Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

People

James Humphrey (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, United Kingdom, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. Deleting this does not improve the encyclopaedia. Hesperian 01:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable subject. @Hesperian: that reply also sounded a bit rude. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 01:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aristophilides of Taras

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

Poorly sourced article. Could find nothing online about this. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already includes references. See this Google Books search. See this search "the only possible West Greek king properly so titled is Aristophilides of Taras." For an online version of Herodotus, visit https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm and search for Aristophilides. Also, a king or an elected rulker of a country is automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Royalty and nobility, Greece, and Italy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yasemin Taşkın

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines; losing one's job doesn't make one notable. (A PROD was contested by an IP editor who posted a "merge" template to the article, but gave no explanation, and did not start a merge discussion.) JBW (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. JBW (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tait (radio presenter)

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

Notability tag up for over two years. Jw93d59 (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Clarke (broadcaster)

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

Notability tag up for over five years. Jw93d59 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Christianity, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, and the prize he supposedly won has no sources. Svartner (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation needed inlines scattered all over the article shows that the article fails notability. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borislav Simić

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

Non-notable article of a football player. Only source I could find was Soccerway. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 21:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Serbia. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 21:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Mushtaq Khatri

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

Not notable per WP:CREATIVE and the article is WP:OVERCITE for a WP:BLP1E that too not a notable work. Its more of a WP:PROMOTION here only. Agent 007 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Agent 007 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability, with the majority of coverage coming from WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CITEOVERKILL. Crazy that there are a f***ing 16 sources for one paragraph. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above and WP:BOMBARD. Svartner (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Simon (composer)

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

Poorly sourced and given sources don't support assertions. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, South Africa, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like AI-generated promotional essay trash. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is just slop generated by an WP:LLM. Unregistered Biohazard! 18:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sophalexios

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

This page appears to be a hoax, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Hoax article: Sophalexios? It was created on 22 September 2010 by an editor who only edited this article. It has no inline citations and a "References and further reading" section, which was added by an IP account on the same day. The only URL in the section doesn't mention the name. Nor does a Google Scholar search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C9&q=%22sophalexios%22&btnG=. The article was WP:PRODded, but the PROD was rejected. TSventon (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fictional elements, Mythology, and Greece. jolielover♥talk 06:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned in any of the article's references as far as I can tell, and there's nothing about such a figure in the RE, the DGRBM, Brill's New Pauly, or the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Taken alongside the circumstances of its creation, this looks pretty hoax-ish to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It should get an entry in our list of Wikipedia hoaxes as the 25th longest surviving hoax. The page could be saved as well, because it is an impressively well-made hoax. T8612 (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lacking mentions in secondary sources, and I feel exactly like T8612: It should be included in list of Wikipedia hoaxes. This article did manage to spawn a mirror at hellenicaworld.com (and I don't see a contact there to try to fix this), so it would be great if for anyone stumbling upon this and looking over at Wikipedia would find a note that it's a hoax. Daranios (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios There is a contact listed at https://www.hellenicaworld.com/Contact.html. You could send an email if you want. To be honest, I don't feel like writing it myself right now so I'll leave this here instead. Warudo (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and archive per T8612 and Daranios. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is either a hoax or an obscure post-classic invention (which in which case it does not pass GNG).★Trekker (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear why the PROD was removed: the remover says that the article "doesn't appear to be a hoax" but doesn't explain, and it certainly appears to me to be a hoax. The long list of sources without any specific references is suspicious; those I am able to check have nothing at all to do with the topic of the article. Google Scholar returns not a single result when searching for Sophalexios. General Google searches return only wikipedia and things derived from it. It's not in any of the standard references. I can't find any reason to believe this is anything other than a hoax. Even if the creator of the wikipedia article were acting in good faith and not deliberately hoaxing, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the subject is notable – at best they are mistaken, or the subject is so obscure they have apparently not even been mentioned in the reliable sources in which you would expect to find them Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and archive) Only found wikipedia mirrors/unreliable sources. Seems someone set out to create some mythology. Rolluik (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to the list of hoaxes. The fact that an account with no other edits created this without any inline citations, then an IP added a bunch of sources that don't mention the article's topic, makes it very clear that this has to be a hoax. I would also add that reading the article, a son of Jason who fights with Corinthians on the Trojan side because he hates Agamemnon does not strike me as particularly believable based on what I know about Greek mythology.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and tally appropriately at the list of hoaxes. Zero hits on Google Scholar is a big red flag. A Google Books search finds nothing, too, as does JSTOR. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I put the PROD tag on and am extremely dismayed to see that it was removed for unexplained and unsubstantiated reasons by an editor who apparently is just objecting to all the PRODs in sight. I removed the PROD because it is nuanced we are told. Where is the nuance? The entire library of supposed sources is spurious. Google Scholar yields not a single result. Google Books yields not a single result. Jstor yields not a single result. The Oxford Classical Dictionary yields not a single result. The Realencyclopaedie yields not a single result. If this isn't a hoax it is not notable. Either way the article should be deleted. The only nuance here is whether there should be sanctions for the de-PRODing editor's pattern of behaviour. Ifly6 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. By seeing this, this is a hoax. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Warren (convict)

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the previous AfD we are much stricter on notability. Searches in google books and Australian trove for [John Warren (convict)] seem yield to namesakes. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep after reading very long debate on 1st Afd. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. Deleting this does not improve the encyclopaedia. Hesperian 01:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Casale

(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]

