources provided on Keen provide very little details on his life and career, resulting in a non-encyclopedic stub-length piece that focuses mostly on his businesses. If those are notable, cover those, but the volume of coverage of Epik and Registered Agents Inc in this BLP makes it a WP:COATRACK. For these reasons, until there are more details on Keen reported by more reliable sources over a sustained period of time, this BLP should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the newly-created Registered Agents Inc., where there is heavy overlap. I note that the page creator is the same. The existing Dan Keen page is primarily about the business rather than the person, and so the content is best included on a page focussing on the business. There are already links there to Epik. Klbrain (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that in the new Registered Agents Inc. page, it seems to focus again on Epik. Arguably, there is more about Epik in the first paragraph of the RAI page than there is about RAI. Again, it just smells to me like a hit piece and Keen being the owner still seems like only an allegation at this point. Maybe suspected over… disputed owner? Alleged owner? (Since the company denies it). Dougieb (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of his contributions of all time is changing all mentions of the official Communist Party of China/CPC, to the ethnicized misnomer, "Chinese Communist Party"/CCP. He uses his "twinkle" status to quickly revert all mentions of CPC back to the red scare-y version. Truly a loyal American Imperial Party Anti China patriot. Han75 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think there is reasonable doubt against a redirect to Registered Agents Inc. but as a ATD I would swing that way over allowing this article to remain. This article is more about the companies than the intended subject. It falls short of even being an attempt at a biography but a is actually a resume which is Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not. According to the Wired source it is not clear who owns the companies. Since "Wired" is touted as a reliable source then there is doubt about the owner. Anonymity is not a good reason to create a BLP. It might fly for a long time or until some action initiates the piercing the corporate veil such as violating tax laws like failure to report "beneficial owner reports". A legal agent may protect an Undisclosed Principal until such time as the agent may be held responsible for actions of the principle. Two unnamed people identify the subject as owner. Nothing actually reliable there. A lawyer claims the subject is not the owner of either company. I think Wikipedia should bank more on the Wired source that there is an email from a lawyer that the subject does not own either company. The founder and owner of Registered Agents, according to two people familiar with the company, is a man named Dan Keen. In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition. While Registered Agents Inc. might be confirmed as the owner of Epik LLC through a press release there is doubt about the subjects ownership. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Registered Agents Inc.: The only SIGCOV of Keen seems to be in the two Wired articles, which is not enough to meet GNG. However, Keen is a valid search term for RAI. From skimming both the RAI and Epik articles and their sources, Keen seems to be linked more to RAI than to Epik, although search results for (1) "Dan Keen" and "Registered Agents Inc." and (2) "Dan Keen" and "Epik" turned up very few results. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also note that I'm not sure that RAI is notable. It only seems to have received SIGCOV in articles that are part of a series by a collaboration of reporters, which doesn't qualify as multiple sources for GNG purposes: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this article should remain given the current sourcing, so I would accept a redirect to Registered Agents for purposes of building consensus/closing. However my preference is delete. Dan Keen is mentioned only in the two Wired articles. In the "Far Right's Favorite Web Host" article, the entire reference to him is 1. His name and position (according to two former employees) 2. A denial that he is an employee or owner, but rather a "consultant" 3. A description as being "intensely private" with no website 4. Previously running a lawn care business. In my opinion, this is not SIGCOV, although it does meet the other requirements to count towards notability. The other Wired article is SIGCOV, with about a dozen paragraphs devoted to Keen's background and activities. No other source even mentions Keen. Given the state of the sourcing here, the subject is not notable and additionally there is a real chance of getting biographical information wrong, so delete is the better option. All of the sources discuss Registered Agents Inc. I am not certain that we have CORPDEPTH for them, so I am a bit reluctant to keep the redirect, but it a better option than keeping an article with this sourcing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would redirect and REVDEL satisfy your concern RE the state of sourcing/getting biographical information wrong? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim

