Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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


Purge page cache watch

People

[edit]

Pasming Based

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

Fails notability by a long margin. JayCubby 15:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Indonesian internet celebrity, i just got confused on the writing format. Clearly pass WP:GNG because he has a profile written by Kumparan and Tempo. De Shiree (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And clearly the subject has 320 thousand followers on his TikTok which clearly show that he is notable enough. De Shiree (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Spain

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

Non-notable news anchor. Only obituaries and no viable career coverage, while a real estate agent dominates name searches. Article was created by blocked editor whose objective was to promote Jacksonville TV personalities on Wikipedia. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 04:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Bin Sojib

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

Lacks significant coverage that are not puffy PR pieces. Neither the businessperson nor his company appear to be notable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His company i will create, he is channel i music award winner, so, i was create his page Susdtr (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was accused of funding the 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement killing mission. I think there is a reason to keep this page. If you seniors think it is not relevant then you can delete it Susdtr (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

André Larivière

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

Fails WP:GNG looked on french article and the sources are not independent. Google search shows decent self published stuff so not independent sources Czarking0 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamand Amirsoleimani

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is available to establish notability. IMDb and MUBI are not reliable sources (WP:USERG). Nxcrypto Message 10:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Christopher (radio host)

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

Notability concerns for this out-of-date stub. Not to be confused with the Seattle radio host of the same name, I see no coverage other than the one 2009 interview linked in the article. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wittekind, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont

[edit]
Wittekind, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject does not meet GNG and is mostly a genealogical entry. WP:NOTGENEOLOGY . D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Histoires Royales is a non-expert blog, it cannot be used as a source. And the award is certainly not enough to meet ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D1551D3N7: Why would they be hinged on that single source rather than the ones already in the article? I pointed out the source I linked is an additional source, not that it's the only source.
As for the award, it meets WP:ANYBIO #1, which says, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." There's nothing in the description of that criteria that weighs how often the award it presented. It's well known, and significant, as it's the highest level of honor in Germany.--Gym Samba (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many degrees of the order and he received one of the lower degrees. For a similar example, not everyone who is an Officer of the Order of the British Empire is notable enough by virtue of their reward to get a Wikipedia article. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the fact Wittekind received this award is so significant why is the only reference available an article from 2001 in a small regional newspaper? I can't even find out what class of honour it was.
There's an essay (not a policy) here Wikipedia:Notability_(awards_and_honors) that mentions the problems with the interpretation of awards significance for notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of the Castro and Youngblood children

[edit]
Murders of the Castro and Youngblood children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No lasting significance. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is not analytical in any respect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Mangione