Please keep the personal attacks to yourself please. Yes the process is bureaucratic, could it be better? Probably, but it's what we have to work with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 27 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the creator feels like continuing to hound on this subject, here's a source list.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://practiceofthepractice.com/creating-a-neurodivergent-group-practice-with-patrick-casale-gp-260/			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
https://voyageraleigh.com/interview/inspiring-conversations-with-patrick-casale-of-all-things-private-practice/			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
https://profitfirstprofessionals.com/podcast/patrick-casale-insights-for-neurodivergent-leadership-in-business/			interview, from an unreliable, unknown "profit first" (lol) publication on a medical professional?	✘ No
https://selling-the-couch.captivate.fm/episode/encore-creating-authentic-win-win-relationships-with-colleagues	podcast	it's reliable for things like "my favorite color is blue"	obviously	✘ No
https://resilientmindcounseling.com/patrick-casale/	his own website	reliable in that it exists and he exists		✘ No
https://www.therapyden.com/therapist/patrick-casale-asheville-nc	same as 5, except it's a third party, or maybe second party?			✘ No
https://canvasrebel.com/meet-patrick-casale/	another paid for placement in an unknown, unreliable publication			✘ No
https://brettwhitmarsh.com/neurodivergent-leadership-insights-from-patrick-casale/	probably not, this is just a medium-esque blog	see above		✘ No
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/resilient-mind-counseling-asheville-nc/1001943	just a listing for his services			✘ No
https://practiceofthepractice.com/creating-a-neurodivergent-group-practice-with-patrick-casale-gp-226/	see 1			✘ No
https://practiceoftherapy.com/creativity-neurodiversity-and-entrepreneurship-in-private-practice/	podcast featuring the subject		not coverage	✘ No
https://www.therapymarketer.co/articles/how-to-offer-retreats-for-therapists-with-patrick-casale	another interview			✘ No
https://www.joinheard.com/articles/the-complete-list-of-income-streams-for-therapists	probably not independent but in any case, it's not significant or relevant	just a random blog		✘ No
https://www.drlizlistens.com/podcast-appearances/let-s-end-hustle-culture-internalized-capitalism-all-things-private-practice-with-patrick-casale	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
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-things-private-practice-podcast/id1596161682	just an apple podcast link			✘ No
https://allbrainsbelong.org/divergent-conversations/	not even about him, but it's an interview with someone else			✘ No
https://www.audible.com/podcast/Divergent-Conversations/B0BR8HSKW4	see 15			✘ No
https://www.espeakers.com/marketplace/es/profile/50885/patrick-casale	see 15,17 and everything else			✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyImqW69OY4&ab_channel=TEDxTalks	see WP:TEDX			✘ No
https://www.allthingspractice.com/new-zealand-neurodivergent	another link to a self promo website			✘ No
https://www.empoweredescapes.com/greece-retreat-2025			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]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG per the source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very non-notable individual. Does not pass academic notability as there are ZERO publications by him in Gscholar or Jstor, Gnews also draws a blank. The chart above pretty much shows no RS used, nor can I find any. Very much PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this not yet notable fellow. - Roxy the dog 12:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Kasim

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG and SIGCOV. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 11:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom findings. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. Excelse (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avinaash V. Rai

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 10:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Karnataka. jolielover♥talk 10:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrine Almeida

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Africa. jolielover♥talk 10:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. While I like the page -- facts stated and no peacock -- I cannot find enough here, in her publications or via a search to justify a pass of WP:NPROF; if she had a senior award or two I would change my mind. I also do not see WP:SIGCOV for a WP:GNG pass. (Having the same name as a famous singer does not help.)Ldm1954 (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Kudashova

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, Europe, and Russia. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Sheppard

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, United States of America, and Arizona. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. Dahlan

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and needs more sources to establish notability. Mehru13 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hugo Ortega (Superyacht Captain)

(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]

Delete too soon at best. -Jahaza (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only known for his appearances in Below Deck. Fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- for points above, though not opposed to draftify if any more SIGCOV can be added to check in the future as an ATD.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Near (programmer)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Computing, and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article shows Near worked on various notable projects before being driven to suicide, so not just 1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They did not receive any coverage for it besides the one Vice piece, which is not enough for WP:GNG. Plenty of emulator developers are out there, who also don't have coverage. Also Near was nonbinary, not a he. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that, corrected my wording above, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like to particularly point out Vrxces's arguments below on the nature of 1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even apart from this specific AFD, this isn't true - if someone only received coverage when they died, even if the pieces on their death cover their earlier life (as almost all 1E people have some other coverage of their life), that is still a 1E case. This one is more complicated because Vice piece. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your hypothetical but that's more an issue due to WP:SUSTAINED I think - at any rate, there is some significant coverage (albeit not strong) suggesting the person's death is not the primary and only significance of their inclusion on the site. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - however, it's clear more references are missing. This may well be because of Near changing their pseudonyms several times along the years. Looking on search engines for "Near" would return near nothing since it's a pseudonym they only used for about a year before their suicide. I also agree with Sarek that they were part of many projects of notability within the emulation community, most of them with their own Wikipedia pages nowadays. Retroarch, one of the biggest "projects" in the community was started as an alternative to bsnes' frontend. Salvadorp2001 (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are there sources for this? If not, it does not help. Near would not inherit the notability of things they worked on unless the sources are about them as well. If there are more sources and they are provided, then sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does not fall under WP:1EVENT, which states that "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", due to the coverage from Vice that happened prior to that tragic death. While Near would possibly not have been notable if not for their death, this does not mean the article is inadmissible due to that, as far as I know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...that's not a quote from 1EVENT? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant WP:BLP1E. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this article surely does not fall under BLP1E, since Near is no longer living. I probably could have made my nomination clearer, but 1 piece + one flurry of news coverage about one thing does not equal a passage of GNG (I have now added this to the nom). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure how it would not equal GNG passing. The earlier coverage makes Near pass WP:SUSTAINED, while that and the news coverage of their death makes them pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 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]

Keep, needs more work for improvement but otherwise passes basic notability. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply well in this context. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul S. Victor

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTPROMO. A search yielded nothing in newspaper.com, google books, google scholar, etc. I even checked the Trove newspaper archive at the Australia National Library given the Hillsong Church connection. Nothing there either.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean, Minnesota, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no references, clearly Fails WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and feels largely promotional. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. It can be passed of CSD G11. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did my own WP:BEFORE as well and couldn't find anything. Nil🥝 03:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:BLP. In ordinary times, not a big problem, but nowadays, this is a legal risk. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4memter4;s findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks SIGCOV in my web searches so far, some potential hits mentioning the subjects name seems from primary sources, no hits from Google News either.Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Beale

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of current BBC newsreaders and reporters until adequate sources develop. --Jahaza (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E - basically he had one big story. Bearian (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Masood

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. 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

^ 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.

^ 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]
  I was previously unsure how best to present the sourcing. To clarify: in addition to coverage in Pakistani, Indian, and Bangladeshi newspapers, there are several peer-reviewed academic sources and scholarly books that discuss Tariq Masood in depth. These include:
  1. 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 2025-08-25 (20 pages on Masood)
  2. Jafar, Imad (2022). "The History of the Epithet al-Ghawth al-Aʿzam in South Asian Islamic Discourse". Islamic Studies. 61 (3): 266–267. doi:10.52541/isiri.v61i3.2442. ISSN 0578-8072. JSTOR 27236434. (almost one page on Masood)
  3. Kelso, Erin (2024-03-01). "Women marching for solidarity: 5 years of Aurat March in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan". Dialectical Anthropology. 48 (1): 124. doi:10.1007/s10624-024-09720-4. ISSN 1573-0786 – via Springer.com. (almost three paragraphs related to Masood)
  4. Sagheer, Iram; Fatima, Emaan; Khan, Zoya; Ali, Khadija (2024). "A Pragmatic Analysis of Pakistani Religious Podcast (Mufti Tariq Masood)". University of Chitral Journal of Linguistics & Literature. 8 (1). University of Chitral: 288–302. Archived from the original on 11 February 2025. Retrieved 25 August 2025. (A peer-reviewed article of approximately 15 pages)
  5. Jabbar, Ms Almees; Qureshi, Dr Hafsa Ayaz (2023-10-24). "Physical Abuse in Pakistan: An Islāmic Perspective on Violence in Interpersonal Relationships". Al-Hameed Islamic Studies Research Journal. 2 (2): 25. ISSN 2959-1767. Archived from the original on 26 August 2025. (two sentences on Masood)
  6. Hübscher, Monika; von Mering, Sabine, eds. (2024-06-17). Antisemitismus in den Sozialen Medien (1 ed.). Verlag Barbara Budrich. p. 168. doi:10.2307/jj.16148256. ISBN 978-3-8474-1950-1. JSTOR jj.16148256. (name listed among Pakistani YouTube preachers in a study on antisemitic hate speech)
  These are independent, scholarly publications that go beyond routine news coverage. Khaatir (talk) 00:34, 27 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]