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

Failed WP:NPOL, even WP:BASIC. No in-depth articles, she presents her point of view on national media every day. But this does not prove notability. Only one article is better from India Today. Rest of the news is also non reliable. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article. WP:NPOL isn't the only criteria, I have already told you on another article. She handily passes WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. The criteria needs multiple reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of any source with in-depth coverage, the criteria also accepts combination of multiple sources with limited but not insignificant coverage.
In here, there is presence of multiple sources with decent in-depth coverage so even the supplementary point isn't needed. The main WP:GNG requirement itself is met. I had added four of them. Indian Express, The Wire, The Print and News Click.
But someone had changed the article completely and turned it into a resume kind of page. That someone had removed all these references and replaced it with an article in
India Today which was written by her and some other things like TedX and "enewsroom.com" but I have fixed it now. MrMkG (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That someone is User:Cikisshpedia who made an account just to do this, I don't know why. MrMkG (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has a good writing. It covered the cause of her notability for being "involved in social work and activism through 2014 to 2018, and eventually came to the limelight during the CAA-NRC protests". It just need a little bit of cleaning i guess. Hi Bree! (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE)[reply]
  • Strong Delete part of an big sockpuppet campaign, and clearly fails WP:NPOL.
Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus/per the request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an expert in NPOL or NEWSORGINDIA but there does seem to be decent coverage of this person in RS. However, these are all from spring 2022 and WP:N requires sustained coverage. Perhaps @MrMkG could find coverage from other time periods? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay Sure. Most of her coverage is in Bengali media and newspapers. Some recent ones are these. Sangbad Pratidin, News18 Bangla. MrMkG (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Additional input regarding the sources presented herein would be beneficial toward establishing a solid, guideline- and policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.
    Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.
    It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 consensus here, relative to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for deletion, is for deletion at this time. North America1000 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samarth Kulkarni

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

Non-notable CEO of a notable company. All of the sources cited are about the company, apart from this paywalled article in Stat about him winning a "best biopharma CEO" award reader poll. He has appeared on television news to discuss the company and biotech more generally, but those are primary sources, and I couldn't find solid, significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources to show that he's notable independent from the company. Wikishovel (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Wikishovel,
I sent a note on my Talk page but perhaps it's more relevant here. My vote is to keep Kulkarni, and I disagree that he's a non-notable CEO due to the sheer amount of media mentions he has--paywalled and non-paywalled, in affiliation with his tenure at CRISPR. I think he warrants a Wikipedia page alongside other biopharma CEOs of far less newsworthy companies, particularly since he's heading, as you mentioned, a notable company. Would it help if I added/provided different or additional secondary sources? I can have a look around and see what else is available on record. Nathan Evo (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes please: if you can find reliable sources with substantial coverage of him, rather than about the company, then please do add them. Wikishovel (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article appears to have been expanded since the last delete !vote was posted, although based on arguments made here the balance still favors deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in response to the recent posts endorsing the WP:REFBOMBing, here's a source analysis:
Source assessment table prepared by User:Wikishovel
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
  Press release or paid placement   Press release   Press release, no byline, includes marketing phone numbers at bottom ✘ No
  Press release or paid placement   News blog with no byline, obvious COI as it talks about his "proud parents"   user-submitted, not journalism ✘ No
  Press release or paid placement   Biotech news blog, no byline   Press release, no byline, includes line about "our vision" at end ✘ No
  His bio on his company's website   Company bio   All companies publish bios of their senior mgt ✘ No
  Well established magazine   Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website   His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article ✘ No
  Well established magazine   Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website   His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article ✘ No
  Well established magazine   Byline given, editorial oversight clearly outlined on website   His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article ✘ No
  Sister title of "Fierce Biotech" above, independence unclear   Byline given in this one, but reliability is unclear   His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article ✘ No
  blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company   blog, click-bait   One entry in a list on an SEO blog of the "top healthcare CEOs of 2020", with no explanation of inclusion criteria ✘ No
  blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company   a post by grad student on a biopharma blog of unknown reliability   One entry on a blog post about the "Asian Americans shaping the future of biopharma", with no explanation of inclusion criteria ✘ No
  His bio on his company's website   Company bio   Copypaste of his CRISPR Therapeutics company bio above ✘ No
  His bio on his company's website   Company bio   All companies publish bios of their senior mgt ✘ No
  Board list on company website   Company bios   His name isn't mentioned on the page ✘ No
  Some sort of company listings website, might be independent   no editorial oversight or even contact info listed, might be reliable   directory listing simply confirms that he's head of a company ✘ No
  membership listing page of an industry association   seems reliable from its "about" page etc   His name isn't mentioned in the list ✘ No
  clickbait news blog attempting to pass as a newspaper   probably user-generated content as it's mostly a paste of his company bio (and photo) above, otherwise it's paid placement   the American India Foundation is notable, but this post simply says he and another exec are being "honored at a gala", so the notability of the recognition is unclear ✘ No
  newspaper   has byline, editorial oversight ~ Some actual reportage here, but it's paywalled, and appears to be about him winning the newspaper's reader poll ~ Partial
  national TV network   national TV network   interview: primary source ✘ No
  national TV network   national TV network   interview: primary source ✘ No
  national newspaper   national newspaper   interview: primary source ✘ No
  independent foundation with notable backers   interview by notable foundation   interview: primary source ✘ No
  The Hill is an established newspaper with well defined editorial oversight   interview during event sponsored by newspaper   interview: primary source ✘ No
  Forbes is an independent national newspaper...   ...but per WP:FORBES they also publish "contributed content", and it's unclear whether this is Forbes' own content or "contributed".   In either case, this is still an interview, therefore a primary source ✘ No
  Future Investment Initiative Institute is a government-sponsored group   interview during event sponsored by group   interview: primary source ✘ No
  Financial Times is a national newspaper   interview during event sponsored by group   interview: primary source ✘ No
  National TV network   news website of the TV network   trivial coverage of his contribution in a highlights summary of a panel discussion ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimaobi C Mbataku