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

WP:BLP1E; see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luigi Mangione Launchballer 20:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Idek mann (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that justification is that we do not know if he killed the CEO. He has not been found guilty. Moreover, we do not know his motivations. This page simply allows people to assume those things and make implications. Clear violation of policy. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be very careful with your wording. Wikipedia cannot say he killed anyone until a court of law says so. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Eadweard Muybridge “shot and killed Major Harry Larkyns” and was never convicted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sheer amount of media attention he's received is enough to justify this in my opinion. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mangione was something of a folk hero even before he was identified, with look-alike contests. Despite the fact that he hasn't been convicted, his life apart from the (alleged) killing has been subject to considerable coverage in reliable sources. He meets the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He has generated this news coverage, look alike contests, "folk hero" status as you say, etc. solely because of his status as a suspect/accused in the killing. That's the definition of WP:BLP1E. I have no doubt there will be a future article on Mangione, but as long as he's not pled guilty or been convicted, he should be covered as part of the alleged crime. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not though.
    • Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event - as Chicdat mentioned, we have articles on Derek Chauvin and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. That's because sources discuss Chauvin's and Tsarnaev's lives more broadly - just as they have discussed Mangione's life more broadly.
    • The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual - Mangione has become a folk hero. Even if they were acquitted, they're unlikely to fade into obscurity.
    • The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented - Thompson's murder has become significant in way many other murders are not. NY is planning to create a special line for CEOs who feel unsafe. And Mangione has been charged with the murder now, so his role appears to be substantial.
    Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and a trout to the nom for completely skipping over the part of BLP1E that requires "3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Obviously, BLP1E does not apply to this person, who had a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Even if he's not convicted, he is notable as a suspect. Passes WP:GNG by a mile with sustained international news coverage. Shouldn't be merged with the article about the murder itself, as the biography of the suspect would overwhelm the article about the murder. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have an article for the two would-be Trump assassins. Luigi is such an infamous guy at this point, he definetally deserves his own article. KILLGOESE (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (1) as noted above by several other experienced editors, there is now significant coverage about the subject beyond the crime itself, and (2) ignore all rules if the deletion would be so controversial as to harm the project. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore all rules does not apply to BLP or BLPCRIM. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read over the twelve words at WP:IAR and didn’t see any that exempted BLP. Regardless, there’s not really any valid BLP concerns so far worth considering. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No need for a separate page. Reflecktor (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been massive media coverage worldwide, and it shows no sign of abating. Edwardx (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "No sign of abating" is hyperbole. His name has seen a significant drop in trending. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it may probably go up/down due to court developments. His indictment charge recently went up to first degree murder, so I expect that to be breaking news. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So many different reliable sources talking about this mans life, job, schooling, beliefs, etc. Definitely notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Luigi is an individual outside of the assassination, and there are individual wikipedia pages for many criminals/terrorists/assassins separate from the page about the crime specifically. Iristhescorpio (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of the rationales cited for deletion no longer apply to Luigi Mangione. As noted by others. WP:BLP1E allows for the article per criterion #3 (the event is significant and his role in it is central and well-documented). He has become too famous/notorious for WP:BLPCRIME to apply, whether found guilty or not, he is already a notable person. Sources are, for example, discussing his celebrity/folk hero status - [8][9][10][11][12][13]. This article [14] for example says that his popularity has already far eclipsed any of the would-be Trump assassins who are not household names (and those two persons have their own articles). WP:PERPETRATOR also permits this article through perpetrator criterion #2 - the presumed motivation is unusual and notable and has sparked wider discussion about the health care system in the US. I see no reason to delete or redirect it. Hzh (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At this point in time Mangioni and the killing have both become far more than even the normal suspects/crimes that are notable for Wikipedia. The second and third prongs of BLP1E would seem to no longer bar creation. We still have to be very careful to not presume guilt per WP:BLPCRIME, but a standalone article, given the overwhelming amount of sources, including many which delve into information that would not be suitable on the killing page, is probably warranted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and also as per guidelines at WP:CRIME which state: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." In my view this article has been created too soon. Mangione has not yet been convicted in court. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. He will definitely have long term significance. Current coverage is massive. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dclemens1971 Pdubs.94 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Wikiuser3315 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issue is... WP:BLP1E doesn't apply anymore as Luigi has been declared a "hero" online. He has an ample amount of coverage both in context of the event and as an individual. [15], [16], [17]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As many others have said above me, this massive coverage makes him notable enough to qualify for an article. Though I do think the article doesn't currently have much to offer that isn't already, or couldn't be placed in in the article on the murder itself FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So is keep or delete your suggestion? Eg224 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While innocent until proven guilty, the historical charges and media coverage of this person justify encyclopedic history keeping. Onikaburgers (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Motivation for the crime and the public discussion surrounding it is unique Yung Doohickey (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Especially right now while more and more information comes out about him specifically not related to the event. If we get 6 months down the line and all the information on here is the same as the article of the event then sure, a merge could be considered. But while the background of this is expanding and growing we need a place for information on him specifically. MatthewNewHouse (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't need a separate article at the moment, and the length is such that it isn't adding much new information.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonus suggestion!: Redirect and move back to Drafts. The article itself is indeed very well written, but even if WP:BLPCRIME applies, if this guy is found guilty, this article could come back to the mainspace. If deleting and redirecting are deemed necessary, at least we can preserve the draft as is in case it becomes worthy. guninvalid (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep EarthDude (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bold keep Eg224 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the man is very clearly notable. IncompA 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's a very notable man now. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We have an article on Ryan Wesley Routh, that survived an AfD. Ryan Routh has not been convicted yet of the crime (for which he is notable for). Yet that article remains. IMO, Luigi Mangione is far, far, far more notable that Ryan Wesley Routh, to the point where there is more coverage on him than his actual crime or the CEO now. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This guy is super notable. OsageOrange (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin. That AfD debate took place long before Chauvin was convicted. If anything, there is much greater coverage of Mangione's life by reliable sources than Chauvin's. We have many biographies of high profile people accused of but not convicted of crimes. Other factors are that the apparent motivation for the killing is highly unusual, and the sociological phenomenon of widespread support for an accused assassin is almost unprecedented in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noteworthy. Eg224 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the event that this AFD is somehow successful and the result is this article gets deleted, I would suggest moving it to draft space so that it can be continued to be worked on, where more and more notability will be demonstrated over a long period of time (therefore this article passes the WP:10Y test with flying colors). I personally think this article should be kept, though not for the same reasons as (some of) the other people that have also voted keep (simply because they all completely forgot about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS somehow) but I don't know. Time will tell eventually. 92.19.129.131 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guy has received a lot of attention, arguably a lot more than Thomson, and many sources have a heavy focus on Mangione himself, not just the killing. Cortador (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR caution against but do not outright prohibit creating articles/content on living people whose main claim to fame is being accused but not convicted of a crime. It's fair to say that notability requirements for such an article are much higher than run-of-the-mill GNG. Even with these heightened requirements, I think notability has been met. Magnione has continued to receive intense coverage for weeks and there is not sign of this coverage stopping any time soon. Further, this coverage has gone far beyond the usual biographical coverage of people accused of violent crimes; you have reliable sources like the New Yorker, AP News, and The Atlantic (just to name a few) providing in-depth coverage of how he has become a "folk hero." The coverage has gone far beyond Mangione's alleged role in the death of Brian Thompson. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E nothwithstanding, I believe that the separate article should be kept for two reasons: First, because of the unusual amount and depth of sources dealing with the subject in the context of his prominence as a "folk hero" of sorts, even before he was identified; second, because of the unique context of the crime this person has been accused of, which has painted him as a sort of "character" in media such as memes, TV and news (this has been documented and I believe it meets notability guidelines). CVDX (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At this point, WP:GNG is satisfied to a degree that outweighs the other guidelines mentioned. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E *not* applying: a significant event with large coverage and cultural impact. WP:1E also makes it clear that the policy really just aims to prevent stubs being made for every single news article. There is a massive, massive outpouring of interest into this subject from a massive array of reliable sources. Reading over the article, I think it’s spotless and is a remarkable example of WP:NPOV in action: an article that gives equal time to statements of fact from verifiable, reliable sources. The only real issue I see is some weasel words in the “views” section but I think that can easily be reworded. Please keep this gem! 50.39.97.171 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For single-event issues like this, I almost never vote this way, but this is an exception. His meteoric rise to fame is astounding, with him already being comparable to Donald Trump & Kamala Harris for the degree of attention. BOTTO (T•C) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At this point I think this is a WP:SNOW KEEP. While claims of WP:BLP1E brought in a lot of early votes, the overwhelming amount of coverage this subject and this story has gotten makes it something it would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to ignore. Trackinfo (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR concerns are valid, but at this point in time this subject has recived far, far more coverage than the actual event, and as such it seems WP:GNG has been safely met. If anything a reverse merge could be suggested in the future. Yet as this is a current news event, it might be to soon to tell. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quintessential WP:BLP1E Udder1882 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a case of WP:BLP1E, Suspect getting heavy coverage in the news,likely the most talked about person in news right now. Why not give him an article? Justcgi (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I acknowledge the WP:BLP1E guideline, but the rule explains in itself on bullet point 3 that a subject can be deemed worthy of a separate article because of documentation and intense significance. The effect Mangione has had on modern American politics will be felt and is already palpably influencing public interest. Case in point, a person was arrested for repeating Mangione's bullet casing messages. Luigi Mangione himself has also been discussed by the president elect, the public, and the media more than the event at this point. There is a real encyclopedic value to chronicling information about Mangione. Echoing other user's comments here, Luigi has sufficiently passed WP:GNG, but the worthiness of this article may be more apparent long after the buzz passes over. ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 15:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a political !vote as what I really recommend is turning this back into a redirect. I do not agree with most arguments of the keep advocates. Both the coverage in the sources and the content we have created thus far are still such that there is literally nothing due for inclusion in this article that would not be okay in the parent article, and WP:PERPETRATOR suggests not having the article before a potential conviction (or unless particular considerations of content organization make it genuinely necessary—not currently the case). This is a premature half-done split: This article was created by wholesale copying of content from the parent article as the source article. Some of this content was then indeed removed from the source article so as to enact moving content, but these changes at the source article are not especially good for that article (I would have !voted oppose in a split discussion for this reason) and the level of summarization there is low. As a result, there is too much duplication and scope overlap. Some content has since been added here which really should have gone there. Also, some silly content had been added here about Pokemon-related fringe beliefs, which is exactly the type of additions this article invites. But there is no point resisting. One more time it has been proven that notability means guaranteed inclusion and that the Wikipedia:Notability provision that [existence of notability] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page is essentially dead letter. I am not going to !vote delete/redirect, knowing that this outcome is obviously a fantasy, and the situation is not terrible, it just isn't optimal. And that's fine.—Alalch E. 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't believe WP:BLP1E is being interpreted correctly here. And if Haliey Welch has an article of her own, then surely this shows the flexibility of WP:BLP1E MaskedSinger (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's absolutely no reason to delete that article. Equalness1 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely necessary article with the amount of media attention and specific focus on the perpetrator, as well as the support he has gotten. Plectiscus (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information? On my Wikipedia? Tasteless. 24.144.188.223 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned, BLP1E 3 criteria for deletion is not met. This is a Lee Harvey Oswald level of single-event notability, plus his notable family is another factor. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Manginoe meets GNG criteria and is Lee Harvey Oswald-level notable. cookie monster 755 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Mr. Mangione has widespread and continuing coverage in worldwide media. His case is relevant to both the issues of crime, as well as the insurance industry. And he shares a secondary but not insubstantial interest to those interested in fugitives. He is very notable. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this article has been getting a huge amount of media coverage, and not all of it is even about his alleged role in the assassination. There's no way this can be even remotely qualified for deletion at this point. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is trending now and it is a very high profile killing with a lot behind it, deleting is censoring history. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I am in agreement with arguments presented by @GoatLordServant. In addition, my personal editing goal will be to find and contribute material to the Luigi Mangione article that will provide further evidence of the historical, political and public interest significance of this event, which I think is proving to be substantial.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Luigi Mangione is now notable enough. He has been mentioned multiple times in news and other media all over the world, for a long time. He clearly meets the notability requirement for a Wikipedia article. --Engineering Guy (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has met several criteria of high-profile individual set forth in Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, and he has reached celebrity status by some measure. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's a shame how idolized he became, but it certainly made him relevant enough. Lucafrehley (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as, at this point, he is considerably notable as an individual. —theMainLogan (t•c) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep can see argument for WP:BLP1E but it has a carveout for significant attention. Might be a case of WP:RECENTISM but the media circus around Luigi might justify this article at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PERP makes it clear that if the victim is WP:WELLKNOWN (CEO of the 11th largest company would be well known or important) OR the crime is unusual or historically significant that they meed the criteria for a page. I would argue that over two weeks of non-stop news coverage, the fact that it's not normal for a CEO of this large of a company to be shot, and the fact that he's become a meme would have him meet this criteria. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at merge into the killing article. Already far too much overlap related to the capture, and trial that is already covered on killing (like, 80% of this article) . Beyond that, clearly is only a BLP1E, scraping the bits and details of his life show nothing notable beyond his role in the killing. Masem (t) 00:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile WP:BLP1E's third criteria with your !vote? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two reasons: in the case of John Hinckley Jr. or someone like Lee Harvey Oswald, there are years following the event that try to make sense of why the person took the actions they did. While they are only notable for that one event, there's a large volume of details beyond the event itself (not just related to their life before the event) that are covered by criminologists and other experts. Second, at the current time, the article for Mangione is pretty much duplicating what is in the killing event article, as well as suffering from the overly excessive coverage that is not in line with NOTNEWS. Eliminate all the duplicate material and you're left with a routine biography (birth, school, career) that is being overly detailed because of all the news scraping that is going on (again, a NOTNEWS problem). Until there is significantly more about Mangione that is in relation to the killing but would not be part of what's covered on the killing page (as there is for Hinkley and Oswald), there's simply no need for a separate article. Maybe in the future yes, but we don't use crystal balls to guess that.
        And keep in mind, there are cases of clear BLP1E that we don't have articles on purpose for the killer, such as Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Brenton Tarrant in the Christchurch mosque shootings, despite the fact that their life had been similarly documented as much as Mangione.
        I'm also very worried about the way that Mangione is being seen as a hero or the like in social media circles and how that is influencing the editing of his article. I cannot point to any specific edit or editor, but it does feel there's a push to document him in this way. This makes it a larger BLP (not just BLP1E) issue to make sure that we're not being overly favorable towards how he is written about, and it is far easier to keep the right POV in the context of the killing article (which also already covers this social media reaction factor). — Masem (t) 05:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has gotten much media coverage since the event. Also, conviction of Thompson's killing is not required for Mangione's article to stick around on Wikipedia, either (Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of anything relating to JFK's assassination, but Oswald still has a robust Wiki page). Canuck89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page 00:38, December 20, 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep More than notable enough at this point and there’s already documentaries that are being made specifically focusing on his whole life. (talk) DovahDuck 07:45 PM, December 19, 2024 (EST)
  • Keep Mangione's notability is already signficant and is growing. Much of the news coverage focuses on him rather than the crimes he's been charged with. It would be ridiculous not to have an article about him when there will no doubt be articles on books and films about him. For precedence, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has an article. — HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the subject of this article has generated enough public discourse and significant coverage on his own that it may overwhelm the Killing of Brian Thompson article. RachelTensions (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel the burden is on the nominator to explain the reason for deletion in the RfD discussion. Deleting this would be completely asinine. Lofi Gurl (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep - Insane coverage, completely merits an article. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On quality, on notability. Early delete votes were totally shortsighted. 74.73.224.143 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Luigi Mangione is more than notable enough for his own article. Deleting it would be a foolish mistake. Anthonyt31201 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's too notable lol. Y'all should delete that Sommer Ray article though. Strawberries1 (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the future, the fact that his notability was in contention will seem ridiculous. MrsKoma (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mangione is notable now and is covered by all legacy media. PatrickChiao (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is broad media coverage regarding specifically Luigi Mangione, a separate page will be needed to keep up with the information. J.pshine5t (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. There is no doubt that Luigi Mangione is a notable enough figure to warrant his own Wikipedia article. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has become a somewhat major internet phenomenon, and that coverage is significant and would not fit in an article about the killing itself. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a legitimate concern others have pointed out in this discussion is the amount of overlap between the murder article and this one, it would definitely be more manageable to limit discussion of his arrest to one article and leave a summary with a link on the other. I've posted about it on the murder article's talk page. CVDX (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiman Says