Keep There seem to be a lot of confusions around the sources utilises in this article. For the sake of notability, I believe this article is a clear pass. We have Mufti Tariq Masood and the Performance of Religious Speech: Social Media and Religious Discourses in Pakistan in De Gruyter's Practices of Islamic Preaching: Text, Performativity, and Materiality of Islamic Religious Speech, a detailed 20 page academic article on Tariq Masood. We have more than a paragraph on Page 266 of The History of the Epithet al-Ghawth al-A'ẓam in South Asian Islamic Discourse, and also that we have A Pragmatic Analysis of Pakistani Religious Podcast (Mufti Tariq Masood), as a very important academic resource that discusses Tariq Masood from a linguistic prism. Given that these are my three best picks, the rest of the coverage in Dawn, ThePrint and the rest of the sources is a good supplement. The subject meets WP:GNG. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 17:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note, Khaatir (the article creator) and Aafi are connected with the same Wikimedia community. It is possible that WP:MEATPUPPETRY is involved here, so this should also be taken into consideration. Mehru13 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a weird speculation. My interests are way different than that of Khaatir (even though they might voluntarily belong to a certain Wikimedia community, this doesn't inherently establish meatpuppetry). Would you want to refute the argument that I presented for establishing notability? Apart from this, I really don't have anything to say. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 18:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Adnan

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Bangladesh. —MdsShakil (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no significant in-depth coverage about the subject, and no evidence of notability. The article clearly fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 14:40, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Music, India, and West Bengal. Zuck28 (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to meet Wp:DIRECTOR. See his filmography and sources like https://www.hindustantimes.com/htcity/main-mulayam-singh-yadav-director-suvendu-raj-ghosh-prefer-making-realistic-cinema-over-commercial-projects-101706942108884.html https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/reviews/bollywood/kusum-ka-biyaah-movie-review-suvendu-ghoshs-film-a-heartfelt-tale-of-love-and-resilience-review-107669287 https://filminformation.com/featured/kusum-ka-biyaah-review-1-march-2024/?amp=1 - E. Ux 06:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent reliable sources indicate Ghosh passes criteria 3 of WP:FILMMAKER. I note we have multiple articles on films directed by the subject. Typically that indicates a director will pass an WP:SNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antony John Baptist

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Christianity, India, and Tamil Nadu. Zuck28 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found two reviews of Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives [2] [3] and one review of Unsung Melodies from Margins [4]. Could pass WP:NAUTHOR if anyone else has better luck finding a few more reviews. MCE89 (talk) 03:06, 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]

Keep: I searched about the subject and found some book reviews of their works, which I believe are sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. In addition, I also came across some good articles on Google Scholar, and the authority databases are also giving positive signals. You can see the book reviews here, here, and here. Thanks to MCE89 as well for providing some reviews. Baqi:) (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR based on the sources provided in the discussion above.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Baqi sources. Again, I don't know what the scope of Catholicism is in India, but the sources are perfectly adequate for an article. Svartner (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR since has published multiple books that received solid coverage in reviews.Gedaali (talk) 18:10, 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]

Keep — Meets, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ANYBIO. Antony John Baptist has received significant, independent coverage in reliable sources as a Catholic priest, biblical scholar, and author. His academic and pastoral work focuses on contextual theology and the interpretation of biblical narratives from the perspective of marginalized communities such as Dalit women. His published works and leadership roles at NBCLC, CCBI, TNBC and CBCI constitute WP:SIGCOV, supporting his notability as both an author and priest.RevJackDaniels (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevJackDaniels (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still waiting for the additional sources about him. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian M. Duguid

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. 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]

Keep: The article title will need to be moved after this discussion closes to address the misspelling, but Duguid passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews for his books Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel ([7], [8], [9]) and The Song of Songs ([10], [11]), as well as many independent journal reviews for his co-edited series the ESV Expository Commentary. I expect he passes WP:NACADEMIC as well as a leading Reformed biblical scholar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Dclemens1971. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Move to Iain M. Duguid.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dclemens1971. Gedaali (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reliable sources reviews of his works as identified in this discussion by Dclemons so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the GS data suggests a WP:PROF pass for the field. St Anselm (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable as an established Christian author (WP:AUTHOR) and professor (WP:PROF), per evidence provided here. Alephjamie (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ATLA Religion Database mentions Iain Duguid 63 times as an author of books, scholarly journal articles, and reviews, and as the recipient of multiple book reviews. He has been cited dozens of times in scholarly books and doctoral dissertations, according to Proquest. But as of today the WP article is deficient -- so some of these scholarly sources need to be cited and documented to show notability.Ungathering (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Baglioni

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Switzerland, England, California, Nevada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a chef of some local renown---his restaurant got a LA Times review back in the 1980s and received additional WP:MILL coverage of the restaurant's life cycle. (1 2)---but there is no significant coverage of the subject to substantiate WP:GNG. -- BriefEdits (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally promo article, no evidence of notability, clearly fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enayatollah Poostchi

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Iran. 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]

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 00:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalya Kumar

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and West Bengal. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Maybe meets WP:NPROF#C1 [12] and WP:NPROF#C5 [13], and definitely meets WP:NAUTHOR [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. But the page is a complete mess and needs to be cut down if this is kept. MCE89 (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is an utter mess and a very obvious paid promotional entry, but I think he meets the WP:NPROF critera. He has a pretty good citation count for his field, and his google scholar profile lists a number of impactful articles in reputable journals where he is the first author. Leonstojka (talk) 17:39, 23 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.

Herbert Harold Disley

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Keironoshea (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:28, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Asia, India, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is the person's webpage with all of his publications listed. The publications are all books in Telugu, available only as hard copies. They are mostly sold in the store Visalandhra book house. Example of a book 'Gidugu Lekhalu' is listed in the reference below -

https://www.logili.com/home/search?q=N+S+Raju#/?q%5B%5D=N%20S%20Raju&page=1&_xhr=1

As they are not scientific papers, they are not available on sites like google scholar etc.

There were newspaper references for some of his articles earlier (till about 5 years ago) but I can't find them on google now (they may have gotten archived and dont have a link).