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

Non-notable businessperson who fails WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Suspected UPE and COI going on here. There's no source that could establish GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 due to lack of participation. This close is with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination should any editor wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Yıldız

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

Fails WP:GNG, I don't want to mention WP:NPOL here at all because it does not apply. Just being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, especially if they do not pass WP:GNG independently. BEFORE returns nothing to establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Numerous secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage exist to demonstrate notability. Some are cited in the article. Most are in Turkish but that is not an impediment to their use to demonstrate notability nor to their use on English Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I know that that is not the case here, there's no source here to establish GNG, this is not a matter of whether the language of the sources is Turkish or not, sources can be translated if they're not in English. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions in connection to statements they made, but these have nothing to do with the subject, but statements made in relation to their job. BLPs require strong sourcing and an individual does not inherit notability from the position they hold.  // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Paranoia (role-playing game). Owen× ☎ 13:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gelber (game designer)

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

An article about a non notable game designer. Lacks SIGCOV and no verifiability whatsoever. If he has created a notable game, he should have appeared on reviews ad multiple news source. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass notability requirements- the only sources I'm seeing online mention his name in passing, as a game creator, but are not written about him. Editing84 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is unfortunate, as Gelber's fame predates the Internet. I found Lawsuit info where he is named once only, ditto in this article by Allen Varney. I suspect sources which cover this individual to be substantially offline. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then provide them. There is barely offline sources for a notable American whose work dates in 1980's till date. If we're talking about Africa or otherwise, it will be a total case of WP:System bias. Not much work or sources for his works, and the ones listed in the article is lacking verifiable sources to show he was the real creator as wikipedia's policy mandates. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had them, I would. I think there are people who have complete collections of The Space Gamer; I am not one of them. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Paranoia as the designer's apparently most relevant contribution. About the nomination, the opposite of no verifiability whatsoever seems to be the case here, as everything in the article referenced and therefore verified! Likewise, Dan Gelber does appear in reviews in multiple sources. So far I did not see more than his contributions acknowledged there, so nothing beyond what we have here, which so far is still a stub, so I understand the concern about SIGCOV. On the other hand, not all the sourced information the authors of our article here collected is present at Paranoia, so this should be preserved in a merge rather than deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. In such a case it is somewhat unfortunate to link to one of two major contributions, but well... If anyone has can find more sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. Daranios (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to merge here. The reason for redirecting is because it has been confirmed by one verifiable source of creating a "video game" with colleagues. It's the best option to "just" redirect. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: I disagree. The first three sentences of the Dan Gelber (game designer)#Career section are referenced to a secondary source - I would say the secondary source for the topic of designing role-playing games - and they elucidate what the respective roles of Dan Gelber and the other designers were for the creation of Paranoia. That information is not yet present at the target, and fits there in either the Publication history or an Origins section. ("video game" is nowhere mentioned in the article, I assume you meant "role-playing game"?) Daranios (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: In case you are concerned that those sentences are verified by only one source (I am not quite sure what you meant there), this is also substantiated by Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we meant the same redirecting. No problem! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just need consensus to be reached on whether to merge or delete. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Not enough IRS, notability issues Less Unless (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Khare

