Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Deletion sorting|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch

People

edit

Patrick Casale

edit
Patrick Casale (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)

completely non-notable "therapist" - 0 independent reliable sources covering them either academically or in any other fashion. also complete and total nonsense promo. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting the content for a more objective and encyclopedic approach, and to properly illustrate it's significance as public information. Archiealibasa (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The person is a notable activist and advocate for neurodivergence sensitivity, affirmation and acceptance in the community. This is illustrated by his invitation to give a TedX talk to discuss his experience living a neurodivergent/autistic/adhd/audhd individual. Archiealibasa (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the 1.) lack of notability, 2.) lack of sourcing to support notability elsewhere and 3.) your inability to appropriate disclose your affiliation to the subjects you've written about, so instead we're forced into this bureaucratic nonsense. Also TedX talks are worthless for notability. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you call Wikipedia's fair process as "bureaucratic nonsense" then you're not fit to review and place judgment on other people's output. Find another job. Archiealibasa (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is well known in the neurodivergent and mental health community. Most of us don't know him, specially the reviewers here, but he is well-known, appreciated and a champion of neurodivergent inclusion and acceptance in their fast-growing community. Archiealibasa (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being well known but with no sourcing to show it doesn't help the situation. If he's in a fast-growing community, that seems to indicate that the person isn't yet notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
      Just a generic blurb submitted by the subject/their PR team if they have one, it's nothing more than a promotional place holder ✘ No
      as established in many prior deletion discussions, Voyage____ is basically an interview publishing that is only pay for publishing (I can link proof, again, if needed) ✘ No
      interview, from an unreliable, unknown "profit first" (lol) publication on a medical professional? ✘ No
  podcast   it's reliable for things like "my favorite color is blue"   obviously ✘ No
  his own website   reliable in that it exists and he exists   ✘ No
  same as 5, except it's a third party, or maybe second party?     ✘ No
another paid for placement in an unknown, unreliable publication     ✘ No
  probably not, this is just a medium-esque blog   see above   ✘ No
  just a listing for his services     ✘ No
  see 1     ✘ No
  podcast featuring the subject     not coverage ✘ No
  another interview     ✘ No
  probably not independent but in any case, it's not significant or relevant   just a random blog   ✘ No
  absolutely not independent, it's a podcast featuring him and it's not even a notable podcast   someone talking about themselves is not reliable for anything other than basic information like their favorite color   ✘ No
  just an apple podcast link     ✘ No
  not even about him, but it's an interview with someone else     ✘ No
  see 15     ✘ No
  see 15,17 and everything else     ✘ No
  see WP:TEDX     ✘ No
  another link to a self promo website     ✘ No
      i don't need to explain this anymore, let the giant "Enjoy 6 Days & 5 Nights on the Beautiful island of Crete, Greece. Chania is breathtaking. It's Time To Put Yourself First" pop up add do it for you ✘ No
Error: a source must be specified ? Unknown
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}}.

COOLIDICAE🕶 20:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Kasim

edit
AfDs for this article:
Didi Kasim (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 first AfD ended with no consensus. One "weak keep" argument was that the subject's name appears in 2 Google Scholar results, but in both cases he is only listed as an interviewee, not as the author. There is no SIGCOV or independent coverage of the subject, and Google search only turns up his social media accounts. As a journalist, he does not meet any of the four criteria at WP:JOURNALIST, and in my view the subject also fails WP:GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avinaash V. Rai

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

No significant independent coverage to justify a standalone article. - The9Man Talk 10:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrine Almeida

edit
Corrine Almeida (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 the Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics and the sources fail the general notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Kudashova

edit
Daria Kudashova (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)

Disputed PROD by the article creator quoting Tennis Project guidelines which do not supercede GNG. This tennis player has a best singles rankings of 362 and doubles of 833. She has never played a Grand Slam, WTA Tour or Billie Jean King Cup match. All the sources provided are routine database stuff as is the sparse amount I can find about her through a before search. In summation this article fails GNG and SIGCOV. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Sheppard

edit
Clark Sheppard (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)

Promotional, and there are some self-published sources. Could not find anything about them online. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. Dahlan

edit
A. B. Dahlan (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 GNG and WP:ENT, but was blocked by a likely banned user editing from an IP address Ckfasdf (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Ortega (Superyacht Captain)

edit
Hugo Ortega (Superyacht Captain) (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: absolute not notable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) - this is an mid season entrant on a minor reality tv show. I presume this article was created either by them or their agent. Dimspace (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Near (programmer)

edit
Near (programmer) (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:BIO1E. All coverage of near is in the context of their tragic death, besides this single piece from Vice [1], which is good, and two not-sigcov pieces (references 8 and 9) about them selling a bunch of video games in 2012. 1 piece + one flurry of news coverage about one thing does not equal a passage of GNG. That is not enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think I see the issue here and it's that the "one-event" rule and general notability are their own exercises. There is no need to illustrate that, but for the sourcing during the one event, the remaining sources have to establish their own standalone general notability. General notability is construed from the sourcing as a whole, which can be seen to have significant coverage, including from the Vice article'. It's also overlooked that coverage about the death also includes some coverage of Near's contributions to the emulation scene. So this is quite a way away from the policy intent of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E which is meant to curb non-notable articles for someone who is only known for, or involved in a single thing, at a single point in time. I understand the basis of the nomination because the non-death sourcing could be much better, but it isn't in an unsalvageable state for notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but potentially rename - I personally think the Vice coverage is sufficient to focus the article on the person rather than the event, but discussing a potential rename (Suicide of Near, potentially, per WP:DEATHS) on the article's talk page wouldn't be unreasonable. Suriname0 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul S. Victor

edit
Paul S. Victor (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:NMUSIC and unreferenced. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Beale

edit
Jonathan Beale (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)

Notability tag up for over 3 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw93d59 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Masood

edit
AfDs for this article:
Tariq Masood (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 article has already been deleted twice, once in 2023 and again in 2024. Looking at the current version, it reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a résumé written in a promotional tone. As for the references, the majority come from WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which are largely routine coverage. The subject seems to appear in the news from time to time mainly due to controversies, which again amounts to routine coverage. I don’t think the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR in any way. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep (as the creator of this article) – I respectfully disagree with the deletion nomination. The subject meets WP:GNG because there is clear evidence of significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources across different regions and languages. In Pakistan, outlets such as Dawn have covered Tariq Masood’s role in national debates including his participation in anti-extremism seminars and opposition to domestic legislation, while The Express Tribune reported on his participation in major religious conferences. In India, mainstream newspapers including The Print, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times and Rajasthan Patrika have all reported on him, particularly in the context of blasphemy debates, public threats, and controversies. In Bangladesh, media such as Somoy News, Kaler Kantho, Dhaka Today, Dhaka Post, and Naya Diganta gave extensive coverage to his 2025 tour, including addresses at leading universities and mass gatherings, with multiple outlets analysing the reasons for his popularity among youth. In addition, his presence is documented in academic work: a 2024 German-language study on antisemitism in social media lists him among Pakistani clerics whose Urdu sermons contained hostile rhetoric towards Jews and Zionism,[1] while a 2023 peer-reviewed chapter on Islamic preaching analyses his use of social media as part of wider trends in South Asian religious discourse.[2]

The range of sourcing—spanning Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Germany—demonstrates coverage that is neither routine nor trivial, but substantial and sustained over time. It includes reporting on his educational background, international preaching, controversies, and his role in social debates. This satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, since coverage exists in both news media and academic literature. The article draft may have contained promotional tone, but this is a matter for neutral copy-editing and trimming under WP:NPOV, not a reason for deletion. Given the breadth and independence of sources, the subject clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards and the article should therefore be kept. Khaatir (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Hübscher, Monika; Mering, Sabine von (2024-06-17). Antisemitismus in den Sozialen Medien [Antisemitism in Social Media] (in German). Verlag Barbara Budrich. p. 168. ISBN 978-3-8474-1950-1.
  2. ^ Sajjad, Mohammad Waqas (2023-12-18), Akca, Ayşe Almıla; Feise-Nasr, Mona; Stenske, Leonie; Süer, Aydın (eds.), "Mufti Tariq Masood and the Performance of Religious Speech: Social Media and Religious Discourses in Pakistan", Practices of Islamic Preaching: Text, Performativity, and Materiality of Islamic Religious Speech, De Gruyter, pp. 237–256, doi:10.1515/9783110788334-012, ISBN 978-3-11-078833-4, retrieved 2025-08-18
  • Keep (as the page creator) – Subject is covered in multiple independent reliable sources, including Dawn, The Express Tribune, ThePrint (India), De Gruyter (academic), and JSTOR. The article has been rewritten in a neutral tone with strong citations addressing past concerns. Khaatir (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – The current version has been substantially revised: promotional tone trimmed, unreliable/WP:NEWSORGINDIA-type citations removed, and replaced with stronger sourcing. It now cites mainstream outlets like Dawn, The Express Tribune, ThePrint, ABP and Navbharat Times, along with peer-reviewed academic studies (JSTOR 2022, De Gruyter 2023, Univ. of Chitral 2024, German monograph 2024). These provide independent, significant coverage across Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Europe. Thus, the article now addresses past AfD concerns on sourcing and neutrality, and demonstrates notability per WP:GNG. Khaatir (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural note: Some comments misstate the deletion history. The article has indeed been deleted several times in the past, but not always through AfD. It was speedily deleted under A7 and G12, and once via PROD, in 2020 and again in 2024. Those are not AfD outcomes. There has only been one prior AfD, in October 2023, which closed as delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Masood). The present discussion is therefore the second AfD nomination, not “round three.” Khaatir (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have looked at the references in the article, and I agree with the nominator that most of them are from WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article has also been deleted multiple times in the past due to notability concerns. Beyond that, there is nothing in-depth about the subject. I don’t think the subject passes even WP:BASIC. Some of the sources used in the article, such as Times Now, Bol News, Somoy News, and Express News, are completely non-reliable. Their inclusion in the article only serves to mislead other editors or waste their time. One more point to other editors and closing admins: the editor who posted the keep comment above is the article’s original creator. Baqi:) (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Fails WP:GNG. The sources are not clearly independent per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. WP:SALT because this is now round three at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable individual, he got some media coverage for his viral clips on social media, and a blasphemy controversy. But most of this coverage is WP:NEWSORGINDIA and not WP:SIGCOV. Subject is evidently not passing the criteria mentioned in Wp:GNG. Also SALT is applicable as per the fellow editor, 4meter4. Zuck28 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEWSORGINDIA and BLPSOURCES. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Adnan

edit
Asif Adnan (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)

Per WP:RELPEOPLE, subject does not appear to be notable. Coverage currently available is almost entirely limited to allegations of militancy/extremism, based on law enforcement press briefings. Such coverage alone does not seem sufficient to demonstrate significant, independent, and reliable sourcing required as per WP:GNG. —MdsShakil (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This runs afoul of WP:CRIME; not meeting any of the criteria for perpetrators. There's nothing here to suggest notability beyond alleged criminal allegations of terrorist activity, and that is insufficient for notability based on our guidelines for criminal perpetrators.4meter4 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suvendu Ghosh

edit
Suvendu Ghosh (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)

Poor to unreliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antony John Baptist

edit
Antony John Baptist (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 to meet Wp:GNG and Wp:ANYBIO. No secondary coverage. Zuck28 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – With respect, I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements under several established guidelines:
  • Under WP:GNG, there is significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources. This is more than routine or passing mentions.
  • According to WP:AUTHOR, authors are presumed notable if their works have received multiple independent reviews. Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives and Unsung Melodies from Margins have indeed been reviewed in reliable publications, which supports this standard.
  • WP:ANYBIO also provides that individuals with significant coverage in independent sources merit a standalone article. As both a priest and published author with reviewed works, Antony John Baptist fits within this scope.
  • The sources demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, offering in-depth treatment rather than trivial mentions.