How many more sources do we need for the article to be considered legitimate? Nadupalli (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with the nominator. Taabii (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling him doesn’t bring up anything that looks notable.Gedaali (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What go you mean by 'notable'. Could you explain? Nadupalli (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Despite the nominator being a sockpuppet, the article appears to have been generated by LLM, is based on only two sources, and has no parallel on te.wiki. To make matters worse, there is a namesake professor of microbiology at the University of Mysore. Svartner (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Hinn

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Video games, United States of America, and Virginia. 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Germany. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only sources available are interviews, which are not secondary sources, or are otherwise unreliable Starcraft fan websites and the like. Even the Daily Dot article feels more like a disguised promotional interview than an actual secondary source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchalapathi Dasa

(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)
- Organization pages & official bios (Akshaya Patra, ISKCON Bangalore, personal site). Useful for routine facts but not to establish notability. Akshaya Patra Foundation ISKCON Bangalore chanchalapathidasa.com
----

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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Did a Google News search and found nothing useful. Unregistered Biohazard! 18:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO yet. Happy to reassess if other sources are uncovered, but the short name didn't bring anything tangible up in my before search. Nil🥝 00:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kantrowitz

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, you do not demonstrate the notability of a journalist by sourcing the article to his staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers, or to work where he's the bylined author of coverage about other things — he must pass WP:GNG on sourcing where the's the subject being covered by other people, but that describes none of the sourcing shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions of article subject in the news coverage, but no WP:SIGCOV on this individual. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Nayyn (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dude you don't get to rehash the same arguments over and over again. The sources haven't changed significantly and neither has any of the guidelines. My previous argument still stands. -- Sohom (talk) 14:39, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Disambiguations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, to forestall arguments that a set index article cannot be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER, this is actually a disambiguation page. Whilst labeled as a set index, a set index article must pass WP:LISTN guidelines, and there is no indication this name does. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote at Talk:Pogačar, we would not be solving any real problems by doing any of this. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is not a dab page, where primary topic is relevant, but a surname page. We only redirect from surname to person in cases where they are overwhelmingly the most significant person and often referred to by name, like Einstein or Obama. PamD 07:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surname pages must actually be notable as a surname, mentioned in reliable sources. So if it's a surname page, it fails notability criteria anyway and should likely be deleted for that reason regardless. It does seem like the cyclist is the only one specifically referred to by just that name alone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by a surname page? Is it an article, or a set index? This is the same distinction as the one we were talking about at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstas. --Joy (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, a set index article, which is treated as a list and must pass WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As is the case over there, this is a largely bureaucratic distinction here, too, and WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The formatting changes to make this Pogačar set index a disambiguation page are trivial. --Joy (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Surname pages have a strange place on Wikipedia, where they exist as part index and part article, which presents problems when deciding what notability guidelines to apply. Ideally they would have their own notability guideline, but as of now, they need to either pass WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. I think this might pass NLIST, and it just creates more problems to get rid of the surname page if someone ever wants to expand the page with information about the surname itself. That also has its problems, as it risks having the page deleted for failing WP:GNG as it would no longer fit WP:NLIST even though it could be objectively improved by more information about the origins and distribution of the name. Additionally, it seems likely that one of these will get an English translation in the future, which would make it a clearer pass of NLIST: Eva Pogačar [sv], Jasna Pogačar [sl], Roman Pogačar [sl], Jani Pogačar [ja], Janez Zlatoust Pogačar [de]. – Ike Lek (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Welsh

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent for similar cases where security researchers were kept despite most coverage being in the context of vulnerabilities. For example, in the AfD for Jason Parker (security researcher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Parker_(security_researcher)

(2024), the article was not deleted. Editors there noted that repeated attribution in independent, reliable sources across multiple incidents demonstrated sufficient notability, even if no single profile piece existed. This situation is comparable. AxiomGaming (talk) 16:36, 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that the inclusion of this discussion in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions is directly supported by a reliable source. For example, TechCrunch explicitly confirmed my Maryland connection, stating: "and Welsh is a student at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland." (TechCrunch, June 30, 2015) https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/30/vulnerability-in-security-service-lifelock-could-have-exposed-logins-and-passwords/. This demonstrates clear sourcing for the Maryland relevance of the article. AxiomGaming (talk) 21:26, 21 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Music, Radio, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 15:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was almost deleted through PROD. Why did you remove the tag at the last minute and bring it to WP:AFD? It's just unusual behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep difficult to find independent sources as very common name and works for the BBC, but I think she has received enough third party coverage for her work to pass WP:GNG [26][27]
Leaning towards Delete. There are very few sources outside promotional bits from her employer, the BBC, discussing her. The sources in the above comment are [28] not actually about Walker and barely discuss her and [29] a semi-promotional blog from the BSO where she seems to have/had a position. Other than that the best I can find is an editorial from The Guardian [30] and an interview in a BBC magazine [31]. There isn't really a target for a merge either as her Radio 3 show doesn't have an article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Kumar Singh

(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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, India, and West Bengal. jolielover♥talk 09:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as Outlook India, Free Press Journal, The Hindu, and Times of India. Dead links do not mean sources are fabricated (see WP:DEADREF). He has received notable awards and recognition, meeting WP:GNG.Sweetabena (talk) 10:51, 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]

Delete no apparently reliable sources. Some sources appear to be fake. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge source appears to be fake/hallucinated. Jahaza (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This Ayurvedic physician is not notable. It seems there is a western physician with the same name, therefore one has to be careful when searching for sources, because they are different people. I could not find anything in an online BEFORE search to substantiate this Debabrata Sen's notability. The current sources in the article are either dead links or poor quality or as mentioned above, fake. The sources brought to the table by Swetabena are sponsored content or PR puff-pieces not journalism, for example wording like: "Dr. Sen has redefined the landscape"..."he has created new paradigms"..."His brainchild, (is his) brand"..."through his pioneering work"..."Beyond clinical excellence...a beacon of selfless service"..."His life’s work is a shining example..."his extraordinary contributions"...etc. etc. is pure unadulterated promo that can't be taken as serious news reporting, especially not for an encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per statements above. Svartner (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I wrote the article, and all dead/expired links are now live. Hummer9713 (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single bylined source isn't significant coverage; it's original research. The other sources are unreliable as discussed above. I'm sorry, but unless it's hard news, we must be suspicious of certain media outlets. In ordinary times, we could tolerate a poorly sourced BLP, but in 2025, we must be cautious. The proponents of this BLP have failed in their burden of proof. I'm sorry, but this is a terrible time to treat us like we're LinkedIn. Don't take it personally, but it's for our continued existence. Maybe you can try again in 2029. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The deletion reasons make sense, no reliable sources exist.Gedaali (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Zuck28 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' . Do not find any awards notable. After looking at sources that are rather poor, I find that the subject's role as Ayurvedic physician is not notable and does not have any significance to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom Mehru13 (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 08:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, India, and Maharashtra. jolielover♥talk 09:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination's rationale is flawed. A simple Google search does not determine notability, especially for a historically significant figure like Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui, a prominent Barelvi scholar and Sufi in India and Pakistan.