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

I have tried to bring the article back to a neutral form according to wikipedia policies. But in a less friendly way, the article is back to a negative form (which is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. According to WP:BLP1E we should avoid keeping the article (because most sources describe the company the same and the topic is notable for an event). A range of sources can be classified under WP:DEPS, And some of the sources don't even mention the information, which raises a lot of questions at WP:NPOV. Ciudatul (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Ciudatul (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Delhi, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we don't delete articles merely because they reflect badly on the subject. We reject them if the bad reflections cannot be justified by sourcing. Looking at the article's history, I see a slow-motion edit-war between Ciudatul and other editors, mostly relating to whether the sources are reliable, (Ciudatul removing references that they consider unreliable, others restoring). Questions of reliability of sourcing should go to WP:RSN. If you feel that the situation is unfair to a living individual, take it to WP:BLPN. AfD is not the correct place to settle this. Incidentally, it's not going to end well for the subject anyway, because even were this article deleted, it would almost certainly become a redirect to Appin where exactly the same dirty laundry will be aired in public view. Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment, but I didn't propose the article for deletion just because it reflects negatively on the subject. I can go back to the version proposed by the editors who created the article, which in my opinion is a disaster (from the history I have analysed that it was not even checked by a special rights editor). The article can be classified safely with WP:BLP1E. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't honestly see how else we can handle this. The problem is that (1) Appin has been going on for a long time (the bad press started in 2010 and the story continues to this day), while Khare is very closely linked with it; and (2) so far as I can make out, every time legal action succeeds in suppressing one article, it generates five more articles about the legal action and the suppression; this is a Hydra, where the legal action will never cut off all the heads. Point (1) makes it hard to argue for BLP1E, while point (2) ensures there will always be sources taking a negative viewpoint. We're here to reflect sources in an unbiased manner. Neutral doesn't mean "neither positive nor negative", it means representative of the sources, so if he becomes famous for being associated with potential suppression of news organisations, it's going to be hard to have an article that doesn't reflect badly on him. Elemimele (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article deletion is judged on notability, not neutrality, and there are countless WP:RS that attest to the notability of Khare and the Appin saga. You could argue that Khare is primarily notable for Appin, but the company has since rebranded and various parts have been spun off; if anything, I'd argue that Khare himself is more notable than the companies he has founded, so if they're going to the merged it should be the other way around. Jpatokal (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the notability, if you do an analysis then you can see that any priority source mentions company, so he is only notable based on the company that is under WP:BLP1E. Regarding neutrality I just added that there is no neutrality in the article. Which sums up that the article should be deleted or redirected to the company article. As far as I saw, it was you yourself who redirected the article to the company in the past. Ciudatul (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is enough information available in the company article. There is no point in creating a separate article.--Bexaendos (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jpatokal has adequate coverage from reliable sources meets WP:GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one even questions that some sources come from notable newspapers. The problem is that most sources describe the company, and Rajat is notable only on the basis of the company according to WP:BLP1E. So what you say is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary duplication, all information can be found in the company article. GalianoP3 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't see much coverage for this person outside of the company, seems to be only notable in that context. I think what we have for the company is sufficient, this is largely pulling minimal facts from those articles to try and build notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather good rundown, but I'm not sure we could build a neutral article about the individual [28], archived here [29]. We'd have to build an article about the hacking/lawsuit, but that's not this... The person here is a part of the story. I doubt they meet criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no standalone notability outside the company which already has its own article. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. It looks like much of the objection to the existence of the page has to do with its name. A better title can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrul Pitri Jusoh

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

Reviewed during NPP. This article is about a triple murder rather than about the person who did them. Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some more opinions, especially on the quality of sources which can determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 23:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima A. Rowshan

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

WP:N Ladsgroupoverleg 20:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per fairly strong consensus with respect to WP:NMUSIC. It does not matter what the genre is; in fact, many new genres have been deleted since 2007. In order to argue for exceptions, you have to show examples. I've done thousands of AfDs, including hundreds of musical ones, and I'm unaware of any genre-based exception. If the consensus has changed, then we need dozens of folks to chime in. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Naji

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

BLP does not seem to have held any office position. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG. My WP:BEFORE search didn't bring much, which could be because of the language. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: She's the co-president of a major Belgian political party. The person who put this article up for deletion seems to be completely ignorant on Belgian politics and should refrain from putting up articles for deletion in the future on Belgian topics.