In light of these points, I suggest that the best course is to improve the article with the available references rather than delete it. The subject clearly meets the threshold set by Wikipedia’s own guidelines, and keeping the page would align with policy.

— Alephjamie (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide the " multiple independent reviews" and "significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources." Zuck28 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: As I have long done for such a WP:BLP, I won't consider new sources until they are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian M. Duguid

edit
Ian M. Duguid (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)

Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS, fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. The references are minimal and non-independent. Such content violates WP:NOTPROMO, turning Wikipedia into a free promotional tool for academics. Also, the article's title is misspelt, I don't understand whether deliberately or by mistake. Zuck28 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his first book is notable [5] [6], haven't checked the rest. Article is not promotional imo PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Baglioni

edit
Emilio Baglioni (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 article reads more like a promotional biography than an encyclopedic entry. Much of the content is unsourced, or sourced to highly unreliable or self-published material (e.g. personal websites, YouTube uploads from the subject, a dead local blog). There is little evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that would establish notability under WP:BIO. The inclusion of unsourced claims about childhood experiences, family lineage, and personal relationships further contributes to the article’s promotional tone. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enayatollah Poostchi

edit
Enayatollah Poostchi (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)

Bio of a philanthropist about whom little is known. Sources are mainly about his endowed institution, not him. No in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby confirm the contextual legibility of the references cited. The article appears to be in compliance with Wikipedia’s notability policy, deletion policy, speedy deletion criteria, and conflict of interest guidelines, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. I foresee the relevance of this information, particularly for second-generation and later members of the Persian-descended community in the United States, as well as for non-Persian-speaking Persian communities worldwide. Therefore, in the absence of a stronger case for deletion, the article may, for all practical purposes, remain. May peace be upon you all. Thank you.

PS: just for clarification the sources include the independent investigation of the highest official journalistic authorities of the state and one hardcore opposition one; which further promotes the principle of neutrality. and these are in in addition to the scientific notability criteria the original author posted.

ArmanMirzaei (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalya Kumar

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG criteria, as it lacks adequate coverage by multiple reliable sources. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Harold Disley

edit
Herbert Harold Disley (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 (General Notability Guideline). Subject appears notable primarily as the father of Olympic athlete John Disley. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Role as quarry manager, while locally important, does not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. See also WP:NOTINHERITED - notability is not inherited from notable relatives. Keironoshea (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the claim to notability is his role in the Welsh slate industry. There are two secondary published sources, independent of the subject, in which he receives substantial coverage: Quine, Dan (December 2022). The Hendre Ddu Tramway: Blue Stones and Green Trees. Lightmoor Press. ISBN 9781915069153. and Knowles, Jon (2023). Aberllefenni Slate Quarry. Hen Dy Gwydyr., so this passes WP:GNG. Grachester (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the book, I agree. He was more than just a standard Quarry manager. Keironoshea (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N. S. Raju

edit
N. S. Raju (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)

Not notable, not in coverage, a big article stands on only two sources, looks like unsourced article. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Hinn

edit
AfDs for this article:
Michelle Hinn (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)

Minimal notability demonstrated. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC. The sourcing here is not great. The Next-gen.biz. piece was clearly a republication of PR bio, likely written by the subject, as the author of the piece actually works as a PR promoter. The second source was written by the subject. And the third piece is the newsletter of the IGDA from the time Hinn had a leadership role there, making it not independent. There are zero sources here qualifying her for notability. She doesn't any of the SNG criteria either.4meter4 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the article is unsourced. Excelse (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A case of how notability has changed since the Keep in 2006 here. "Recognition" isn't enough now. IgelRM (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Gehlen

edit
Dennis Gehlen (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)

Little established notability. Sources are of dubious reliability; only source close to passing GNG is a Daily Dot article. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchalapathi Dasa

edit
Chanchalapathi Dasa (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)

There are too many press releases, interviews and primary sources including biography profiles and foundation websites. I am unable to find any independent sources and the National Award for Child Welfare 2017 was awarded to his organization, not to him. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spirituality, and Karnataka. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I request help from contributors here to improve the page further. The subject has clear coverage in reliable, independent sources such as The Times of India, The Indian Express / PTI, Deccan Herald, The Print, NDTV, Mint and The Statesman. These are national Tier-1 outlets providing more than trivial mentions, which meets [[WP:GNG]].
    The article has already been cleaned up with inline citations and reliable references. Instead of deletion, I request editors’ support in expanding and improving the article with the sources provided. Radha Krishna 108 (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC) sock strike Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete: Agreeing with the nominator, can't find any reliable source to establish the Notability of the subject. Taabii (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep — The subject meets WP:GNG based on multiple independent, reliable sources (national newspapers/major outlets) that provide significant coverage over several years, including interviews and features that discuss his role and views (not just trivial mentions).
    Significant independent coverage (Tier-1 / major media)
    • The Times of India — Feature/Interview on Vrindavan Chandrodaya Mandir plans and the subject’s role/vision (Nov 21, 2014).
    • The Indian Express (PTI interview) — Detailed interview quotes on India’s “zero hunger before 2047” and Akshaya Patra’s work (Apr 15, 2024). The New Indian Express
    • Deccan Herald (PTI) — National-desk report quoting the subject in an interview about hunger and social programmes (Apr 15, 2024). Deccan Herald
    • The Print (PTI) — National outlet carrying extended interview remarks on timelines to eliminate hunger (Apr 15, 2024). ThePrint
    • NDTV — Televised feature segment “Walk The Talk with founders of Akshaya Patra” including substantive discussion with the subject (video; a long-form profile format) (2017; page refreshed 2024). www.ndtv.com
    • The Economic Times — Multiple articles quoting the subject on programme scale, strategy, kitchens and policy context (2015, 2019, 2024), demonstrating sustained national business press coverage. The Economic Times+2The Economic Times+2
    • The Statesman — Full interview on pandemic-era relief efforts (Jun 30, 2020). The Statesman
    • Mint (HT Media) — National business daily quoting the subject about relief scale during COVID-19 (May 20, 2020). mint
    These are independent of the subject and his organizations, with significant, non-trivial coverage (interviews/features, not mere directory listings), spanning 2014–2024 across multiple reputable outlets. Taken together, they demonstrate general notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
    Contextual/ancillary coverage (still independent, supports long-term significance)
    • Additional Deccan Herald coverage mentioning the subject in leadership contexts and public events (2011–2022), showing long-term public role. Deccan Herald+2Deccan Herald+2
    Primary/self-published (use sparingly on the article, not for notability)
    ----
    There is ample independent, reliable, and sustained coverage of Sri Chanchalapathi Dasa in national media (TOI, Indian Express/PTI, Deccan Herald/PTI, The Print/PTI, NDTV, Economic Times, Mint, Statesman). This satisfies WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Nmudesk (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked for socking. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agreeing with the nominator, no reliable source to establish the notability of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivelens (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked for socking. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4cf (singer)

edit
4cf (singer) (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)

Not passed in WP:BANDMEMBER and WP:SINGER. There is no significant coverage about him. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kantrowitz

edit
Alex Kantrowitz (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 all notability requirements. Sources in the article are primary and WP:BEFORE doesn't indicate notability Ednabrenze (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Jason Parker (security researcher) (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)

Bringing this back to AfD after a previous no consensus decision as it was referenced on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Welsh. There remains no significant coverage of the subject of the article. Notability is not inherited and discovering vulnerabilities, even if notable, does not make the discoverer notable. Brandon (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, "I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage in my opinion" was what I said before and I still stand by it. -- Sohom (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and redirect to 2023-2024 Jason Parker cybersecurity vulnerabilities. That appears to be the topic that has significant coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, the subject is not necessarily notable as an independent cybersecurity researcher, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to note for the record that the article on Dan Kaminsky demonstrates precedent where a security researcher is considered notable specifically for a discovery in his case, the 2008 DNS cache poisoning vulnerability. The article itself highlights this under ‘Known for Discovering the 2008 DNS cache poisoning vulnerability’ This suggests that discoveries, when accompanied by significant independent coverage, can satisfy WP:GNG. AxiomGaming (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pogačar

edit
Pogačar (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 listing of this disambiguation page due to a WP:WRONGFORUM issue. The nominator User:Orangesclub believes this page should be deleted and redirected to Tadej Pogačar as the primary topic. To quote the statement of the nominator: "He has 1000x the page views as the golfer [24] and over 90% of clicks on Pogačar are to him [25]" ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Welsh