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]

Weak keep: I have found a few sources that we can consider. Since this is not a BLP, I think we can allow for a bit more flexibility here. A detailed biography of the subject is available in the book Anwār-e-‘Ulamā-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat, Sindh (pp. 862–865). Another biography has been written by Shah Turab-ul-Haq, which can be accessed here. There is also an article about the subject on Scholar.pk. In addition, we can, in good faith, assume that there are further references available under WP:OFFLINE. Baqi:) (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep per Baqi. I would trust Anwaar Ulama-e-Ahle Sunnat and also that Tazkira-e-Qari Muslehuddin seems academic resource as a whole about the subject. Also that there seems an impact of the subject beyond religious scholarship. We have always had the challenges of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, and I such I believe we can have this article. Even though it needs a good revamp but AfD is not cleanup. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 18:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I believe this academic thesis (MPhil) makes me shift to keep :) _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. jolielover♥talk 09:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I have found some references, including book reviews about the subject, and also a couple of articles on Google Scholar. In addition, I came across some general references which I believe are sufficient for WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR. The rest of the articles need some cleanup and copy-editing, which I will do once I get free, as per WP:ATD. Thanks. Baqi:) (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannatulbaqi: I have reviewed all the sources you mentioned and found nothing that establishes the subject’s notability. Here is the breakdown of your references:

1, It’s an article about Urdu poetry; nothing is relevant to the article.
2, These are some routine book reviews. They are not published in any academic publications; instead, they are advertisements published in news media. Plus, there is nothing that establishes the subject’s notability.
3 This is a user-generated file-sharing website. What is the relation of this unreliable website to the article’s notability?
4, The article is about Urdu Ghazal in Sindh.
5 A catalogue of a book about Ghalib.

This article falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states that it must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and the avoidance of original research. We must be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. The sources you mentioned do not meet WP:NBASIC, which requires that people are presumed notable only if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Khayyam

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dance, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG There is SIGCOV of her in some of the independent reliable sources already present in the article but here are more. Her work as a choreographer is discussed in the following offline books:

Gorringe, Magdalen (2025). Towards a British Natyam: Creating a British Classical Indian Dance Tradition. Berghahn Books. ISBN 9781805398509.
Khan, Rabina (2021). My Hair is Pink Under This Veil. Biteback Publishing. ISBN 9781785906565.
Mitra, Royona (2025). Unmaking Contact: Choreographing South Asian Touch. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780197627761.

See also this journal article and this article from the Baring Foundation; both of which were in google scholar. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 21:02, 27 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) 22:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage presented here and in the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naila Nayem

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Fashion, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: নায়লা নাঈম is the subject's native name so searching might be more successful that way.

Wow-wee and a half, what a train wreck of an article/AfD history. I will try and summarize the useful bits of the past AfDs so that we don't need to flip between 5 different pages.

The bn wiki afd predates the creation of this article in en and might be of use to editors who can read it.
Original (8 Feb 2015): First EN AfD brought by Ibrahim Husain Meraj closes as No Consensus after Zayeem says they can see enough articles to meet WP:GNG but doesn't provide any of them.
2nd nomination (28 Feb 2015): Ibrahim Husain Meraj starts another AfD six days after the previous one closes, procedurally speedy kept (after 3 weeks)
3rd nomination (19 Oct 2015): SwisterTwister starts third AfD. Numerous editors claim notability and link to Google search results. Panyd first advances a claim of WP:NENT which Ibrahim Husain Meraj rebuts with no evidence on either side. Closes as keep.
4th nomination (8 Dec 2017): Mar11 starts the fourth AfD claiming that her participation in Run Out (film) is not enough to be notable and that she has no other claims. Vinegarymass911 and Ammarpad argue keep providing [32], [33], [34] and other links that have since 404ed. The rest of the AfD got distracted by discussion about the bn wiki version and eventually closed as No Consensus.

Moritoriko (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- based on the sources I referred to in the last AFD. Notability is not temporary.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:09, 27 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) 21:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Higgins

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, and Indiana. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:29, 27 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chipokota Mwanawasa

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Law. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. 45.215.249.106 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't really see much of anything in the news about this person, appears to monitor elections for the UN, but is one of many that do it as well. Non-notable academic career. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see anything that would make this person notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 27 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.

Gary Geidel

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Alvaldi (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the list of victims is fine. This person doesn't appear more notable than any of the others that perished that day. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Heywood (entrepreneur)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 10:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Technology, Internet, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment There is an article at Benjamin Heywood about an older and notable subject and there is no concern I see regarding article title evasion or hijacking, and this is properly disambiguated. Nathannah • 📮 15:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any concerns raised about that. What made you think there might be an issue? - The9Man ^Talk 07:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common for promotional editors who want to brute force their articles here to use different titles with parentheticals to do so (especially after being salted); just commenting that this is not the case here for those on AfD so they know in advance and this is just a regular BLP. Nathannah • 📮 19:44, 21 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Counting the author's comment as an unbolded Keep, this is no longer eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Ellis

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Basketball, Dominican Republic, and New Jersey. George Ho (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 16:52, 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 sources above are ordered chronologically and show that Grant Ellis received sustained coverage between for over a year between March 2024 and March 2025. The strongest source is the ESPN article Hooks 2025, which is an extensive profile about him. WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are not applicable because Ellis received coverage for being a contestant on season 21 of The Bachelorette and the star of season 29 of The Bachelor. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 24 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) 07:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan El Khatib

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While ambassadors may not be inherently notable, they are presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. If you wish to contest this, either explain why it would not apply to ambassadors, or make an RfC to seek community consensus to have it changed. Most definitions of what a politician is would apply to ambassadors, who hold a national position. Additionally, the dead link indicates coverage. – Ike Lek (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is very clear, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humaira Hasan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Yahya Alkharejah. But you keep insisting there is inherent notability when no one agrees with you. Where is your consensus? LibStar (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My consensus is WP:NPOL, specifically this revision [35], which is a higher level of consensus than AfD. Bringing up previous AfDs is a very "other stuff doesn't exist" argument.

Also, I very clearly specified that I was not claiming inherent notability, so I would appreciate if you struck that. Ike Lek (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
inherent, presumed notability...same thing. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Very much not the same thing. Ike Lek (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfDs (especially recent ones) are highly relevant as they show community consensus. You even said consensus can change, yes it can, but not evidenced in recent AfDs. You even tried an unsuccessful deletion review to desperately salvage your viewpoint on inherent/presumed notability. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I advice you to read WP:CONLEVEL. If you believe there is consensus against the current wording of policy, then RfC is the way to address that. Ike Lek (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated here "If you want to debate notability standards, I advise you to bring it to a policy talk page where other editors who are interested in the subject matter can weigh in. Editors interested in developing policies and guidelines are unlikely to see an AFD discussion." LibStar (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referencing a policy. You are referencing one editor's statement. Ike Lek (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that supports my claim anyway. If you want to change policy, you should take it to RfC or the talk page. You are the one proposing a change and claiming that AfDs establish consensus for developing policies. I don't know why you would quote that, as it supports the notion that your previous AfDs do not impact consensus on policy. Ike Lek (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no presumed notability for ambassadors, no matter how hard you try to wpin it or use deletion reviews to overturn delete decisions determined through consensus. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors do not have presumed notability and the subject fails GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Note that ambassadors are not presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL - I question the attempt to sneak in a novel policy interpretation, and don't even understand the reasoning. Here is NPOL bit by bit:

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.