Sources:

https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/nadia-naji-covoorzitter-van-groen-het-vlaams-belang-spuwt-op-mensen-zoals-ik-waarom-zou-ik-tom-van-grieken-dan-een-hand-geven~b9d1cf65/

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/covoorzitter-groen-nadia-naji-over-premie-elektrische-wagens-geef-je-dat-geld-aan-heel-select-clubje-vlamingen-om-tesla-mee-te-kopen-of-aan-openbaar-vervoer-voor-iedereen~aab1ef67/

https://www.brusselstimes.com/897661/fight-against-the-far-right-must-be-mission-of-all-democrats-say-belgian-greens

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/11/04/ontbijtgesprek-nadia-naji-groen-michael-van-droogenbroeck/

https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/nadia-naji-groen-waar-zijn-de-socialisten-in-het-asieldebat/

178.51.7.219 (talk)

Comment: Being the co-president of a major Belgian political party will obviously attract a lot of media attention, but all the sources you have shared are just interviews from routine coverage. Interviews are not independent. Notability is not inherited, so being the co-president of Groen (political party) carries no weight here. If she is as important as you claim, then there should be a lot of reliable and published third-party sources available. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's even more sources (all major Belgian media, reliable, third party) outside of the five sources I already offered:

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/interview-nadia-naji-30-vlaams-blok-woog-op-mijn-jeugd-ik-kan-vbers-geen-hand-geven-zolang-zij-geen-respect-voor-mij-tonen~af213995/
https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240414_96614061
https://www.brusselstimes.com/221713/flemish-greens-set-to-revive-the-party-with-new-leadership
https://www.dezondag.be/actua/nadia01102023/
https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/naji-van-den-brandt-en-van-der-straeten-trekken-groene-lijst-in-brussel/
https://bx1.be/categories/news/nadia-naji-groen-sur-les-liens-avec-ecolo-entre-francophones-et-neerlandophones-on-peut-travailler-ensemble/
https://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20231202_93310380
178.51.7.219 (talk) 178.51.7.219 (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Instead of sharing what you find on Google or in local searches, I would request you to analyze it yourself.
Being a co-president of Groen does not make her notable. Since she hasn't been elected to any office positions yet, NPOL does not apply. The Belgian news media, like any other news media in the world, are supposed to interview her or get a quote each time she makes a public appearance and these fall under routine coverage. The sources you have shared and subject at its current state does not pass the basic criteria. And the article cannot be merged as it does not pass any of the additional criteria as well. It should either be deleted, redirected to Groen or draftified. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the basic criteria:
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
She clearly passes this, with your only objection being that a lot of coverage consists of interviews (instead of profile features?), but this is simply how Belgian media often times tends to work with regards to politicians.
Furthermore [WP:BIO] clearly states:
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
I'd argue a bit [WP:IAR] applies as well here. Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians.
The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. 178.51.7.219 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP, Jeraxmoira is saying she doesn't pass that, because these are interviews, and interviews are not independent of the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to what asilvering mentioned, multiple independent sources are required to pass WP:BIO, but we only have interviews here. You know she isn't notable when you are relying on WP:IAR as your last resort.
  • Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians. - Notability is not inherited. You need to get a proposal passed in order to argue for automatic notability here.
  • The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. - Case of WP:NOTJUSTYET and WP:FUTURE.
Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is a consensus to Delete this article. If an editor would like to work on it in Draft space and submit it to AFC for review, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. But it will need to be approved by AFC and not just moved back to main space. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kwaku Mills