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

The sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources include four YouTube videos and three blog articles, such as TOI Readers’ Blog and Talk Esports. I don’t think GNG is met here. GrabUp - Talk 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp: I have replaced three of the four YouTube videos with news articles. It will be helpful if you can let me know which ones are the blog articles. Pur 0 0 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gourlay (soccer)

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

Doesn't look notable, unless people can find offline significant coverage about him. Redirect to List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football seems sensible, but worth having an AFD discussion in case anyone finds some coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nomination and GiantSnowman. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was the captain of an Olympic-gold-winning football team and seems to have been considered Canada's star of his era, additionally being a top official in the country's governing football organization ([18]). Here's coverage in the U.S. from the Detroit Free Press ([19]), noting him to be "probably the best known football player in Canada"; further coverage from the Free Press at his retirement ([20]) said that he "will gown down as Canada's most famous fullback" and said that he was well known in the Detroit, U.S.-area as well. Historian Colin Jose gave him ~130 words calling him "the father of football in Galt ... One of the best known Canadian players in the United States during his era ... Recognized as the greatest full back in Ontario at the time but was also regarded as a fine captain." Here's also a bit of Montreal Star coverage regarding a dispute over his professionalism, calling him "the famous full back of the Galt Olympic champions" several years after the event. His notability appears clear: @GiantSnowman and Clariniie: BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan11. Mets WP:NOLYMPICS as a gold medalist in the 1904 Summer Olympics, in addition to the coverage found. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broden Kelly

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

Article fails to demonstrate relevant reliable sources or meeting of WP:GNG as to why Broden Kelly is notable in his own right as opposed to being a member of Aunty Donna. At present the vast majority of the article is a repetition of information on the article for Aunty Donna itself, which highlights the lack of notability as an individual.

The limited information sourced about him himself outside of Aunty Donna looks to be extended comments from a pair of podcast appearances, those he has an employment relationship with (such as a football club) or from his own personal social media accounts, which fail to demonstrate the requirements of reliable, third-party sources to meet notability.

Article should be Redirected to the Aunty Donna page until such a time notability in his own right can be demonstrated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Passi

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

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darel Chase (bishop)

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

A non-notable clergy person. Sources that mention Chase are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (his personal website, a blog from a bishop in his church, his church's official website x2 x3 x4, x5, his church's international communion website, and corporate documents on the KY secretary of state's site); and an apparent WP:SPS WordPress blog. Several sources do not even mention Chase at all ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]); these are contributing to WP:SYNTH to draw connections about the subject not present in the sources. I found nothing qualifying in a WP:BEFORE search. Finally, let me address WP:BISHOPS since I am guessing it will come up. While AfD participants have debated the applicability of BISHOPS (and I have generally accepted it as a quasi-guideline since WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES align with it, even though it's not a P&G), this bishop does not even qualify under BISHOPS. The church he leads is a micro-denomination that is not part of the Anglican Communion or recognized by any of its member churches. Moreover, Chase is the pastor of an individual congregation, and bishops in this category are per CLERGYOUTCOMES not typically found notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqa Zawqari

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

Unnotable yemeni short story writer. All sources in this article are broken. No significant information about him could be found on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Omonuk

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

Fails WP:BIO. In full disclosure I have removed WP:CITEKILL/WP:BOMBARD prior to nominating it here. The items removed added no value. There seems to be a campaign to get this perosn an article. See also Draft:N-O. I have also filed an SPI on the various parties involved, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clare Nassanga. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Vishwakarma

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

No reliable sources are available on google, I also tried searching in Regional languages but got nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine and India. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The highlighted individual meet WP:GNG under WP:SNG. A former director of the Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine ([30]) qualify under WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC (#8) criteria. In addition, a search in Google Scholar reveal several scientific articles that have been credited to or published in collaboration with the same individual ([31], [32], [33] and [34]). The article however, require improvement and addition of sources. QEnigma (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As a former director of IIIM he does not automatically qualify. The staff is about 68 PhD/Dr, with a modest budget of about $0.5M (it goes further in India). Just as a Dean at a university is not automatic, he is not -- but it is a partial notability. In terms of publications his h-factor of 62 is strong, but it is a high citation field. (The 20th person in drug discovery has an h-factor of 118, and it is more an exponential than linear relationship.) The two together just about persuade me that he passes WP:NPROF, the criteria the nom used are not really appropriate. For certain the page needs work.