Geschichte (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get how you claim ambassadors don't hold a political office. Ambassadors are absolutely politicians by nature of holding a political office. Can you cite a definition of politician that would exclude ambassadors? Ike Lek (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Geschichte's analysis of ambassador notability, and am slightly confused as to why @Ike Lek is citing a specific revision of WP:NPOL from 2015 containing since-removed ambassador specific material to support their assertion of consensus, while also referencing current wording of policy when discussing WP:CONLEVEL. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am showing when consensus was achieved that ambassadors are not excluded from WP:NPOL, and then making a WP:CONLEVEL argument for past AfDs not being able to establish a consensus overruling a policy. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Geschichte's analysis of NPOL and a lack of sources for GNG. Politicians participate in policy-making processes which is not true for most diplomats and ambassadors. Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambassadors have no standing of presumed notability at NPOL. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 26 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!} 23:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, how can the consensus be any "clearer". Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ludo Campbell-Reid

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, England, and New Zealand. jolielover♥talk 01:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROMO. Remove the puffery and there's negligible remaining encyclopedic content. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity puff piece. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's had significant coverage from both of Stuff and the NZ Herald, which are NZ's two main news publications. Voting keep as he appears to just pass GNG. I've added refs and removed some of the puffery/promo, but probably could do with some further edits. Nil🥝 02:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concur that the coverage in major NZ publications over a period of many years is sufficient for this guy to meet GNG, if there are concerns about the article being promotional etc they can be pretty easily handled without recourse to deletion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 25 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO with substantial independent coverage over decades, not just interviews: Wired (Feb 1997) on PrivNet/PGP; Forbes (July 1999) “The E-Gang”; Los Angeles Times (Apr 10, 2001) and Adweek (Apr 9, 2001) on eMusic’s sale to UMG (~$23–25m); Reuters (Sept 14, 2016) and Light Reading (Sept 14, 2016) on Amdocs’ acquisition of Vindicia. That is secondary, non-promotional sourcing across multiple career phases (so not WP:BIO1E). Any puffery is a cleanup Qrivas (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is likely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vindicia. -- MediaKyle (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes source seems to be okay (apparently staff-written), although it is part of a listicle. But none of the other sources have independent non-trivial coverage. Many of these sources don't even mention Hoffman. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:45, 25 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG [36][37][38] – Ike Lek (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source looks good to me, while second source is from the club Kuttelwascher competed for and as such isn't independent. I cannot view the third source so I have no opinion on it. Let'srun (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Ike Lek are sufficient to keep the article for an Olympic athlete. I would believe there are additional sources in Austrian news archives. --Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Ike Lek sources. Svartner (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. The first source provided by Ike Lek is independent. The other two are not. Both are published by the club Ruderverein Ister [de] where the subject was a rower.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 24 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]

Delete: As the analysis from 4meter4 shows, this subject lacks the needed independent WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG. In addition, the only reference currently in the article is a database. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shusmita Anis

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 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

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 14:41, 24 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]

Keep WP:1E is about whether a person should be covered in an article about the event for which they are notable or in a stand-alone biography. It is not a rationale for deleting content, but for article titling or merging (either of which I'm open to). To reiterate what I said in the first deletion discussion, this is not a case of WP:BLP1E. That only applies if the person is a low-profile individual, which is often misunderstood. It means a person who received media attention without seeking or desiring it - someone who wanted to be low-profile. She went on the children's reality show hoping for exposure and fame. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to still-active participants in earlier AfD discussion, as concerned editors: (Furius—Nearlyevil665) --Worldbruce (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG. All sources but one only have a passing mention of subject, most just announcing she was crowned "Khude Gaanraj". This one [39] has a paragraph about the subject, but this does not meet GNG. Also, it's my understanding that BLP1E applies to anyone, not just low profile individuals although higher profile individuals tend to have more coverage about them. This subject does not yet although might some day. Nnev66 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nnev66: WP:BLP1E says: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals." It doesn't apply to anyone and everyone. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sompura Brahmin

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Religion, Hinduism, Asia, India, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis is the source unreliable? Jahaza (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can see Caste Sources, thank you. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On looking at the condition of the article which is irreparable. Chronos.Zx (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Keep, based on some minor improvements I made [40]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article, but the remaining "delete" !vote may allow this discussion to continue. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are part of a series of disruptive AFD nominations by a blocked editor. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wants to seriously pursue this but I don't think we should be rewarding this behavior by keeping these AFDs going per the spirt of WP:SKCRIT. I also note that there are issues with unrecognized source deprecation. An essay hosted in user space is questionable. We would need something clearly with community backing; preferably an RS noticeboard ruling to definitively say the source is unreliable. Given the actions of the blocked editor here, I am not willing to accept that the article is unverified or in an "irreparable" state.4meter4 (talk) 14:29, 24 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]

There are a few possible sources like this book. The burden for an ordinary article is in the deleters, but in this case I don't see a lot. Is it that bad? Bearian (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madval

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Hinduism, Asia, India, Goa, and Maharashtra. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to Dhobi seems a possible ATD if more sources can associate these two terms more definitely, though hits are scarce specifically about the subject asides from repeat like articles quoting Wikipedia, my searches so far seems to turn up more for the Dhobi s , found this to support the association/relevance between the two terms. If more sources like this can be found, please do add here to help strengthen this vote.Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article, its sourcing, or the proposed redirect. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I have updated the article with information from the Konkani Encyclopaedia. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 04:10, 24 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Religion, Asia, India, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis is the source unreliable? Jahaza (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can see CasteSources, thank you Dirty Dolphish (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article, beyond noting that concerns about the reliance on potential non-RS have been tagged in the article since 2020. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are part of a series of disruptive AFD nominations by a blocked editor. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wants to seriously pursue this but I don't think we should be rewarding this behavior by keeping these AFDs going per the spirt of WP:SKCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 24 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]

Keep per 4meter4 Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaSheena Weekly

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Music, and United States of America. Moritoriko (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, and it fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:43, 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]

Keep The sources linked by User:MeVonFans shows that there is WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED.

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:02, 17 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.

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Paranormal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional sources I found that aren't currently in use in the article.