edit
Blake Welsh (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 lacks significant coverage by the sources in the article. Their name has been mentioned reasonably frequently in connection with discovering vulnerabilities, however not a single article spends any time discussing the subject aside from crediting them with the discovery. Brandon (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nothing if not consistent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Parker (security researcher) (2nd nomination). Brandon (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brandon has stated "I'm nothing if not consistent" (here) and previously "Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Parker_(security_researcher)
). In the second nomination for that article, he also argued: "discovering vulnerabilities, even if notable, does not make the discoverer notable" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Parker_(security_researcher)_(2nd_nomination).
The reasoning in this discussion seems different from those earlier AfDs on similar subjects, raising concerns about consistency in applying WP:SIGCOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#significant_coverage. Per WP:NPOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, each case should be judged neutrally on the basis of independent sources and coverage, not on an editor's changing stance across discussions. AxiomGaming (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is significant coverage, not merely being mentioned in passing by a reliable source. Brandon (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_Coldwater, coverage of my work is significant - multiple reliable sources directly reported on vulnerabilities I discovered, not merely in passing. Several of these disclosures were substantial, involving adversaries potentially gaining access to the personal information of entire customer bases at companies such as MetroPCS, Verizon, and Charter. AxiomGaming (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD debates do not set precedent and no consensus outcomes with 2 participants are especially unpersuasive. Coverage of your work is not the threshold, there needs to be significant coverage of you. Your name and place of residence does not constitute a Wikipedia article. Brandon (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage means more than a passing mention, but does not require that the subject be the sole focus of an article. In this case, multiple independent, reliable outlets (Vice, TechCrunch, Gizmodo, The Register, BuzzFeed, etc.) provided detailed reporting on vulnerabilities that directly attributed their discovery to the subject. This meets the standard for significant coverage under WP:BIO. AxiomGaming (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BLP article subject lacks WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS to WP:V claims beyond the discovery. Don't think this person counts for WP:BLP1E. Discovery used in a WP:UNDUE fashion with regards to notability. Nayyn (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage means more than a passing mention, but does not require the subject to be the sole focus of an article. In this case, multiple independent and reliable outlets directly attributed discoveries to me:
    The Register: "Cinder researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh say the vulnerabilities were simple to exploit up until a patch was dropped."
    https://www.theregister.com/2015/11/16/metropcs_patches_hole_that_opened_10_million_user_creds_to_plunder/
    Vice: "Security researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh, who both work at secure payments firm Cinder, found the bug in mid-October."
    https://www.vice.com/en/article/nasty-bug-in-metropcs-website-left-personal-data-of-subscribers-open-to-hacker/
    TechCrunch: "Welsh is a student at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland. They have previously discovered basic but dangerous vulnerabilities at PayPal."
    https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/30/vulnerability-in-security-service-lifelock-could-have-exposed-logins-and-passwords/
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160318225931/https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/security-tools/wall-of-fame-honorable-mention
    Yahoo News: "Cinder researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh say the vulnerabilities were simple to exploit…"
    https://tech.yahoo.com/general/article/2015-11-15-metropcs-site-exposed-subscriber-data.html
    Fierce Wireless: "Report: MetroPCS customers' personal information had been vulnerable due to website security."
    https://www.fierce-network.com/wireless/report-metropcs-customers-personal-information-had-been-vulnerable-due-to-website-security
    in addition to coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
    The AT&T Bug Bounty Hall of Fame (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20181228020539/https://bugbounty.att.com/hof.php#archive
    ) explicitly lists Blake Welsh under the research group "Cinder." This confirms both individual recognition and organizational affiliation.
    These are not trivial mentions they provide direct quotes, organizational context (Cinder), and secondary verification (e.g., TechCrunch on PayPal). This shows repeated, substantive coverage across multiple outlets, which meets the standard for significant coverage under WP:BIO. AxiomGaming (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: In my earlier comment I mistakenly presented the Yahoo News wording as a direct quote. To clarify, the article paraphrases that "Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh" found the vulnerabilities. AxiomGaming (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To add on, WP:GNG is ultimately the core standard for biographical notability. It requires only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources-not that the subject be the exclusive focus. Here, the combination of TechCrunch, The Register, Vice, Yahoo News, Fierce Wireless, Vice, fastcompany, BuzzFeed and industry recognition (AT&T Bug Bounty Hall of Fame, PayPal Wall of Fame) clearly demonstrates repeated, non-trivial coverage.
    In two separate AfDs regarding another cybersecurity researcher (Jason Parker), editor Sohom emphasized: "I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage in my opinion (imo)." This was stated more than once, reinforcing that such sourcing is sufficient for WP:GNG in this field.
    That same reasoning applies here. Multiple independent, reliable outlets have provided in-depth reporting, explicit attribution, and contextual detail. Other cybersecurity biographies with weaker or equivalent sourcing have been considered to meet WP:GNG, and applying the same standard consistently, this article does as well.
    Furthermore, WP:V appears to be covered, as the cited articles contain verifiable facts and attribution. In addition to multiple independent news outlets, industry organizations themselves (AT&T Bug Bounty Hall of Fame, PayPal Wall of Fame) have validated and listed me by name on their official websites. This provides independent verification alongside the press coverage, ensuring compliance with the verifiability requirement.
    Additionally:
    Per WP:RS, the outlets cited here TechCrunch, The Register, Vice, Yahoo News, and Buzzfeed, and Softpedia, PayPal and AT&T are all widely recognized as independent, mainstream, and reliable sources that regularly cover technology and cybersecurity. These publications have longstanding editorial oversight, are frequently cited across Wikipedia, and are routinely relied upon in existing articles about technology companies and cybersecurity professionals.
    • The fact that each of these outlets & companies themselves have Wikipedia entries further supports that the community has already evaluated them as notable, persistent, and generally reliable sources of news. If the community thought they were fundamentally unreliable, they likely wouldn’t be cited so widely, nor have standalone articles explaining their editorial roles and histories.
    If coverage in these outlets were discounted, it would set an unusually high bar inconsistent with Wikipedia practice, since many comparable biographies of professionals in this field rely on the very same sources to establish notability. The use of these publications is therefore in line with WP:RS and with how Wikipedia has consistently treated reliable technology journalism & companies.
    Given that these sources provided not just passing mentions but detailed coverage explicitly accrediting vulnerabilities and offering organizational/biographical detail, they meet both WP:RS and WP:GNG standards. AxiomGaming (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Walker (music broadcaster)

edit
Sarah Walker (music broadcaster) (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)

Notability not established despite a notability tag having been put in place three months ago. Jw93d59 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Kumar Singh

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, with a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sunny Kumar Singh is a senior IAS officer, currently serving as District Magistrate of New Delhi, a very important administrative post in India’s capital. He has also served as Delhi’s Excise Commissioner during a period of high public and political scrutiny. His receipt of the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Public Administration (2023) and the Arunachal Pradesh State Gold Medal (2022) further demonstrates national recognition of his work. Coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources such as The Hindu, New Indian Express, and Times of India provides the required significant discussion required under the General Notability Guidelines. This combination of high-profile roles, national awards, and sufficient press coverage makes him clearly notable as a public official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yennavo (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of those sources discusses Singh in any depth? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I checked the sources for the awards, and they weren't awarded to him personally but to the district of Changlang. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Public Administration is technically given in the name of a district, it is awarded at the same time to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner, who is in charge of the administration. This is why the Government of India records it on the officer’s official record sheet, rather than just at the district level. The Arunachal Pradesh State Gold Medal works similarly, acknowledging both the district administration and the officer leading it. Therefore, the awards go to Mr. Singh as the head of the district administration. Multiple reliable sources have reported this information. I can provide government references and archived copies of the award citations, if needed, to explain the nature of the conferment. Archivelens (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Wikipedia user @Yennavo’s view that Mr. Singh’s role as District Magistrate of New Delhi is important due to the administrative and political weight of this position. His time as Excise Commissioner occurred during a time of intense public attention and received coverage from several national media outlets.
    As mentioned earlier, the awards are formally given to the district, but they are also logged in the officer’s service profile by the Government of India. This shows that they acknowledge the officer’s leadership as well as the district’s administration.
    These key roles, national and state level awards, and ongoing coverage in trustworthy independent sources meet the criteria under WP:GNG for significant coverage and under WP:NPOL for public officials. Archivelens (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ask you the same question as I asked Yennavo: which of the sources provides substantial coverage about Singh (as opposed to just mentioning him or quoting him)? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question. The following sources provide substantial coverage of Singh.
    [Source 1] : full length article discussing Singh’s career, contributions, and background.
    [Source 2]: specifies multiple features focusing on his work and impact.
    Other sources such as [3] [4] [5] [6] mention him and are included for additional context. Archivelens (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're both pretty promotional and I doubt they'd qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for raising this. From what I can see, the Times of India piece and the Hindu article both go beyond just a passing mention. They include biographical details and career milestones that count as real coverage rather than just quotes. The Hindu article in particular gives more local context to his work. I’ve also added a couple of other sources that expand on his role. It would be great if other editors could also take a look and share their thoughts, so we can make sure the article is built on solid references. Archivelens (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Delhi. jolielover♥talk 09:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've just realised that this article was likely written by ChatGPT (see the tracking code at the end of the URL in reference 7 here). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only one good source, which isn’t enough for WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In India, hundreds of people become IAS officers, and after that a few news reports are published about them, which is routine coverage by media organizations. This does not establish notability of the subject. In the present article as well, the sources are nothing more than routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Multiple independent reliable sources, including The Hindu and Times of India, provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions. Archivelens (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)— Archivelens (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
    Archivelens, please link the Times of India source here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times of India article does mention him, but only briefly as part of a larger bureaucratic reshuffle. This isn’t unusual though, indian media rarely goes deep into the actual work of IAS officers and tends to focus more on the drama and noise around politicians instead. While that single reference alone may not be strong enough to establish notability, it does show that he was significant enough to be included in coverage by one of India’s leading national newspapers. When this is read alongside more detailed reporting, such as in The Hindu and other sources that highlight his responsibilities and role, the subject’s importance becomes much clearer. The TOI piece works best as a supporting citation that adds weight to the overall picture of his prominence. Archivelens (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see only one line - "Jha has been replaced by 2018-batch IAS officer Sunny Kumar." This is not WP:SIGCOV, so stop wasting everyone’s time. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: The Individual is posted as District Magistrate of National Capital (New Delhi) - Where all major establishments - The President's enclave, PM Residence, Parliament, Supreme Court are present. People outside of India might not consider this notable, however, the post holds enormous significance - much greater than entire wikipedia organisation - I believe. Yashvardhan7776 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC) — Yashvardhan7776 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: This is clearly not a case of a minor figure. The person holds a senior position of authority that directly affects public life, and that alone makes the role notable. On top of that, there is already coverage in respected national publications. These aren’t just brief mentions but full articles that discuss responsibilities and decisions. Given the combination of reliable sourcing and the importance of the position, it’s clear this subject deserves to stay. Leaden Ghoul (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — Leaden Ghoul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Leaden Ghoul (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Archivelens (talk · contribs). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Debabrata Sen

edit
Debabrata Sen (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 I can find are fabricated sources from a WP:BEFORE search. The five sources in the article are unavailable with no wayback archives. Fails WP:GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetabena, please link those articles here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are some sources I could find. I don't really like this page and I'm not sure I want it here, nonetheless:
1. https://www.outlookindia.com/healthcare-spotlight/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-leader-revolutionizing-ayurveda-with-generational-wisdom-and-modern-innovation
2. https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/health-news/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-blending-ayurveda-with-modern-science-for-a-healthier-india/ar-AA1K5HUw
3. https://www.republicbiz.com/initiatives/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-blending-ayurveda-with-modern-science-for-a-healthier-india
4. https://www.indiablooms.com/health/parampara-ayurveda-founder-dr-debabrata-sen-shares-wellness-strategies-for-desk-bound-professionals/details
Kvinnen (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above sources are either sponsored or unbylined, as disclosed in the sources themselves. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with unbylined sources? I understand why sponsored sources might raise problems. Thanks! Kvinnen (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unbylined sources usually aren’t that reliable since a lot of them turn out to be press releases or sponsored pieces. You don’t really know who wrote them or if they even went through proper editorial checks. With bylined articles, at least you can look up the author’s past work and get a sense of their credibility. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Response – While I agree that sponsored content is not independent and should be discounted, not all unbylined articles are automatically unreliable. Major Indian outlets like Outlook and MSN India frequently run unbylined staff pieces, especially in their health or features sections, and these still go through editorial review. Per WP:RS, reliability depends on the reputation of the publication, not whether an individual journalist’s name is attached.
That said, I agree we should prioritize clearly independent coverage. The Hindu and Times of India pieces cited are standard news reporting (not sponsored), and they provide exactly the kind of significant coverage required under WP:GNG. Even one or two such articles, combined with his awards and professional recognition, are usually sufficient for notability.
In short: let’s remove or de-emphasize any PR-like sources, but the existence of mainstream coverage in The Hindu and TOI still supports keeping this article.Sweetabena (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the AI crap and link those articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweetabena and @Kvinnen:, Unbylined sources (or even "bylined" sources) that are obvious promotion are unreliable and should not be take seriously. For example this sort of wording is indicative of undisclosed sponsored content, native advertising, PR promo and WP:ADMASQ: "His life’s work is a shining example... of "his extraordinary contributions", credited for creating "new paradigms" with no back up by reliable medical sources, BTW; or ..."His brainchild, (is his) brand"..."Beyond clinical excellence...", is an obvious marketing strategy, "through his pioneering work"...the man is a "beacon of selfless service"......etc. this is straight up, transparent public relations firm marketing copy, it is not news, nor journalism. Sources like this should not be used, and they do not confirm notability. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Number 2 is just a link to number 3. Jahaza (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui

edit
Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui (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 did a simple Google search on this person and only found a few fan-promoted websites. The article cites nine references: sources 1 and 7 are unreliable, user-generated fandom sites; 8 and 9 are death notices about someone else, with no direct relevance; and 5 and 6 are not references at all. The only primary source (Ahmad Noori) is used twice, but it is also unverifiable. No secondary sources are present to demonstrate the significance of this person as a religious figure per Wikipedia guidelines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Delete.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 08:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable secondary sources, including scholarly Islamic websites and books, document his influence as a qari, preacher, and founder of Madrasa Anwar-ul-Islam. His authored works, like Samajiyaat, further establish notability under WP:AUTHOR.
Sources 1 and 7 are not user-generated but reputable Islamic platforms; 8 and 9 are mischaracterized, as they provide context on his Barelvi contributions. Siddiqui’s cultural and religious impact in Sufism meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Zuck28 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28: Do you have any idea what secondary sources are? If you do, please share at least one. The number 1 source is https://www.thesunniway.com and number 7 is https://alahazrat.net . How did you reach the conclusion that these are reputable historical websites? What is their editorial methodology? Their very names suggest that they are fandom-style blogs run by specific groups. According to WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERGENERATED, such fansites are generally not acceptable as sources. The only unverifiable primary source is (Ahmad Noori). According to WP:PSTS, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So, in that case, we have no secondary scholarly sources to verify the topic's notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

edit
Tanzeem Ul Firdous (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)

Despite being tagged for notability and COI since 2022, the current version of this article still provides no justification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. The references are primarily user-generated or self-published promotional websites. There is not a single reliable secondary or academic source demonstrating why the subject is notable as a researcher, professor, or author. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Deletion preferred.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State of Bengal

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

no significant coverage in independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artist seems to be notable enough in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability. Worldbruce's comment on the artist being in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is also a strong argument. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deeder Zaman

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

no significant coverage in independent reliable source. Sources used are closely associated and some are trivial mentions. Rht bd (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Khayyam

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

no significant coverage in independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naila Nayem

edit
AfDs for this article:
Naila Nayem (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 notable works to be mentioned in significant independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Higgins

edit
Ben Higgins (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)

Doubtful that finishing as second runner-up in The Bachelorette (American TV series) season 11 and then becoming the main character of The Bachelor (American TV series) season 20 would suffice. Indeed, WP:BIOSPECIAL and WP:NBASIC still apply, regardless of WP:NACTOR... or WP:ANYBIO. Even reappearing in and then becoming eliminated from The Bachelor Winter Games may still not suffice. Per WP:BIO1E if not WP:BLP1E, should be redirected to The Bachelor (American TV series) season 20 since he was the main character there. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. this figure is not well known enough. 99.29.87.216 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chipokota Mwanawasa

edit
AfDs for this article:
Chipokota Mwanawasa (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 was previously nominated for deletion in 2021. During that discussion, an editor noted:

"Apart from being daughter to Zambian third President, I don’t see any sign of notability per WP:GNG to warrant a standalone article." — Megan B...., 24 November 2021, AfD discussion

Since that nomination, there has been no substantial new independent coverage of the subject. The majority of available sources remain self-published, blogs, or minor mentions, and WP:GNG concerns remain unresolved.

For full context and discussion from the 2021 nomination, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipokota Mwanawasa. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Geidel

edit
Gary Geidel (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 firefighter who was killed during the collapse of the World Trade Center in 2001. Fails WP:NBIO. I was unable to find any sources that significantly coveraged the individual. Redirecting to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G) is also an option. Alvaldi (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Heywood (entrepreneur)

edit
Benjamin Heywood (entrepreneur) (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)

Lacking sufficient coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO - The9Man Talk 10:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little more detail in personal life includign citations that may help with that PaulWicks (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Ellis

edit
Grant Ellis (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)

Probably fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:SPORTSBASIC. Not just that, even after appearing in The Bachelorette (American TV series) season 21 and then becoming the main character of The Bachelor (American TV series) season 29, still fails WP:BIOSPECIAL and WP:NBASIC. If he fails NBASIC and SPORTSBASIC, then he also fails WP:GNG. Thus, per WP:BIO1E if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, should be redirected to The Bachelor (American TV series) season 29. George Ho (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2025 (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. Aguirre, Priscilla (2024-03-27). "ABC casts 3 men from Texas for new season of 'The Bachelorette'". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2025-01-26. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

      The article notes: "Grant Ellis is a 30-year-old day trader from Houston. ABC called Ellis a "catch" as his smile lights up every room he walks into and is followed by his positive attitude. ABC said Ellis is a "mama's boy who loves poetry and reading, and says he's here to find the love of his life." He's a former pro basketball player who's passionate about his new career as a day trader. ... Fun facts: He plans to visit every country in his lifetime. He is an avid salsa dancer. He wishes he could live in the year 3000 to see what technology is like."

    2. Shey, Brittanie (2024-06-05). "Meet the Texans searching for love on 'The Bachelorette'". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

      The article notes: "Grant Ellis is also from Houston, where he works as a day trader. Another self-described mama's boy, the 30-year-old former pro basketball player loves poetry and reading, salsa dancing and the Lakers. Ellis has big plans for the future: one of his goals is to travel to every country, and he says he'd like to live to the year 3000 just to see what technology is like."

    3. Wallace, Amanda (2024-07-09). "NJ natives Jenn Tran and Grant Ellis are looking for love on 'The Bachelorette'". North Jersey Media Group. Archived from the original on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

      The article notes: "Ellis was born in Newark and graduated from Hudson Catholic Regional High School in Jersey City. He was the first Division 1 signee from his high school and went on to play basketball at Iona University in New York. He ended up transferring, graduating from Alberta Magnus College in Connecticut and going on to play professional basketball overseas until an injury ended his career. Ellis, 30, lives in Houston and works as a day trader. ... Outside of work, he enjoys watching the Lakers, bowling and singing at karaoke. He is also an avid salsa dancer. He plans to visit every country in his lifetime and wishes he could live to see what technology is like in the year 3000."

    4. Braxton, Greg (2024-08-12). "'The Bachelor' casts Grant Ellis as its next star, the second Black lead in show's history". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

      The article notes: "Grant Ellis’ romantic journey on the current season of “The Bachelorette” did not have a happy ending. But instead of nursing a broken heart, he’s getting a fresh start and a breakthrough role as the next star of “The Bachelor.” The self-proclaimed mama’s boy and former pro basketball player who now works as a day trader will become only the second Black lead of the series, which launched in 2002. The news followed Monday’s episode of “The Bachelorette,” after Ellis was eliminated from the group of suitors courting star Jenn Tran."

    5. Robinson, KiMi (2024-08-12). "Who is Grant Ellis? What to know about the next 'Bachelor' from Jenn Tran's season". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

      The article notes: "Grant Ellis, a 30-year-old day trader living in Houston, was announced as the Season 29 "Bachelor" lead following his elimination during the rose ceremony on Monday's episode of "The Bachelorette." Grant will be the second Black man to lead "The Bachelor" since the show first premiered in 2002. ... In his introductory package, Grant said he's from New Jersey and has played basketball since he was 8. After playing for Iona University and Albertus Magnus College, he took his talents overseas. However, an unspecified injury ended his career."

    6. Iannella, Lilli (2025-01-10). "Former Connecticut college basketball player to star on the upcoming season of 'The Bachelor'". CT Insider. Archived from the original on 2025-06-30. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

      The article notes: "Ellis is a former basketball player, his bio states, and his experience includes playing as a guard at Albertus Magnus College in New Haven. Ellis played basketball at Iona University and Southern University before he transferred to Albertus Magnus in spring 2016, according to his player bio on Albertus Magnus College. During his 2016-17 basketball season, Ellis was named one of the best players in Albertus Magnus' conference, the Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC), according to his player bio from Albertus Magnus College. Mitch Oliver, who has been the head men's basketball coach at Albertus Magnus College for almost 30 years, coached Ellis during his time playing at the college."

    7. Hooks, Kalan (2025-03-24). "How basketball shaped Grant Ellis -- and led him to 'The Bachelor'". ESPN. Archived from the original on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

      The article notes: "Basketball paid for Ellis' education and carried him through an extensive career that included playing for top high school programs, Division I in college and professionally overseas. But his singular focus on the game didn't come without sacrifice. ... Ellis grew up in Newark, New Jersey, where he discovered his love for basketball. His father, Robert Ellis, introduced him to the game at 8 years old. ... Ellis spent two seasons at Iona, earning a trip to the 2013 NCAA tournament, where the then-15 seed Gaels fell to the No. 2 seed Ohio State Buckeyes in the second round of the West Regional."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Ghanem

edit
George Ghanem (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)

Community consensus has shown that ambassadors are not inherently notable and do not get a free pass to notability. Searching in google news ["George Ghanem" lebanon] yields nothing. Source 1 is not SIGCOV. Source 2 is primary. Source 3 doesn't appear to cover this person. source 4 appears to be about Qatari ambassador. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3 appears to be mis-linked. Have you actually gained access to source 4, or are you just assuming it does not have SIGCOV? Ike Lek (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access on source 4? I am going on the article title. Open to it being possible SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access yet. I'm not claiming it is SIGCOV, just asking a clarifying question before I go through to trouble of trying to get access. Ike Lek (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editor1769 22:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ghassan El Khatib

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

As community consensus has shown, ambassadors are not inherently notable. The first source is a directory listing, the other 2 are dead. The 2 google news hits are small mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians and judges Ambassadors are neither politicians nor judges as such. Some are, many are not.
who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office Ambassadorship is not a political office.
or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Of course, they have not done ethis either.
This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. They are not elected to offices.
Major local political figures They are not local political figures.
who have received significant press coverage. Some have, many have not.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ludo Campbell-Reid

edit
Ludo Campbell-Reid (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)