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

Article a non-notable film actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV, he has only played minor roles in movies/series, some of which don't even credit him. The author seems very desperate to get this article up despite being declined in Draftspace and also placed an AFC template showing the article was approved when infact it was never approved. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is clearly a notable cast addition to a notable TV series. I have now added multiple reliable, independent sources that show he is one of the main characters. He appears in 'first look' imagery for the show, and as part of a group of 3 other actors announced as joining the series (who all have wikipedia entires) clearly suggesting his role as significant and noteworthy to the series.
I have added further sources that reference the stage plays mentioned. From a quick online search I can see he has clearly been in further stage productions, there are multiple reviews in reputable papers. I included these in a previous Draftspace article but was told by you that it seemed promotional, so I removed them.
I have removed mentions of his minor roles or any that don't credit him.
I must apologise for placing an AFC template on my previous draftspace article. I am new to all this and obviously still learning. I thought a move to mainspace was an action I was allowed to take. Once informed otherwise I removed it from mainspace.
I decided to delete my previous draft, and be bold and try to publish my first mainspace article. I would ask that you remember Wikipedia's guideline 'not to bite the newcomers'. Your claim that i seem 'very desperate' seems rather personal, and discouraging to a new editor. JodieGarcelle (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it be appropriate to draftify this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search shows only trivia, passing mentions, press releases, etc., than deep coverage from Independent sources. -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A search clearly shows subject is included in the headline of several articles as a new addition to a notable television series (‘Variety’ article for example - which is clearly a reputable, independent source). Subject’s photograph and shot of him from the series appear in many of the articles. I fail to see why subject would be included with prominence in such articles if not clearly a notable addition to the television series.
    A search also shows a wide range of reviews of his stage work at notable theatres, in reputable newspapers and arts blogs. JodieGarcelle (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and not notable.
    Bradelykooper (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Star Mississippi 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Vinheteiro

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

This article about Vinheteiro fails to meet WP:NMUSIC.

Details about Vinheteiro in the article are not cited in accordance with source, which makes it seem to have reach the requirement of WP:NMUSIC e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro participated in Brazilian programs such as Jornal Nacional (seems to meet criteria 12), while the source 'Jornal Nacional' was about his video of playing of JN's theme song went viral. e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro performed in China with local musicians (seems to meet criteria 4), yet the source was about his videos' popularity on Chinese online video platform, Bilibili, where he launched online music courses.

If the article is considered as Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability rather than WP:NMUSIC, I doubt its sources are significant enough to meet WP:GNG. --EleniXDD※Talk 07:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. i cannot access the second source provided above, but the first source appears to be an interview and does not contribute to notability. ltbdl (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this source is extremely reliable, one of the top 2 national news outlet in Brazil, with a reach to more than 200 million people. Meets by a long margin criterion 12 of WP:NMUSIC. Contributor892z (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Closing this as Delete on the basis of arguments that a person of their position does not meet WP:NPOL. If our policy expands the definition of what NPOL covers, this closure can be revisited. Thanks also to editors who thoughtfully comment on AFD discussions that have gone through 3 relistings...your participation is what we hope for when we decide to relist discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusra Alhabsyi

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

No indication of importance person. All the sources not a reliable sources.. Stvbastian (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can you clarify why you think the sources in the article are not reliable? They seem reliable from a glance; whether they provide WP:SIGCOV or not is another matter. Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm admittedly not an expert in Indonesian politics, but he appears to hold a seat in an Indonesian provincial legislature, and thus would pass WP:NPOL #1 right on its face. I'm willing to reconsider if I'm wrong about what the North Sulawesi Regional People's Representative Council is, but provincial legislators are important topics for us to have articles about — so the article can be tagged for {{refimprove}} if you feel strongly that the sourcing isn't adequate, but there's no such thing as a non-notable provincial legislator. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indonesia is a unitary state (not federal) so typically membership of a subnational legislature would not meet NPOL#1, unless this is a Spain-like situation where the provinces have tremendous autonomy. I am also not well-versed in Indonesian politics so do not know if this is the case. Curbon7 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Curbon7 and Bearcat.. For sources, in Indonesia, we have some well-known newspaper that usually used in Wikipedia article such as: Antara, Kompas, Detik, and Jakarta Post (has been proven to be verified by the editor before publication). Sources in that article not a well-known source. Source #1 is a primary source. And why i said "no indication of importance person" because the main article of the Provinicial Parliament page is a redlink --> North Sulawesi Regional People's Representative Council, and this person did not make a big impact in the provincial politics, has not provided any achievements in other fields, so it does not receive enough attention from reliable media.'Thank u Stvbastian (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not satisfy WP:NPOL, Indonesia's provincial representative bodies are akin to municipal councils (administrative powers, rather than legislative), with the exception of Aceh (there's a possible case for the West Papuan ones, but that is much weaker IMHO). I do not see any sourcing satisfying the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, previous AfD discussions, where members of subnational bodies without legislative powers have not been accorded presumed notability under WP:NPOL: France, Netherlands, Japan (further details at WP:NSUBPOL and this 2019 discussion). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

People proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People&oldid=1218036037"