Shalini Passi

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

Unable to see enough SIGCOV to meet WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. LKBT (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Blade

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

Nominated on behalf of a non-autoconfirmed user claiming to be the article subject:

Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability BladeTerry (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263157720

I am the subject of this article, Terry Blade.
— Edit summary of Special:Diff/1263146142

I am the subject of this article: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263156892

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the best quality article for sure, and some of the cited sources are better than others. But based on WP:BLP, Blade seems to meet the criteria of having multiple reliable independent sources. Him not wanting an article isn't a criteria for BLP. guninvalid (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutabali

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

The subject has only written a single text, apart from which, there is no other biographical information available. Hence, low notability. Not many WP:RS mention the subject. Moreover, the same information as on this page is also available on the page Satkhandagama. Tagging other active users of this project and those who responded to a similar AfD previously: User:RJShashwat, User:Goyama, User:Expectopatronum30, User:TheAstorPastor. To fellow editors: please feel free to not respond if you didn't wish to be tagged here. I apologize for the same. ParvatPrakash (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren't more sources redirect to Satkhandagama. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any more sources. Whichever I found only state that he wrote Satkhandagama, nothing more than that. I couldn't find any other biographical information about him. ParvatPrakash (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyad Boustany

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

WP:BEFORE done, and I can see that there is a living person of this name according to [this https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1266103/federalism-in-lebanon-a-cure-all-or-a-sham.html] 2021 piece in L'Orient-Le Jour. Similarly this in L'Orient-Le Jour indicates he may be a writer with arguable significance, that preamble to Wikipedia:Notability. As always, happy to be proven wrong about this, or anything else en.wp wide. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kochu Hassan Kunju Bahadoor

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

Unnotable guy from india. There is 0 information about him on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mugdho

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Farhan Faiyaaz, and a Merge into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. Even international responses were only because of his death. GrabUp - Talk 09:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mr Bangladesh71: Please cite any significant coverage about this person besides their death in the protests. No matter how much significant coverage a person received for one event, the subject cannot have a stand-alone article because it fails WP:BIO1E. A separate article about the death event, as suggested by Mehedi Abedin, could be created. GrabUp - Talk 05:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Mugdho was literally one of the most prominent figures in the uprising. His video handing out water bottles went viral and got enough attention to solidify his notability. His slogan, "Pani lagbe, Pani," became iconic—it was painted on walls from Chittagong source to Rangpursourcesource. On top of that, his significance in the movement and the impact of his death directly led to his brother becoming the Organising CEO of the July Shaheed Smrity Foundation. Also, his death was even notable to the previous regime, that out of everyone that was killed, the then education minister, Mohibul Hasan Chowdhury paid homage to his grave at his hometown.*
If that doesn’t scream notability, here are just a few of the many reliable sources covering his story: CNNBBCProthom AloBenar. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruno pnm ars: You don’t seem to understand WP:BIO1E. When a person receives significant coverage for only one event, such as their death during the protests, BIO1E states that there should not be a standalone article or biography page about them. All the sources you provided cover the person solely because of their death in the protest, and nothing else. This is a clear case of a one-event scenario. Even if there are thousands of articles about their death, that alone does not meet notability requirements. There must be significant coverage about them in relation to other events, which does not exist here. Instead, we can create a separate article about their death, like Death of Mir Mugdho. GrabUp - Talk 07:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His influence in Bangladeshi politics isn't any less than that of Gavrilo Princip in Europe, albeit in a positive way. He has become a legendary figure whose cultural influence is only increasing in time. No it isn't just about his death, hundreds of other people has died in the revolution. But the kind of person he was has left a deep impact on collective Bangladeshi psyche.
There is a coordinated effort from some neighboring countries to downplay the significance of the July revolution. Trying to delete this article on a (false) technicality seems to be a part of that effort. Wikipedia should keep the article on a person of such historical importance. 116.68.203.3 (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mugdho is a prominent, or we can say a key figure, in the development of the movement as we observed the build up in the final days. His "Pani lagbe pani" became an icon during and after the movement. From news anchor crying for Mugdho on live television before AL minister went viral.[35] After Sheikh Hasina's resignation, Mugdho was also the key figure with his quote on graffitis all over Bangladesh.[36] These clearly shows the case. Even the subsequent protests against BD President over his controversial remarks on Sheikh Hasina's resignation as BD PM or against Indian "aggression", protesters used the slogan “Abu Sayed-Mugdho, shesh hoyni juddho" (Abu Sayed to Mugdho, the fight isn't over).[37][38] I can also see a short documentary report on Mugdho from CNN here. I am not quite sure about Farhan, but Mugdho certainly passes the GNG, and obviously not 1E. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Meghmollar2017: All the sources you cited are related to or because of his death in the protests. Please provide even a single source that gives significant coverage before his death, specifically before 18 July 2024, which is the date of his death, or any significant coverage that is not about or related to his death in the protest. This is a clear case of WP:BIO1E. GrabUp - Talk 07:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GrabUp, In this case, we do have other articles on WP, where they are notable not only because they died on a specific event but also for the impact after their demise. For instance Trayvon Martin or Abdul Jabbar (activist) from 1952 language movement, and so on. WP:1E itself defines, ... if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 18:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Meghmollar2017: Please avoid WP:WHATABOUT arguments here, as they don’t work in this. I also don’t see anything particularly notable about the subject beyond his death during the protests. Additionally, WP:1E states, If the event and the individual’s role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Currently, there is no article about the death event itself. If such an article existed, this argument might hold merit. Therefore, I believe it would be better to create a separate article about the death event, as a biography article is not warranted at this time. GrabUp - Talk 09:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The proponent is making two statements. First said, merge this article, Then it says to change the title. The proponent should say one statement. Then he says, the article is made for a single incident. If a person gets Hughes coverage for a single incident, it is not tied to the WP:BIO1E policy. Rather it becomes significant according to GNG. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 12:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elyssa East