There seems enough questioning of his notability here, vs. BIO puffery, to at least justify opening the discussion through AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"sheer wankery of the details"
Oh, antipodeans, we poms do love you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hoffman (technology executive)

edit
Gene Hoffman (technology executive) (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)

Pure promotional puff piece, likely generated by AI. The only good source here is an interview, which does not contribute to notability. Unfortunately, we have no room for any more brochures. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dietmar Kuttelwascher

edit
Dietmar Kuttelwascher (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:Athlete LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shusmita Anis

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

No significant coverage in reliable independent source. Rht bd (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srabonti Narmeen Ali

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

No significant coverage in reliable independent source. Rht bd (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairooj Maliha

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

No significant work other than being champion of a reality show. Got coverage for only one event. WP:1E. Rht bd (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sompura Brahmin

edit
Sompura Brahmin (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)

Not notable, unsourced, stands on single source which is unreliable. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's an extant delete !vote from a user in good standing, so can't be speedy kept at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madval

edit
Madval (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)

Not notable, not in coverage, stands on unreliable single source. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guru (community)

edit
Guru (community) (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)

Not notable, stands on unreliable sources, Fails GNG, First source does not about Guru community. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's an extant delete !vote from a user in good standing, so can't be speedy kept at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaSheena Weekly

edit
LaSheena Weekly (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 mother of FBG Duck and FBG Brick who died in shootings. Unexpectedly she spoke out against gun violence after that. The article claims however that she "has become a prominent voice calling for peace in Chicago and has organized community initiatives". This article is one that is used but as far as I can tell, Octavia Mitchell is the organizer of the group, not her. I would not be opposed to a redirect to her son's page as an AFD. Moritoriko (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] 

* Keep, The nomination is based on a misunderstanding of notability and a detailed look at the sources. The subject has received years of significant, sustained, and in-depth coverage from a wide variety of reliable, independent news outlets, making this one of the clearer examples of WP:GNG being met from 2020 to present. This article goes  past any concerns of being a temporary story (WP:NOTNEWS) or a person notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E). The evidence shows a clear way from being the mother of a victim to becoming a notable public figure in her own right.

For years, LaSheena Weekly has been a central voice in Chicago's conversation about gun violence. This isn't just a single quote in one article; it is a consistent pattern of media seeking her out as a subject. 

* The Trace: Published an entire investigative feature centered on her story and her fight for accountability.
* Chicago Tribune: Has covered her extensively, from her initial pleas for peace to her involvement with the "Warrior Moms" activist group and their community events.

Her calls for peace were major stories on their own, covered by NBC Chicago and Fox 32 Chicago. Outlets like Revolt.tv, HotNewHipHop, and XXL Mag also report on her activism, such as her public request to meet with Lil Durk. This alone is sufficient for notability. She is the lead plaintiff in a massive, widely-publicized wrongful death lawsuit against some of the biggest names and corporations in the music industry. Covered by WBEZ (NPR), ABC7, and the Chicago Sun-Times. A major story in TMZ. And also reported by XXL Mag and multiple articles in HotNewHipHop. Reliable sources report on her personal life and choices, proving she is a newsworthy individual beyond her activism or the lawsuit. Her own actions generate headlines. XXL Mag reported on a domestic incident that resulted in her being struck by a car. This story is entirely about her personal life. HotNewHipHop covered her decision to start an OnlyFans account, treating it as a newsworthy event in the hip-hop world. 

She has generated her own headlines for calling out other artists, as documented by HotNewHipHop.
The widespread interest is further evidenced by long-form interviews on major platforms like VladTV and No Jumper.

She is a well-documented public advocate, the central figure in a major national lawsuit, and a personality whose own life is considered newsworthy. The notability criteria are met. MeVonFans (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Tribune, a few paragraphs dedicated to her, definitely significant coverage
The Trace, significant coverage
HNHH, about her
XXL Mag, about her
Revolt, about her
HNHH about her
And essentially all the sources linked by MeVonFans, except the VladTV playlist since that's an interview. These sources definitely show significant and sustained coverage, and that she has become a significant anti-gun violence advocate. Quick note: "FBG Mama" or other similar terms finds more results, which may be why a WP:BEFORE lacked on it. And if anyone thinks it may be a case of WP:INHERITED or WP:BLP1E, I disagree. She became notable following his death for her anti-gun violence awareness and advocacy, and has sustained coverage from 2020 until now. jolielover♥talk 15:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Important note: contentious topics procedure applies to the article. jolielover♥talk 16:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a large amount of this coverage is really coverage of FBG Duck and thus does not contribute to her own notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. This is further proved by all of the articles needing to define her and her actions in relation to FBG Duck. I will say that the second HNHH source about her onlyfans is temporally removed from Duck's death but it still refers to her as his mother, but regardless I don't think that is significant coverage!! Moritoriko (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Greenewald Jr.

edit
John Greenewald Jr. (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 is entirely duplicative of content present at The Black Vault and should be deleted under WP:BLP1E; they are known only for establishing and running the website The Black Vault.
There is no point in merging as there is no mergeable content; the only content present here that is not present at The Black Vault is the BLP's date of birth, which would not be preservable in a merge scenario. Chetsford (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Black Vault article was created by the nominator earlier this year. I don't see the point of a separate article for the Black Vault if all the material is already found at the biographic article. Greenewald has written three books and is the subject of extensive press. He appears to be the primary notable entity. Thriley (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the press is about The Black Vault and mentions Greenewald's name only in the context of being the owner. In point of evidence, none of the sources provide even the most rudimentary biographical information customary of a BLP: place of birth, education, family, professional occupation/vocation (he's said this is an unpaid side project), etc. We essentially have no information on Greenewalde other than he started this website. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just call him Mulder Jr. by Fred Shuster (1999)
Book Follows Feds' Eye on UFOs (2002)
Personally, I think it makes more sense to merge the Black Vault here as a sub-section, particularly since there isn't that much info there anyways beyond a paragraph or so. SilverserenC 17:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only non-The Black Vault information we have on Greenewalde is his (approximate) age and what high school he attended, that's going to be a long sub-section. Chetsford (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Shuster article I linked above has some good details and it mentions a Baltimore newspaper article that first brought him attention, so we might want to track that down. SilverserenC 18:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Shuster article I linked above has some good details " This is the non-TBV stuff I got from it:
  • He attended Alemanny High School
  • In 1999 he was thinking of attending Cal State Northridge
  • He has an unnamed sister
Not sure if I missed anything.
Chetsford (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I notice he chose as his X username blackvaultcom, even though his own name, minus Jr which exceeds 15 characters, is unregistered and available as I write this. But even jgreenewaldjr is available. This I think adds to the evidence that his website The Black Vault currently has greater notability and why I support a blank-and-redirect, which preserves the edit history and talk page. Should he ever become as famous as his website with multiple in-depth profiles -- about him -- to cite then his article could be retrieved from the edit history and republished with the additional references. 5Q5|✉ 15:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Rana

edit
Dian Rana (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 and WP:ENT, also borderline self promotion or COI. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article on the same subject was speedy-deleted on id.wiki under A7 and salted due to multiple recreation. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, note that the article's creator has an editing history focused solely on this article, which raises a COI concern. Also, the article was previously rejected multiple times during the AfC process before the creator eventually published it himself. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) through multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, including Liputan6, Tempo, Merdeka, TVOne, and international publication Rest of World. These are not trivial mentions but substantial profiles covering the subject's public engagement and role in documenting the development of Indonesia's new capital.
While the article may have been initially drafted with assistance, it has since been entirely rewritten and supported with verifiable sources. It is not promotional in tone and has been reviewed carefully for neutrality.
Therefore, the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and should be kept. Nusantarakita (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarang Khan Gakhar

edit
Sarang Khan Gakhar (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)

Fail in significant coverage. Only one reference exists in which just a casual mention was found. Dolphish (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: User is a sock. OneAgentBoi (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article relies on single source and lacks significant coverage. Hitesh Thakrani (talk)

Thomas Puschmann

edit
Thomas Puschmann (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)

Lack of notability. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yangwei Linghua

edit
Yangwei Linghua (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 doesn's have enough significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources which is needed to show notability under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 21:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nearly all coverage of the subject is in Chinese. She's the lead singer for Phoenix Legend, which is a very popular musical duo in China and has been for over twenty years now. You can read an interview here that talks about them and their career, and there's a few articles on Sina that talks about them as well. As for Linghua herself, searching her name in Chinese pulls up hundreds of articles
I will also try to do some work on the article when I get the chance. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to this, Linghua was a main competitor on Riding the Wind 2025 [zh] (the sixth season of a popular music competition show on Mango TV) And while not the most reliable source, Baidu Baike has a nice list of every single released by Linghua as a solo artist, which you can find sources for their existance elsewhere. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2025 (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. The sources found by Microplastic Consumer (talk · contribs). Thank you!
    2. Fan, Wenting 范文婷 (2015-11-14). "玲花新歌太洗脑！1岁女儿都会唱了" [Linghua's new song is so catchy! Even her 1-year-old daughter can sing it] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

      The article notes: "凤凰传奇组合的杨魏玲花和曾毅，两人“分道扬镳”各寻搭档，并同时出了新歌。尤其，玲花的新歌《出去玩》由张惠妹的御用创作人阿怪监制，与歌手曹格、新秀SNH48李艺彤合作，歌曲十分洗脑，玲花称连她一岁四个月的女儿都会唱了！ ... 没了曾毅的伴唱，玲花选择强强联合，与创作型歌手曹格结成新搭档，并与新秀SNH48李艺彤一起。在侗寨采风过程中，收获快乐和笑声，甚至产生再来旅行玩耍的想法，于是创作新歌《出去玩》，该歌旋律明快，歌词简单明了直中人心，"

      From Google Translate: "Phoenix Legend's Yang Wei Linghua and Zeng Yi have parted ways, each pursuing their own partners and releasing new music. Linghua's new song, "Go Out and Play," is especially catchy, produced by A-Mei's regular songwriter, Aguai, and features singer Gary Chaw and rising star Li Yitong from SNH48. Linghua claims even her one-year-four-month-old daughter can sing it! ... Without Zeng Yi's backing vocals, Linghua chose to join forces, forming a new partnership with singer-songwriter Gary Cao and rising star Li Yitong from SNH48. The field trip to the Dong village brought joy and laughter, and even inspired her to travel and play again. This led to the creation of a new song, "Go Out and Play." The song boasts a bright melody and simple, clear lyrics that hit home."