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. Silver seren^C 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. Silver seren^C 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Black Vault using the WP:B&R method (not a delete) until such time that needed referencing for a stand-alone bio occurs, per WP:TOOSOON. 5Q5|^✉ 13:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:08, 23 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 16 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]

Delete per nom, COI, multiple deletion on idwiki. Contributor(s) also suspected abusing multiple accounts. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 09:54, 18 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarang Khan Gakhar

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Asia, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Dolphish (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If a Wikipedia article contains just a single source, or in certain instances is entirely without sources, it does not necessarily imply that the subject lacks notability (particularly when it is not a BLP situation). Prior to proposing the article for AFD, we ought to investigate coverage regarding the subject ourselves, further details can be found at WP:BEFORE. Regarding this specific subject, it is highly notable. Significant references can even be located with a straightforward search on Google Books. Regards! Baqi:) (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you’ve provided are from 100 plus years ago. Per WP:RAJ we cannot use such sources for this topic. There are no modern academic sources which seem to discuss this individual in detail hence the article likely fails notability. Ixudi (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ixudi, If you have carefully read Sitush’s essay, you will find that all these points have been written specifically in relation to the caste system in India. They do not concern other matters. This means that the references I have presented are considered unreliable only with regard to the caste system in India (according to Sitush's essay). For other subjects, they remain reliable. Best Baqi:) (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 100 plus year old text written by a non-historian will NEVER be reliable for the purposes of editing an history-related article. Lepel Griffin, the author of the text you cited, was NOT a historian or a trained academic but an administrator. Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history).

Kind regards Ixudi (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The last 2 sources @Jannatulbaqi cited are from 1995 and 1968 respectively. Here are some others from 2005, 2006, 1976 and 2021. There are several others on Google Books. The absence of citations in an article does not indicate that reliable sources for the subject do not exist. Regards OneAgentBoi (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject of the article lacks significant coverage in modern academic sources. Unable to establish notability. Ixudi (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be a lot of histories, even contemporary ones by historians, covering him in google books. Note that he is the Gakhar chief "Sarang Khan" and many more references come up under the name Sarang Khan without the Gakhar at the end. Just take a look at first seven pages of hits searching "Sarang Khan" Gakhar. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage for meeting GNG. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article, but with opinions expressed by legitimate editors for both "keep" and "delete" I don't think this will stop the discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 23 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 per the sources NYC Guru (talk) 12:14, 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)
Comment: The nominator has already been blocked, so as per policy the article should now be speedy kept. Please see here Baqi:) (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Puschmann

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Finance, Science, Economics, Germany, and Switzerland. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Despite having a decent amount of citations as per Google Scholar, (asaik) he has not made any foundational or major pedagocial publications. Neither does he hold any elevated academic positions which would make hime notable under the SNG ACADEMIC. There is also no secondary coverage of his person from outside of academia, so general noatbility is not cleared either. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-keep. He is the top editor of a significant book series in his field published by Springer Publishing. While it doesn't exactly fit criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC; I do think the series is equivalent to editing a top journal in his field. Under the spirit of criteria 8 I would say he does meet NACADEMIC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 22 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Entertainment, Asia, and China. 🌟 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]

Redirect to Phoenix Legend. The voters above have uncovered sources that are reliable but most are actually about Phoenix Legend, indicating that Yangwei Linghua has achieved little independently outside the group, with the exeption of one solo song after they split in 2017. I can find nothing about any further solo activities, but I am probably restrained by language issues so that's why I recommend redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Anything known about her biography, including her solo work, can be added to the group's article, which by the way is badly out-of-date. This same argument could possibly apply to her groupmate Zeng Yi (singer) if anyone wants to inspect his article for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through some sources, Zheng Yi had some business ventures in China and has been attracting controversy lately (alongside a larger solo career), if anything, I would say he is likely the more notable of the two. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phoenix Legend per WP:ATD. Not independently notable from the band. The sources are not about her predominantly but about that group.4meter4 (talk) 14:26, 22 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]

Keep the subject is adequately covered in secondary sources as shown by @Cunard particularly the Phoenix and People sources. It's a close call but I think she squeaks by on NMUSICIAN by having separate coverage (i.e. by independently establishing notability via NBASIC) and I suppose for her role in composing 月亮之上.

One further thought. While not an "official" argument for keep here at AfD, it does seem a bit unseemly for the male member of a duo having a page and the female one not. I think she passes GNG so this isn't the basis of my vote but it is on my mind. Oblivy (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shameem Akhtar

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails sigcov. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider a merge of Rina Brown into this? It would not be unprecedented. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I noted in the AfD for Rina Brown, there certainly are sources. As well as the sources I listed there, other books and articles describe and analyse Akhtar's other films. See eg [41], [42], [43]. Akhtar also received the Shilpakala Padak award in 2020 [44] - she is listed in that WP article, but her article does not yet include this information. I will try to add these sources and additional information to both articles. At the very least, WP should have one article about the film maker and her films. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:59, 21 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]

Keep as per RebeccaGreen. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have started adding info and sources. The text already in the article is rather confusing, so I have started a filmography section to add the refs to, and will sort out the text when I have the sources entered. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources that have been added to the article appear to be enough for GNG and NFILMMAKER. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Morris (health activist)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to WP:ANYBIO, an Order of the British Empire should be enough to establish notability. There is a reliable source indicating that he is indeed and MBE -- this article is poorly written, and stinks of Wikipedia:SELFPROMOTION, but it satisfies the notability guideline at this point. Slightly off topic but there needs to be dialogue on the notability of MBE's as there are a ton of them. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:56, 15 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]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brand

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Missouri. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 21:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Disclosure: I am the subject of this article. My comments are based on independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of my career and published works.

Tom Brand’s career spans decades in agricultural broadcasting, including roles at KMA and KFEQ, and 12 years as Executive Director of the National Association of Farm Broadcasting (NAFB). This leadership has been covered in national trade publications such as Radio World, Agri Marketing, and Inside Radio.

He has received multiple nationally recognized honors — including the NAFB Horizon Award, the Honorary American FFA Degree, and induction into the St. Joseph Ag Hall of Fame — each documented in independent sources.

In 2025, Brand published two books, Welts on Your Butt a Calf Could Suck and I Never Heard of Johnny Fry, both covered in News-Press Now, The Bedford Times-Press, and American Ag Network.