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

This subject appears to fail WP:GNG for lack of WP:SIGCOV by unrelated parties. Interviews, WP:BLPSPS websites and the like don't help here. This subject also fails WP:NAUTHOR because contributions appear not to be very significant. And PEN New England Awards do not confer automatic notability. JFHJr (㊟) 01:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champaben

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

I'm trying to clean up articles in projects Jainism and Hinduism. I came across this supposedly biographical article of a personality with poor notability. While I acknowledge that notable religious figures should have a separate article, I also see that this one simply only advertises the personality's religious beliefs and makes unsupported arguments without any credible secondary sources. The article may be deleted as there have been no sources as per WP:RS since January 2018. Tagging User:RJShashwat, User:Goyama and User:Expectopatronum30 for their views as they have been active in the project Jainism and have responded in an earlier AfD I nominated. Note that the creator of the article was blocked indefinitely in March 2018 for a lengthy history vandalising other articles and sockpuppetry. I also noticed that the creator of this article had created another one before this one with the name "Sister Champa" that I assume would refer to the same person. However that article was speedily deleted for not having enough reliable sources and poor notability of the subject of the article. ParvatPrakash (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmin Chaudhry

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

This article fails to meet the WP:ENT or WP:BIO. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references are either trivial mentions or lack the depth required to establish notability. ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Patrick Bet-David played a notable role in the 2024 presidential election discourse by hosting significant figures such as Donald Trump on his podcast tour. His platform, Valuetainment, served as a space for Trump to engage with his base and discuss campaign messaging, drawing millions of views and contributing to public conversations about the election. Bet-David’s interviews with Trump and other political figures have been widely covered in reliable sources like Vanity Fair and The Spectator, highlighting his influence in political media. This demonstrates that Bet-David is a public figure of notability, with substantial impact on contemporary political dialogue. Avaldcast (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Avaldcast. ChopinAficionado (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analyst would be helpful at this point. User:NebulaDrift, I assume you didn't mean it when you asked for the article to be deleted. AFD discussions are a give and take between editors who hold different opinions, getting to a consensus is part of the process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda

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

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kade

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

non-notable musician, sourced entirely to blackhat SEO and the same "source". GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The New Times is giving me pause; it feels like the coverage in Indian or Nigerian media, where it seems everyone is a superstar, but no one else bothers to report on their accomplishments. Way too many hits in the one newspaper for this to be a coincidence... Feels like a PROMO. I'm happy to be proven incorrect, but that's the impression I'm getting. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (I already !voted keep above) I think this hinges on if The New Times is a reliable source. I honestly don't know. Here's what I can ascertain:
  1. It's the first listed newspapers on BBC for Rwanda newspapers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14093244
  2. The Wikipedia article and the BBC note it's proximity to government
  3. Of course, plenty reliable sources are proximate to government, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, although I would suggest The New Times is not a reliable source for Rwandan politics.
  4. The Wikipedia WP:RSPSS noticeboard is silent on The New Times. A search of the archive reveals nothing.
So my question is: does anyone have any evidence, any reason to assume it's a bad source? Vikingsam (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Sayyaf (Islamic State leader)

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

I'm not seeing any indication that this meets WP:LASTING here. Routine death in long civil war. CutlassCiera 22:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not a routine death in a long civil war. Was a key senior figure how "ISIS became the world's wealthiest terror group." Subject to a number of WP:SIGCOV in the form of multiple in-depth researched profiles testifying to his importance after his death, including in NBC, WSJ, meeting WP:GNG.
Longhornsg (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Was a key senior figure" is not going to cut it in terms of notability. The main concern of no lasting effect is in that coverage cuts off. CutlassCiera 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Was" because he's dead. The relevant policy here is WP:NBASIC, which the coverage suffices. WP:LASTING applies to events, not people, anyway. Longhornsg (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Lasting does not apply to people. It is part of the event SNG, and as such does not apply to anything that is not an event. The only people-related guideline would be BIO1E, which does not apply here (many events). PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the article and the coverage, as stated by Oaktree b, is strictly about his death. There isn't any other evidence that he is notable besides his way of death. CutlassCiera 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very clearly not true. The WSJ piece is about his entire life. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Longhornsg. There does seem to be sourcing attesting to his importance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Grandma Hardcore

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

No real establishment of notability. The sources provided are: a blog site, the MTV homepage, a BusinessWeek article about her gaming career which seemed quite trivial, and a forum post-esque story pointing back to the aforementioned blog site. Been notability tagged since 2012. I should also add, I suggest not looking up her nickname lest you find links to 'the Hub'. Aydoh8[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to evaluate whether they are solely known for being an older person playing games, which might be better to merge somewhere. The name and blog appear to be run by her grandson and how long did the MTV G-Hole segment run, not to discredit her part. IgelRM (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus to keep, but some input from community and the other !votes will appreciated regarding the comments by IgelRM. Another round of discussion can't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's 100% individually notable enough an article at this point. The articles seem to be on the topic of "old person plays games," but at this point, she has become notable in her own right. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate what lasting impact you see at this point? I could perhaps see a merge with Video game culture. IgelRM (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici

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

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden McNeil

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

I can't actually see a reason that McNeil is notable himself. Yes, there are a load of sources mentioning the unpleasant comments that he comes out with, but he simply seems to be someone who has tagged along with other unpleasant characters, and has been noted as such by reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says in the Wikipedia guidelines if there's reliable sources about an individual, that's what determined notability. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is another in a long line of far-right nobodies who is only recognized for having a beef with another far-right personality. Does not satisfy WP:N, definitely does not satisfy WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's been very little discussion of specific sources, so I've gone ahead and started by making a source assessment table based on sources in the article:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The Kansas City Star Yes This is a WP:INDEPENDENT WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting Yes This is a reliable WP:NEWSORG Yes The source is principally about the article subject. ✔ Yes
The Manhattan Mercury Yes This is an independent daily mainstream newspaper doing its own reporting. Yes This is a 140-year-old well-established daily newspaper; WP:NEWSORG. Yes This source is directly covering the article subject in a substantial way, with the whole source principally focused on the article subject. ✔ Yes
Anti-defamation league ? Moot as not SIGCOV ? Moot as not SIGCOV No He gets name-dropped once, but that's about all the coverage he gets. ✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 1 No Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. Yes why not? ? deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM. ✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 2 No Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. Yes Why not? deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM. ✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 1 Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. Yes This coverage is principally about McNeil. ✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 2 Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. No McNeil is not so much as mentioned by name once. ✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 3 Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. ? There's plenty of coverage of McNeil and Dickerman as a sort of group, but little of McNeil alone. In any case, going to be moot as WP:N notes that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, and we already have a contributing SPLC source above. ? Unknown
The Kansas City Star 2 Yes Independent WP:NEWSORG Yes A WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting Yes Seems to give substantial coverage to McNeil and his activities. ✔ Yes
The Daily Dot's "God" blog Yes Sure? No While WP:DAILYDOT is MREL, but looking more broadly at the God blog archives this looks like an opinionated blog that's just hosted on the platfom. ? Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions. ✘ No
BroBible Yes Sure? ~ I can't find anything in the WP:RSN archives or at WP:NPPSG, but this feel a lot like a WP:DEXERTO-level source Yes Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions. ~ Partial
Inside Higher Ed Yes Why not? Yes WP:NEWSORG Yes We've got two paragraphs about McNeil that pass the WP:100WT for independent prose, albeit barely. ✔ Yes
The Kansas City Star 3 Yes Independent WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:NEWSORG doing their own report principally about the subject and his activities. ✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 4 Yes This is the same url as source 6 Yes This is the same url as source 6 Yes This is the same url as source 6 ✔ Yes
MEL Magazine Yes Sure? ~ RSN archives treat this as a mixed reliability source. Yes Three paragraphs about McNeil and his activities, passes the WP:100WT. ~ Partial
Mother Jones Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:MOTHERJONES, source is WP:GREL. Yes Five paragraphs are given in the article to coverage of McNeil; this is clearly SIGCOV. ✔ Yes
Vice Yes Why not? ~ The community doesn't have consensus regarding VICE's reliability. Yes Seems to provide significant secondary coverage of McNeil and his making allegations against Fuentes. ~ Partial
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}}.
What this reveals is that, based on solely sources in the article, McNeil has received WP:SIGCOV from at least the following sources:
  1. The Kansas City Star: 1, 2, 3
  2. The Manhattan Mercury: 1
  3. Southern Poverty Law Center: 1, maybe 2
  4. Mother Jones: 1.
This alone would easily pass WP:SIGCOV and, as there appears to be multiple events covered among these sources, this doesn't look like a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E case. The additional sources that one can google regarding the McNeil-KSU football affair really do drive home that not all of his coverage is about Nick Fuentes or storming the U.S. capitol:
McNeil-KSU football affair additional sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. Sports Illustrated
  2. The Manhattan Mercury
  3. Yahoo! News
  4. The Sporting News
  5. AP 1 and 2
  6. ESPN
  7. KC Star
  8. USA Today
As such, I think we have an individual here who easily passes WP:GNG, for whom no suitable merge target exists, and I think nom's contention that this is only someone who is covered in the context of Fuentes is plainly incorrect. In light of the breadth of coverage and the deep sourcing, there is nothing reasonable to do here but to keep.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - thanks to Red-tailed hawk for assessing the sources. Looks like GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: More about the controversial things said and the fallout than about the individual, from the sources. "Streamer says things, ruffles feathers, than fades away" seems to be the extent of what we have. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. Reliable sources like ADL, the Kansas city star, the Manhatten Mercury, Southern poverty law center all cover this individual. This goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. According with Wikipedia's guidelines, Notability isn't determined on what a certain individual is notable for, but if reliable sources cover him. However if it was the opposite, well they cover his falling out with Fuentes, His views, His association with Nick Fuentes, him being held accountable by Kansas State University for an offensive joke, him getting a girlfriend, etc. I don't even know why this is a discussion. His Wikipedia page has been up for about two years with barely anyone saying anything because it's common sense this goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable, this person wasn't notable before that happened. I'd be looking for extensive coverage of them before the event, which we don't seem to have. I've done things as a student and was held accountable, that's not really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b you've might've done bad things as a student, but news sources didn't cover it. Again, Wikipedia's notability policy are if reliable sources cover something, not "this isn't something I think is news worthy or topic worthy". As for "there needs to be extensive coverage of him before the Kansas University incident", why? Why does it matter what the first news source about him said? If multiple reliable sources cover him and different incidents involving him afterwards, that goes with Wikipedia's notability policy. But here, here's a news story covering him before the Kansas University incident. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nicholas-fuentes-america-first-infighting also I saw ESPN cover Jaden McNeil too, multiple reliable sources cover this guy, I'm struggling to understand why this is a discussion. Wikipedia's guidelines is clear as day. Wikipedia's guidelines say nothing about if you think something's news worthy, but if news outlets consider it news worthy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That incident, for what it's worth, has been turned into a academic case study. It's not just that a kid said something inflammatory, it's that the incident was nationally covered and continued to receive attention in academics even after it was out of the news (in addition to the case study, described in a Ph.D. thesis). I think that reducing this to " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable is a gross oversimplification here that misses just how big this was—and also ignores coverage in the context of other events as well. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons given above and on the talk page already. Two newspapers from his area discussing him, and Mother Jones and the SPLC discussing him in the context of someone else, and for an edgy remark he made, do not make him worthy of an entire article. Swinub★ 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swinub as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, ESPN, Yahoo News, USA today, sports illustrated and other huge mainstream sources cover thie guy. It's not just two news papers. And he's not only mentioned in the context of Nick Fuentes and an edgy tweet he made in 2020, as pointed out by me in multiple examples earlier. And as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, he easily passes WP:GNG HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more. Swinub★ 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more... no, that is patently false. SPLC covers this individual applying for and receiving Paycheck Protection Program funds, and Mother Jones doesn't so much as mention that inflammatory Tweet, but does provide significant coverage of this individual. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From what I'm reading above, the firing is notable, I'm not sure the individual is. Could perhaps create an article about the incident itself. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b there's numerous reliable sources that cover different incidents regarding Jaden McNeil DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of significant coverage. Look, lots of people, but especially the bad, are famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like most of us agree it should stay DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments seem evenly divided between Delete and Keep. The existence of RS coverage is not in doubt but some editors argue that it isn't SIGCOV enough to establish notability. Editors are warned not to BLUDGEON this discussion and contest every opinion they disagree with.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think we're done here. Looks like the opposers have given up HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Swinub★ 22:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sw 36914 You got called out for lying in this AfD discussion. And keep trying to get me banned by saying I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, without any proof. What makes you think that's gonna work? @Liz I think we're done here. 100% of the people are not going to agree to keep the page, but an administrator gave reasons why the page should stay and showed examples on how it goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. 100% are not going to agree, but if most people do, we should end the discussion. Being here forever is pointless. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread his reply and noticed my error a day later, as I'm not paying too close attention to this page. I apologize for the mistake, but it was not intentional. As for us "being done here," we're not; let other people give their input. You've given yours already. Swinub★ 04:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're done here HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HumansRightsIsCool, this might be a surprise if you haven't participated in many AFDs before but the participants can't declare that a discussion is over and should be closed. An AFD discussion is closed when a closer sees that a consensus has been reached or decides, after several relistings, that no consensus is possible. In situations like this discussion, this is likely to happen if a few more editors participate in this discussion and offer their arguments. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been days since a new editor sent a message here. Lots of editors were showing up, but it stopped once everyone kinda realized this discussion is pointless. administrators like Red-tailed hawk gave examples on how McNeil's page goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, considering how multiple reliable sources cover different incidents involving Jaden McNeil. Swinub is never going to agree the page should stay, no matter how many examples you give of this Wikipedia article going with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Are we supposed to stay here for 3 years? Someone get a AdF closer to decide the fate of the article, not everyone's gonna agree. No matter what. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz explained how this works, demanding someone come in and give you satisfaction is not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamna Pathak