    3. Li, Hsin-tung 李鋅銅 (2014-06-25). "力挺陸大媽 鳳凰傳奇嗆美媒 廣場舞被批喧鬧 玲花指惹火大媽後果嚴重" [Standing up for Chinese 'dama': Phoenix Legend fires back at U.S. media. Square dancing criticized as noisy, Linghua warns that angering the 'dama' has serious consequences]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

      The article notes: "「鳳凰傳奇」主唱玲花覺得自己是「躺著也中槍」，超級不爽，於是在22日發布的微博中調侃《華爾街日報》，並力挺中國大媽。... 她還追溯八國聯軍的歷史，說美國大兵曾經在中國北京搶東西，到現在東西還沒還呢，這不僅僅是擾民行為， ... 「鳳凰傳奇」是大陸知名的男女二人音樂組合，成員包括女聲主唱楊魏玲花和男聲和聲、說唱曾毅。被認為是2005年後大陸較具影響力的歌手組合之一，出道以來共發行5張原創專輯。"

      From Google Translate: "Phoenix Legend lead singer Ling Hua felt incredibly upset, feeling like she was being "shot in the face even when lying down." She mocked the Wall Street Journal in a Weibo post on the 22nd and offered her support for the Chinese dama. ... She also traced the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance, saying that American soldiers once looted items in Beijing, China, and still haven't returned them. This isn't just a nuisance. ... Phoenix Legend is a well-known mainland Chinese duo, consisting of lead vocalist Yang Wei Linghua and backing vocalist and rapper Zeng Yi. Considered one of the most influential singing groups in mainland China since 2005, they have released five original albums since their debut."

    4. Peng, Lizhao 彭立昭 (2012-04-29). "杨魏玲花"凤凰传奇"的爱情传奇" [The Romantic Story of Yangwei Linghua from Phoenix Legend]. People [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

      The article notes: "杨魏玲花是著名歌唱组合“凤凰传奇”的主唱，来自大草原的她声音高亢激昂，穿透力极强，在内地歌坛掀起了一轮又一轮的狂潮。玲花的丈夫徐明朝是音乐主编、著名乐评家和词曲作家，两人从相识的第一天起，就结下了不解之缘，2011年3月，他们携手走入婚姻殿堂。他们的爱情就像玲花在歌里唱的那样：... 就在玲花对进军春晚充满了希望时，一件意想不到的事情发生了：有人爆料《月亮之上》涉嫌抄袭英国歌曲《All Rise》……玲花觉得很委屈，她知道这是一首明明白白的原创歌曲，怎么就成了抄袭作品呢？为了弄清楚事情真相，春晚专家组对《月亮之上》与《AllRise》进行了全方位的鉴定，最终认为并不构成抄袭。"

      From Google Translate: "Yang Wei Linghua is the lead singer of the renowned singing group "Phoenix Legend." Hailing from the prairie, her voice is soaring, passionate, and penetrating, creating waves of sensations on the mainland music scene. Linghua's husband, Xu Mingchao, is a music editor, renowned critic, and songwriter. From the first day they met, they bonded, marrying in March 2011. Their love is just like what Linghua sings about in her song: ... Just when Linghua was full of hope for a spot on the Spring Festival Gala, something unexpected happened: someone reported that "Above the Moon" was suspected of plagiarizing the British song "All Rise." Linghua felt deeply wronged. She knew it was a clearly original song, so how could it be considered a copy? To clarify the matter, the Spring Festival Gala expert panel conducted a comprehensive evaluation of both "Above the Moon" and "All Rise" and ultimately determined that they did not constitute plagiarism."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yangwei Linghua (simplified Chinese: 杨魏玲花; traditional Chinese: 楊魏玲花; pinyin: Yángwèi Línghuā; Mongolian: Үүлэнхуар Üülenkhuar) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided here between editors advocating Keeping it and those arguing for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shameem Akhtar

edit
Shameem Akhtar (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)

Poor and unreliable sources which fail to demonstrate notability of this filmmaker making two non notable movies. Rht bd (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Morris (health activist)

edit
Phil Morris (health activist) (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 for this BLP of a health activist, and added a reference to some local news coverage. I cannot find significant coverage, however, and don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understood it was CBE or KBE upwards that would be likely to confer automatic notability. Found a couple of relevant discussions: 2018; 2016; 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, CBE or above. MBE is certainly not high enough. Far too many of them are awarded every year. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brand

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Lacking significant coverage of this executive. Does not seem to be notable as an author either. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    ~ Some details ? Unknown
      ✘ No
      Dead link ? Unknown
    ~ Some details ? Unknown
  Primary     ✘ No
      ? Unknown
    ~ Some details ? Unknown
  Primary     ✘ No
      ✘ No
      ✘ No
  Press release   ~ Some details ✘ No
      ✘ No
      ✘ No
  Primary     ✘ No
      ✘ 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}}.

I've assessed the sources in the article. I was unable to determine the reliability of most of them due to their being trade publications (see WP:TRADES) or being of poor quality (e.g. this blogspot). I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Disclosure: I am the subject. Independent coverage exists:
– News-Press NOW: Former NAFB head chosen to lead St. Joseph Community Alliance (2024)
– News-Press NOW: Veteran farm voice leaving KFEQ Radio (2011)
– News-Press NOW: Familiar local voice has book published (2025)
– Radio World: Tom Brand Named NAFB Executive Director (2011)
– Radio World: NAFB Executive Director Tom Brand Steps Down (2023)
– University of Illinois ACDC: New Books (2025)

These show coverage across independent local media, reliable industry press, and academic listings. —HeartlandStoryteller (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HeartlandStoryteller, editors can only cast one bolded "vote" and you have already done so at the beginning of this discussion so I have struck this second vote. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participants to weigh in here and a review of these newly added sources if they are not already included in the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giampaolo Pasquile

edit
AfDs for this article:
Giampaolo Pasquile (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)

None of the sources are significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. This person thus fails WP:NBIO. Both of the "delete" arguments from the previous AfD were made by blocked sockpuppets. GTrang (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bleu

edit
Don Bleu (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)

Local radio host - Google search and news search yield no significant non-local coverage, and awards not significant enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Current references almost exclusively non-independent local radio news sources. Epsilon.Prota talk 16:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Don Bleu 'suffers' through L.A. winter". Minneapolis Tribune. 1979-09-28. p. 3C. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ Malaspina, Rick (1981-08-30). "Don Bleu and his lawn wait to grow up". Oakland Tribune. p. I-26. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  3. ^ Mann, Bill (1989-07-27). "Fired, but not Bleu". Oakland Tribune. p. C-6. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  4. ^ Fong-Torres, Ben (1989-07-24). "'X-100' puts DJ Don Bleu out of work". San Francisco Chronicle. p. F1. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  5. ^ Mirabella, Alan (1988-09-12). "Institutionalized comedy". New York Daily News. p. 31. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  6. ^ Cory, Matt (1998-01-29). "This guy's voice really carries". Grand Forks Herald. p. 1. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  7. ^ Fong-Torres, Ben (2011-12-11). "Big changes for Don Bleu, 'Green,' KNEW". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2012-07-19.
  8. ^ Bleu, Don (2025-02-14). "The Don Bleu Interview" (Interview). Interviewed by Bennett, Michael. California Historical Radio Society. Archived from the original on 2025-03-24.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanna Yastremska

edit
Ivanna Yastremska (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 GNG. Tennis player who has no professional career to speak of and who also seems to have been inactive since 2022. All the coverage I can find about her is associated with her far more well-known sister Dayana Yastremska whose article I suggest a redirect to as an ATD if people prefer rather than to a straight deletion. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – WP:GNG isn't determined based on our subjective evaluation of the subject's significance or accomplishments, but the amount of independent reliable SIGCOV. – Ike Lek (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about WP:Not Inherited? If this person's sister were not famous then there would be zero coverage of her. All the coverage that there is mentions her sister. I swear Wikipedia is mad. You want an article about a wannabe actor/singer with a famous sister who gets media coverage entirely because of said famous sister, but you want to delete Olympic finalists and even medalists because they come from a pre-internet age so proving they had coverage (although it is commonsense that they did) is impossible. By the way I'm using "you" collectively not personally. Anyway I'm saying no more on this. Keep it. Maybe she'll win an Oscar or a Grammy lol. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per WP:GNG, as the provided media are either unreliable or fail WP:SIGCOV.
  1. The headlines from the first source, PHOTO. Yastremska's sister showed her beauty. 10 out of 10, PHOTO. Bared her legs. Ukrainian tennis player impressed with her look, PHOTO. The Ukrainian tennis player published spicy photos. Fire. Clear case of tabloid journalism. They basically reported that she posted something to Instagram.
  2. OK. Report that she started her professional tennis career.
  3. Again, this is a tabloid-style report on her Instagram post, The Ukrainian tennis star's sister wore a seductive dress for a stunning photoshoot
  4. Glavcom reported on an Instagram story she posted where she sang. This source is unreliable:
    1. They reported that Putin might be planning to blow up the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, citing an anonymous Russian Telegram channel as a source.
    2. In another piece, they said that a Hungarian airline forced a Ukrainian soldier off a plane in a headline. Two days later, they added a comment from a Ukrainian diplomat saying the man wasn't a soldier, but they didn't change the headline. They also didn't mention that the text was corrected, just appended "updated" to the title.
    3. In 2016, they shared a story that Swedish diplomat Carl Bildt could become the next Ukrainian PM, which was widely republished by Russian media such as Sputnik.
  5. The sport focused site provides only routine reports on her tournament performance, so it fails WP:SIGCOV. They only published three stories specifically about her: that she would play in a tournament, that she would play against a Swiss tennis player, and that she lost.
  6. Same as above.
I didn't find any more reliable sources with significant coverage about her, therefore, this should be deleted. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre Willmott

edit
AfDs for this article:
Deidre Willmott (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)

Not notable as bussiness person or politician. Prod was placed by someone else and removed for procedural reason. Previous afd in 2011 closed as no consensus. Rolluik (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not notable. Teraplane (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is undoubtedly notable, although the article doesn't clearly explain why. The subject was a senior figure in WA business and the public sector who was preselected by the Liberal Party for one of its safest seats in the WA Parliament. Due to a change in the political landscape, she then stood aside as Liberal candidate, in favour of the hitherto retiring incumbent member, a former Treasurer and Leader of the Opposition. He resumed the latter position, and, soon afterwards, at the election, became Premier for two full terms. As a mere business and public sector figure, the subject might not have been notable. It is the decisive role she played in bringing about the election of one of WA's longest serving Premiers that tips the balance in favour of notability. Also, even if standing aside as a candidate had been the only significant thing she'd ever done, then she'd still have been notable, as "[a]n event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" (see WP:LASTING). Bahnfrend (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:BIO it only applies to elected politicians. A withdrawn canditature doesn't appear to ascribe notability. Teraplane (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that it does. My post is more specific than that, and relies upon WP:LASTING, which doesn't apply to most withdrawn candidatures. I suggest you read my post again. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like we might have another No consensus closure here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People proposed deletions

edit

Hume Peabody (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)


Academics and educators

edit

Günther Kletetschka

edit
Günther Kletetschka (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)