Examples of independent coverage:

– Radio World – Tom Brand Is Named to Head NAFB

– Inside Radio – NAFB's Tom Brand: Positive Feedback From Lawmakers on AM Radio Issue

– The Bedford Times-Press – A Familiar Voice Finds a New Page

The article contains over a dozen independent, reliable citations, meeting WP:GNG and WP:NBROADCAST for notability in broadcasting. ~~~~ HeartlandStoryteller (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspressnow.com/news/social-services/2024/07/08/community-alliance-hires-new-director/		~ Some details	? Unknown
https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/tom-brand-is-named-to-head-nafb			✘ No
https://www.bedfordtimes-press.com/2025/06/10/a-familiar-voice-finds-a-new-page-former-kma-broadcaster-publishes-debut-book/		Dead link	? Unknown
https://www.legacy.newspressnow.com/veteran-farm-voice-leaving-kfeq-radio/article_e943b2aa-d855-5253-a749-e72f202b8572.html		~ Some details	? Unknown
https://nafb.com/node/100064	Primary		✘ No
https://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=16688			? Unknown
https://www.insideradio.com/free/nafb-s-tom-brand-positive-feedback-from-lawmakers-on-am-radio-issue/article_0a3891d0-1641-11ee-b135-eff4460bf618.html		~ Some details	? Unknown
https://nafb.com/blogs/nafb-journalists-and-friends-tour-china	Primary		✘ No
https://radioink.com/2025/04/22/asu-study-shows-farm-radios-adjustments-to-digital-era/			✘ No
https://www.rrfn.com/2024/07/09/brand-to-advocate-for-st-joe/			✘ No
https://www.americanagnetwork.com/2025/05/19/veteran-farm-broadcaster-tom-brand-shares-heartfelt-humor-and-rural-roots-in-new-book/	Press release	~ Some details	✘ No
https://sheridanexpress.blogspot.com/2025/06/hopkins-native-tom-brand-publishes-new.html			✘ No
https://archives.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/07437591-c15b-46e3-b972-f59b00d086d8/content			✘ No
https://nafb.com/blogs/hall-fame-award-presented-tom-brand	Primary		✘ No
https://sites.google.com/masc1.org/mascstuco/recognition			✘ 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]

Delete and salt for four years, after the current effort to take away Wikimedia Foundation's nonprofit status has dissipated. The richest man in the World wants to destroy us, as does his frenemy, and they could succeed, in part because of poorly-sourced autobiographies like this one, which create a conflict of interest in violation of IRC § 501. I've written about this concern at several times and places, in the past few months, and need not repeat myself. If there's a concept that is the antonym of kairos, HeartlandStoryteller is experiencing it right now: Tom Bland could not have picked the worst time in the world to do this. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 17 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]

Delete: Here's my assessment of the new sources—

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspressnow.com/news/social-services/2024/07/08/community-alliance-hires-new-director/	Republished news release		✘ No
https://www.legacy.newspressnow.com/veteran-farm-voice-leaving-kfeq-radio/article_e943b2aa-d855-5253-a749-e72f202b8572.html	Entirely quotes of Brand		✘ No
https://www.newspressnow.com/news/2025/05/26/familiar-local-voice-has-book-published	Heavily quotes of Brand		? Unknown
https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/tom-brand-is-named-to-head-nafb	Republished news release		✘ No
https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/people-news/brand-will-step-down-from-nafb-leadership-role	Republished news release		✘ No
https://www.library.illinois.edu/funkaces/june-news-and-research-from-the-acdc-issue-25-06/		States that book exists	✘ 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}}.

Some of these sources were also analyzed the first time around but my thoughts were written without reference to that. Overall these sources obviously heavily depend on press releases or interviews with limited journalistic transformation to make them proper secondary sources. It is important to me as well that you, HeartlandStoryteller, know that none of this is a personal attack against you (another reason why autobiographies are a bad idea because you don't WP:OWN anything once you publish it). And finally, you DON'T want to be WP:FAMOUS. Moritoriko (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The general notability guideline requires a topic to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That is, multiple sources must meet all parts of that criterion. I see no evidence of that here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per the convincing source analysis by Moritoriko. I concur that the sources are largely based on press releases and interviews and are not sufficiently transformative to be clearly independent. A significant factor indicating that analysis is accurate is the fact that there is not a single source with a by-lined author. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 27 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.

Giampaolo Pasquile

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. GTrang (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 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) 20:36, 20 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) 21:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bleu

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to have been been the subject of a couple moderate-length newspaper profiles about his personal life,^[1]^[2] and the loss of his job in 1989 was covered by multiple large newspapers, who both called him a "fixture".^[3]^[4] From across the country, a New York Daily News reporter called him "popular" in 1988^[5] and his 1998 visit to his North Dakota hometown was front page local news.^[6] As recently as 2011, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle called him a "major name".^[7] Most recently interviewed by the California Historical Radio Society who seem to treat him as a figure of some prominence, although I can't tell how important this organization is.^[8] I'm still calling my !vote here "weak" because I'm not sure how much of this coverage is routine for 1980s radio and television performers, so other editors contextualizing these articles would be helpful. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Mirabella, Alan (1988-09-12). "Institutionalized comedy". New York Daily News. p. 31. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ 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.
^ Fong-Torres, Ben (2011-12-11). "Big changes for Don Bleu, 'Green,' KNEW". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2012-07-19.
^ 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]

Keep. The sources already present in the article appear to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanna Yastremska

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, Europe, and Ukraine. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search and news yield no significant coverage outside of her association with Dayana Yastremska. Her sister's article mentions her only once, so I don't think a redirect is strictly necessary. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 13:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] - She has coverage in Ukrainian. News articles stated that she is focusing on her singing and acting career and not tennis. Ceriy (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't make her notable. You would not start a Wikipedia article on her based on her "focusing on her singing and acting career" neither of which has amounted to anything significant. She still doesn't pass GNG. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 15:49, 13 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.

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.
OK. Report that she started her professional tennis career.
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
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.
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.
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

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, and Australia. 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]

Comment: I would also be fine with a redirect to Colin Barnett#WA Government or Electoral district of Cottesloe#History. Rolluik (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC, and WP:NPOL. WP:LASTING does not apply to biography pages; only event pages. It's a novel application for this policy, and one that doesn't have community standing. The sourcing also doesn't bare out the significance of this change. Withdrawals and sacrifices happen all of the time in politics and elsewhere, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic until they get WP:SIGCOV (which in this case would require more than routine coverage from the election cycle). At best this would be a footnote in Colin Barnett#WA Government or Electoral district of Cottesloe#History, but I'm not really seeing a need here for a merge or redirect with the current sources in evidence.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 23 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]

Redirect per above. --NYC Guru (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as that seems to be the ongoing consensus. Bahnfrend actually makes an excellent point about how history works. The subject should be considered notable (in the historical sense) because of what she did, but has not been considered notable (in a narrow, significant coverage sense). Alas, that is not what we look at. There isn't any policy or guideline for this person did something critical that changed history. Due to the current situation, it is probably the best to be as risk-averse as possible and not change anything for the next 17 months. Bearian (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People proposed deletions

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

[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

[Star_Tribune_1979-3] "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.

[Malaspina_1981-4] 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.

[Mann_1989-5] 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.

[Fong-Torres_1989-6] 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.

[Mirabella_1988-7] Mirabella, Alan (1988-09-12). "Institutionalized comedy". New York Daily News. p. 31. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

[Cory_1998-8] 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.

[Fong-Torres_2011-9] Fong-Torres, Ben (2011-12-11). "Big changes for Don Bleu, 'Green,' KNEW". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2012-07-19.

[Bennett_2025_interview-10] 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.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]