Lacks sufficient reliable sources discussing him in detail. Even the Boyce article is on phys.org which is a news aggregator. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFRINGE is irrelevant as it is for evaluating notability of theories, not their proponents. Barack Obama may end up saying he's a Younger Dryas enthusiast, but in no universe would WP:NFRINGE apply to him. This is a pure easy WP:GNG matter. Let's not give FRINGE authority or precedent scope it is not entitled and never will enjoy. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for basic apparent failure of WP:GNG alone. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)
  • Weak Delete. The current page is strange, and does a good job of indicating that he is not notable. A lot of negative material has been added if I compare this page to the earlier July 15th version. Some of this seems to be very inappropriate, marginal on WP:NPOV, and I will question why it was added.
Leaving that aside, if I ignore the negative additions I do not see a pass of WP:NPROF. He has an h-factor of 35 with 4.6K total citations, so he is not far off. I do not see anything for WP:GNG or similar. If there were some significant awards I would probably vote weak keep. If someone improves the page, removing inappropriate material then I might change my vote.Ldm1954 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of valid sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Setting aside the high-profile but low-impact archealogical and astrophysical speculation, his higher-cited work on planetary science has many coauthors; his first-author papers "Magnetic stratigraphy of Chinese loess", "Hematite vs. magnetite", "Grain size limit", etc., have 147, 98, 81, and fewer citations on Google Scholar, close but below the threshold for me. I don't think there has been enough popular press coverage of his other work to make a case for WP:GNG in place of WP:PROF.
  • Keep: Critiques of Günther Kletetschka and his work are evolving. To delete this article now would be a major mistake. This article provides a place where valid criticism and supporting evidence can be presented. Gunther may be another Newton or another Milli Vanilli. In either case, Günther is significant. Lets keep an open mind until we know all the facts. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 19:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Józef Kasparek

edit
Józef Kasparek (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)

Primary contributor/creator (with Logologist being an older account of Nihil novi) has self-identified on Wikipedia as someone who is related to the subject of this article (see this diff, book can be found on Internet Archive where the name can be confirmed).

Undisclosed COI aside, sourcing is really poor throughout. The parts of the article that contain references are mostly sourced from the subject’s own works (including memoirs which are not published anywhere, as far as I can ascertain) and a “Who’s Who” book which I would think best to extend caution on given the integrity of these genres of book as raised by MediaKyle at the AfD for Kasparek’s relative.

I’ve also had to remove material from the article which was cited to another source because it failed verification – it most likely employed some degree of original research. I imagine much of the other unsourced material is also OR.

I can find a couple of instances where Kasparek’s work has been cited in the occasional journal article and a single question/statement to the editors of the NY Book Review hosted on their website but no significant and reliable coverage regarding him. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrine Almeida

edit
Corrine Almeida (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 the Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics and the sources fail the general notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Meldrum

edit
Glenn Meldrum (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:ACTOR. Only 1 significant role in The Saddle Club. Other aspects of career like a dog walker don't add to notability. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine S. Layton

edit
Katherine S. Layton (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)

Not notable. Cited sources are non-independent or primary. A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE BACK TO DRAFT this was moved into article space from draft more than once by the creator. The last move was very much done without properly addressing the reasons why it was moved back into draft space in the first place. Only a couple of additional sources were added. So it should either be deleted or moved back to draft. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I refuse My Page to be Moved back to a Draft or even get Deleted and That it should Stay the way it is and I also don't know why The World's 1st Enclyopedia has to be so Strict on making Sure Articles look very Proper on Everything including Citations (I'm not saying Copyright and Vandalism shouldn't be One of those Things i know they're Both Bad and doesn't deserve to Exist at all) Devolver789 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot refuse anything. This is a community. It is your contribution but it is not your article. See WP:OWN and perhaps also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, there is only one remotely-reliable source cited in the article and none in a search. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Against Deletion: You said "none in a search" that Is actually not True because I Searched for this Information on The Chrome Search Bar and Tried looking for Available Websites for This and I did. Devolver789 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please review what counts as reliable source, because user-generated content doesn't count as reliable. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayfer Veziroğlu

edit
Ayfer Veziroğlu (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 moved to main by COI editor (see Talk:International Association for Hydrogen Energy) over draftification. Editor is performing many promo and/or inappropriate actions on various pages including removal of tags, AI etc. This page is for a not notable CEO of an organisation. No pass of WP:NPROF, no WP:SIGCOV or pass of WP:BIO. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chemistry and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ldm1954, but the proposed article on Dr. Ayfer Veziroğlu meets the notability requirements. She is the president, top leadership and top executive at a major academic society, the International Association for Hydrogen Energy. She particularly meets criteria #6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) 6-The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Regarding the coverage note, as stated in the proposed page, you will find that her work and leadership in the International Association for Hydrogen Energy have received extensive, in-depth coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources, which are listed and detailed in the proposed wikipedia page.
    I understand the concern about ai-generated content. I can assure you that I wrote this article myself, based on research I conducted from various reliable sources. I have checked and visited every single resource in this page, show me any prove of ai information, at least in this page!.
    Regarding the note of me having a close connection to the subject, I declare that have no close connection to her; I am committed to improving all hydrogen related articles because hydrogen is my passion, and would welcome any and all edits from other editors to ensure it meets the highest standards of neutrality. My primary goal is for this to be a factual and encyclopedic page. HydrogenEagle (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The notability of International Association for Hydrogen Energy (the organisation of which she is the President and CEO) has been questioned by Cabrils, see the associated talk page. Note that "President and CEO" is a common term used for the executive director who is employed by the organization and is in charge of operations, different from being elected as President of an established notable society such as APS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The question of notability of International Association for Hydrogen Energy is an old question..I trust Wikipedia editors have the right to ask this question, but the page of International Association for Hydrogen Energy has passed this step before, when it was published and accepted in articles for creation submission (AFC)..Does the following reference satisfy your concerns about her being 'elected' as a president? https://fuelcellsworks.com/2024/10/03/h2/the-international-association-for-hydrogen-energy-has-a-new-president-and-executive-vice-presidents HydrogenEagle (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Portugal, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC. Lacks significant coverage in independent sources, and doesn't meet any WP:SNG criteria. Suggest reporting editor to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if it hasn't been done already.4meter4 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you 4meter4 for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG despite the well-puffed content of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you Xxanthippe for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. I appreciate if you point out 'the puffed content' to remove it from the page. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article states that she took over as head of IAHE from her husband, its founder. To me that suggests that it is more in the nature of a family business than an academic society whose elected presidency is a significant honor. I don't think we can use WP:PROF#C6 and must fall back on other criteria. But we have no evidence of WP:GNG notability, her citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (noting that all her highly-cited articles are in the journal of the organization she runs), and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you David for feedback. I have added more resources to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion to show her coverage from outside the IAHE, Dr. AyferVeziroğlu's academic notability based on her publication record and high citation count (not only IAHE), from independent sources, directly addressing the concerns about WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C1.
    Regarding the comment that the IAHE presidency may be 'more in the nature of a family business,' I respectfully submit that the internal governance or succession process of a professional organization is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. There is no evidence in any published source to support the claim that the IAHE is a 'family business.'. The role's significance is demonstrated by the extensive, independent coverage Dr. Ayfer Veziroğlu has received from academic journals, news outlets, and other professional bodies, as now detailed in the article. https://www.iahe.org/en/board
    The notability of the subject should be judged solely on the verifiable, published record, not on speculation about the nature of her personal or professional relationships. The updated page now provides ample evidence from reliable sources to justify her inclusion. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person hasn’t held any notable academic positions, and her research doesn’t meet WP:PROF#C1. also, there are no reliable sources per WP:GNG, so she fail notability.Gedaali (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Gedaali for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June Lukuyu

edit
June Lukuyu (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)

Assistant professor appointed in 2023 in a high citation field (Electrical Engineering) with an h-factor of 8, 217 total citations and no major awards. While she has made a good start, it is far too early (WP:TOOSOON). Ldm1954 (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antony John Baptist

edit
Antony John Baptist (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 to meet Wp:GNG and Wp:ANYBIO. No secondary coverage. Zuck28 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – With respect, I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements under several established guidelines:
  • Under WP:GNG, there is significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources. This is more than routine or passing mentions.
  • According to WP:AUTHOR, authors are presumed notable if their works have received multiple independent reviews. Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives and Unsung Melodies from Margins have indeed been reviewed in reliable publications, which supports this standard.
  • WP:ANYBIO also provides that individuals with significant coverage in independent sources merit a standalone article. As both a priest and published author with reviewed works, Antony John Baptist fits within this scope.
  • The sources demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, offering in-depth treatment rather than trivial mentions.

In light of these points, I suggest that the best course is to improve the article with the available references rather than delete it. The subject clearly meets the threshold set by Wikipedia’s own guidelines, and keeping the page would align with policy.

— Alephjamie (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide the " multiple independent reviews" and "significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources." Zuck28 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: As I have long done for such a WP:BLP, I won't consider new sources until they are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian M. Duguid

edit
Ian M. Duguid (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)

Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS, fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. The references are minimal and non-independent. Such content violates WP:NOTPROMO, turning Wikipedia into a free promotional tool for academics. Also, the article's title is misspelt, I don't understand whether deliberately or by mistake. Zuck28 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his first book is notable [51] [52], haven't checked the rest. Article is not promotional imo PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bennett (librarian)

edit
Scott Bennett (librarian) (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 has an interesting history. It was started in 2006 as a mass of unsourced fluff, and was whittled down over time to one still mostly unsourced line. In that nearly two-decade span, either no one has either had the interest to expand and source this, or there are not sources to do it with. BD2412 T 16:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Mullooparampil

edit
Sebastian Mullooparampil (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 article does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the references are affiliated publications, without the depth required to satisfy GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Philip Kakkanattu

edit
Joy Philip Kakkanattu (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 article does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the references are affiliated publications, without the depth required to satisfy GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paulachan Kochappilly

edit
Paulachan Kochappilly (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 article does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the references are affiliated publications, without the depth required to satisfy GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalya Kumar

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG criteria, as it lacks adequate coverage by multiple reliable sources. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N. S. Raju

edit
N. S. Raju (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)

Not notable, not in coverage, a big article stands on only two sources, looks like unsourced article. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md Shohil Aktar

edit
Md Shohil Aktar (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)

Young researcher who most recently worked (or currently works?) "as a research intern at the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee". The article is mainly sourced to his own paper "Analysis of heterostructure MOSFET properties for improved device" published in something called TIJER (Technix International Journal for Engineering Research?) that looks less than stellar, and to his various profiles via external links. Searches suggest that sources required to meet either WP:BASIC or any part of WP:NACADEMICS are not found.

The article was draftified, but the article creator moved it back to main space, so here we are per WP:DRAFTONCE.

Judging from the level of detail in the article not supported by sources, and the fact that the photo File:MD SHOHIL AKTAR.png is a selfie uploaded by the article creator as their own work an autobio is assumed. Sam Sailor 21:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debabrata Sen

edit
Debabrata Sen (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 I can find are fabricated sources from a WP:BEFORE search. The five sources in the article are unavailable with no wayback archives. Fails WP:GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetabena, please link those articles here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are some sources I could find. I don't really like this page and I'm not sure I want it here, nonetheless:
1. https://www.outlookindia.com/healthcare-spotlight/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-leader-revolutionizing-ayurveda-with-generational-wisdom-and-modern-innovation
2. https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/health-news/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-blending-ayurveda-with-modern-science-for-a-healthier-india/ar-AA1K5HUw
3. https://www.republicbiz.com/initiatives/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-blending-ayurveda-with-modern-science-for-a-healthier-india
4. https://www.indiablooms.com/health/parampara-ayurveda-founder-dr-debabrata-sen-shares-wellness-strategies-for-desk-bound-professionals/details
Kvinnen (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above sources are either sponsored or unbylined, as disclosed in the sources themselves. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with unbylined sources? I understand why sponsored sources might raise problems. Thanks! Kvinnen (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unbylined sources usually aren’t that reliable since a lot of them turn out to be press releases or sponsored pieces. You don’t really know who wrote them or if they even went through proper editorial checks. With bylined articles, at least you can look up the author’s past work and get a sense of their credibility. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Response – While I agree that sponsored content is not independent and should be discounted, not all unbylined articles are automatically unreliable. Major Indian outlets like Outlook and MSN India frequently run unbylined staff pieces, especially in their health or features sections, and these still go through editorial review. Per WP:RS, reliability depends on the reputation of the publication, not whether an individual journalist’s name is attached.
That said, I agree we should prioritize clearly independent coverage. The Hindu and Times of India pieces cited are standard news reporting (not sponsored), and they provide exactly the kind of significant coverage required under WP:GNG. Even one or two such articles, combined with his awards and professional recognition, are usually sufficient for notability.
In short: let’s remove or de-emphasize any PR-like sources, but the existence of mainstream coverage in The Hindu and TOI still supports keeping this article.Sweetabena (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the AI crap and link those articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweetabena and @Kvinnen:, Unbylined sources (or even "bylined" sources) that are obvious promotion are unreliable and should not be take seriously. For example this sort of wording is indicative of undisclosed sponsored content, native advertising, PR promo and WP:ADMASQ: "His life’s work is a shining example... of "his extraordinary contributions", credited for creating "new paradigms" with no back up by reliable medical sources, BTW; or ..."His brainchild, (is his) brand"..."Beyond clinical excellence...", is an obvious marketing strategy, "through his pioneering work"...the man is a "beacon of selfless service"......etc. this is straight up, transparent public relations firm marketing copy, it is not news, nor journalism. Sources like this should not be used, and they do not confirm notability. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Number 2 is just a link to number 3. Jahaza (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

edit
Tanzeem Ul Firdous (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)

Despite being tagged for notability and COI since 2022, the current version of this article still provides no justification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. The references are primarily user-generated or self-published promotional websites. There is not a single reliable secondary or academic source demonstrating why the subject is notable as a researcher, professor, or author. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Deletion preferred.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kapur

edit
Arun Kapur (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)

Limited or routine coverage. Much of the available coverage focuses o institutional roles, with limited in-depth coverage. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cormode

edit
Scott Cormode (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 encyclopedic notability for this academic administrator. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement among participants on whether or not this article subject can pass WP:NPROF or WP:HEY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunita Dodani

edit
Sunita Dodani (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 of a medical practitioner with an h-factor of 24 and 2277 cites. She is a Fellow of the American Heart Association, but from their web page that is not selective enough. Author of this page claims a pass of WP:NPROF, but I am not convinced, it is WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I generally don't participate in Medical/Physician AfDs since I have lower knowledge of the field, but given the relist with few voices: the fellowship + h-factor + appointments are not enough individually to hit a single WP:PROF pass, but look to pass collectively. (And Xxanthippe's bar is generally a higher one to cross than mine). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Puschmann

edit
Thomas Puschmann (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)

Lack of notability. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Kirkpatrick

edit
Laurence Kirkpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

The subject of the article is a former Professor of Church History in Union Theological College, the small seminary for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, based in Belfast, northern Ireland.

He does not meet the notability criteria for an academic WP:NACADEMIC:

  1. there is no evidence that his research has had a significant impact in the discipline of Church History, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. He has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. He has not been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association.
  4. There is no evidence that his academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. He has not held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research or a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement.
  6. He briefly held the post of Principal at Union Theological College, but this is a small seminary, not a major academic institution.
  7. There is no evidence that he has had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity.
  8. He has not been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in his subject area.

Reliable sources him only in the context of a single event. WP:BLP1E When he was sacked from his position as Professor of Church History in 2018 there was widespread press coverage of his sacking, subsequent employment tribunal and eventual settlement, but other than that he is a low-profile individual. The event is covered in the history of the college in its article, [74] but is not significant enough to merit an article of its own.

The article was first created in 2023, well after the professor had been sacked and was no longer academically active. [75] It was created by a confirmed sockpuppet who spent a lot of time making edits related to the sacking of the professor.

In summary, the subject was not regarded as notable during his academic career and the article was only created in response to a single event in the news. He is not a notable subject. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - I suspect the OP is correct that the notability standards have not been met per NACADEMIC, but it seems to me it is possible that he has a certain notability as a religious leader and commentator. Also possible he doesn't, but that doesn't seem to be explored in the nom. JMWt (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @JMWt, those are helpful categories to raise.
    I've had a look to see whether he pops up as a commentator or not. In Northern Ireland the main opportunities for that would be the two national daily newspapers, the Belfast Telegraph and the Newsletter; two religious programmes on BBC Radio Ulster, Sunday Sequence and Thought for the Day; and the political blog Slugger O'Toole which sometimes touches on church and religion.
    • I can't find any articles by him in the Belfast Telegraph. [76]
    • I can't find any articles by him in the Newsletter. [77]
    • He was a panelist on Sunday Sequence just twice, in March 2023 [78] and in March 2025 [79]. [80] That isn't a noteworthy number.
    • He was a contributor to Thought for the Day three times in April 2025. [81] That isn't a noteworthy number.
    • He doesn't seem to have written for Slugger O'Toole and only comes up once in a Google search. [82]
    As far as being a leader, I'm not aware of him leading any movements. He's been invited to speak at some public events, but I'm not aware of any of them being influential or notable and it's the sort of thing plenty of people get invited to do who aren't noteworthy enough to appear on Wikipedia.
    As far as I'm aware the thing he's probably best known for in Irish Presbyterian circles is writing a large coffee table style illustrated history of the Presbyterian Church. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that enough for WP:NAUTHOR? Elemimele (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be of interest to note here a curious disparity between the way that Ardenssedvirens has nominated this article for deletion, for which the notability of the subject has never hitherto been questioned as far as I can discern, versus the article on Martyn C. Cowan, for which the notability of the subject seems to have been questioned from the outset. This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, whereas the article on Martyn C. Cowan is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I am not suggesting that either article should be deleted but I would be interested in hearing why Ardenssedvirens is so interested in removing this article and yet had become so intensely engaged in a discussion regarding the mere addition of tags to the article on Martyn C. Cowan. Notably, the latter was also recently edited by a long-established user called Jdcooper, self-described as mainly focusing on the worst articles on Wikipedia. Nonavian (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Nonavian and welcome to the discussion. There's helpful advice on how to contribute here: WP:DISCUSSAFD that will help you to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. If you want to discuss me personally this probably isn't the place to do it. If you want to discuss another article can I suggest doing on on the Talk page for the article or starting an AFD yourself for that article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't answered my questions regarding consistency of criteria for deletion of articles, which is entirely on topic. I am now curious to know why the mere mention of Martyn C. Cowan in this context is something you should take so personally. Nonavian (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this relevant to the active discussion? TheBritinator (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Elemimele, that’s helpful. I hadn’t considered that angle. It looks like there are four possible criteria to be a notable author. Criterion 3 looks like the potentially applicable one here:
    ‘The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);’
    So I guess the question is whether Lawrence’s illustrated history of Presbyterianism is regarded as significant or well known, and been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. As far as I’m aware there aren’t any books, films or TV series about it!
    • I did a Google search for ‘review “Laurence Kirkpatrick” “Presbyterians in Ireland” an illustrated history’. Apart from reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, I only found one review, in ‘Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society’ [83].
    • A search on JSTOR for the book showed just this one review.
    • A further search on JSTOR for anything with Laurence Kirkpatrick turned up two articles: the aforementioned review and a review by Kirkpatrick of another book.
    • I also checked the Presbyterian Historical Society. There didn’t appear to be any reviews. Kirkpatrick contributed two articles to their periodical — one in 2008 and another in 2015. But his own work doesn’t seem to have been reviewed.
    Returning to the criterion above, the book doesn’t appear to meet the requirement that the ‘work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews’ and therefore doesn’t seem to meet the criteria to be a notable author. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NAUTHOR is always worth checking for academics, especially those in non-science disciplines, but I concur that this doesn't look like an NAUTHOR pass. Typically NAUTHOR requires multiple notable books (otherwise we can just have a book article and cover the author as "background"), and with only one review it doesn't look like even his one book passes WP:NBOOK. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - edits by a sock puppet can be cured with edits by uninvolved users, but lack of significant coverage is fatal. I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being sacked for publicly disagreeing with his church's hard line on homosexuality (and the ensuing media and legal fallout) has given him a general notability that he might not have specifically as an academic or an author. Focusing on those rather than on the general notability seems a little disingenuous. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn’t being disingenuous. I specifically mentioned that, said it was the one thing he’d be known for, and linked to WP:BLP1E to make it easier for other people to consider the criteria themselves.
    Calling someone disingenuous doesn’t seem very civil and idoesn’t contribute constructively. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for any offence, but feel I should point out that I haven't called anybody anything: I have communicated the impression made on me by actions, quite independently of persons or their qualities. You did indeed refer to BLP1E, but I'm not convinced this meets the spirit of that rule. This is a public figure whose main claim to fame (or notoriety) arose due to remarks he made while being interviewed speaking as an expert in his field on the BBC and has generated media coverage over a seven-year period, some (e.g.) exclusively reporting on his own subsequent thoughts and actions. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said ‘Focusing on those rather than on the general notability seems a little disingenuous.’ I don’t know how you can say that and then claim you didn’t call me anything. That seems disingenuous.
Most of the media coverage was in 2018/19 when he was fired and took the church to ab employment tribunal. There has been a bit of coverage since then, but it’s mostly been to say that the tribunal is expected to meet soon and then later than there had been a settlement.
The event is already covered by the Union Theological College article. The Kirkpatrick article doesn’t really add much, if anything. I’m not sure it adds any value having it as a separate article rather than delete and redirect. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we focus on Kirkpatrick please and less on editors' perceived motives?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be just about enough coverage over an extended period of time to justify the article e.g. 1 2 3. Cortador (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like WP:BLP1E, and neither NACADEMIC nor NAUTHOR applies. I don't think the links Cortador points to constitute coverage over an extended period of time; rather, it looks to me that the event (his firing) occurred over an extended period of time. There doesn't appear to be any retrospective coverage after the affair concluded which would give the event some broader significance. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

edit

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

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