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

Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see [49], [50], [51]. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources are quite poor and not independent of the subject with claims and interviews. Subject fails the criteria for WP:NACTOR who did not have significant roles in "multiple" notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are reliable, and the subject is well-researched with verifiable claims.
𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion on the sources added. Keep !votes, kindly comment based on our P&Gs and after giving a detailed analysis of the sources based on those P&Gs with a clear rationale why the article should be kept, not mere statements saying the sources are good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret D. Nadauld

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

Margaret D. Nadauld was a former president of the Young Women organization. This article was deleted on october 17, 2018 for being unnotable. It was recreated today, the author added 25 new sources but all of them seem to be just brief mentions of her. I still think that this article does not satisfy notability guidelines. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first AfD had no discussion on it which is disappointing and I don't know how to see what the article looked like at that time. My comments are that there seems to be reporting on her actions as president of the organization from non-related sources and that women, especially in more socially conservative areas like religious groups, are mentioned less than equivalent men. Having said that I am not certain this article either meets or doesn't meet requirements I just want to help start a conversation that should be had. The primary author of the article posted on the talk page their reasoning for keeping, not sure why it isn't here.
Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article was nominated for deletion by a new WP user (account created Nov. 5), who nominated 25+ articles for deletion in one day using Twinkle, with the explanation, "Its relaxing, I love cleaning Wikipedia from bad articles!" on his talk page. When I kindly (I hope) pointed out that this creates significant work for others, within hours this user nominated this new article of mine for deletion. Because I think the deletion proposal was not made on the merits or in good faith I believe this meets the requirements for WP:SK per reason 2a.
Regarding the merits of the case for deletion, the proposer reports to have perused the 29 attached sources and only found "just brief mentions of her". Hmmm. Six articles are entirely about Nadauld. All of the rest that are news articles have at least full paragraphs about her, and are in the context of her activities and accomplishments. As with the other 20+ proposed deletions, he does not report having followed the required WP:BEFORE process, and I believe has not done so. This despite being told by at least three people about WP:BEFORE before he proposed deletion of this article. I've counted over 200 articles mentioning Nadauld in my WP:BEFORE search, one of which is a lengthy, independent secondary source newspaper article entirely about her. Somehow he missed that.
This new article establishes notability by using over 25 different sources. None are trivial mentions per WP:SIGCOV. They are a mix of primary and secondary.
Several sources are clearly, irrefutably independent, including the retrospective of Nadauld's presidency in The Daily Spectrum, the Provo Daily Herald article, and the several Salt Lake Tribune articles. The Tribune was founded specifically for the purpose of being a counterpoint to the Church's viewpoint, as detailed in its WP article. And three secondary sources are academic historical research papers, assessing impact of various initiatives during Nadauld's tenure. As a whole, this all establishes the notability of the article's subject.
Other factors regarding Nadauld's notability:
  • She was global president of a one million-plus member notable organization.
  • The organization has had sixteen presidents in its 144-year history, and Nadauld was the only one who does not have a WP article, despite serving a full term of five years. I tend to believe the deletion of Nadauld's article would be an error (if it were sourced properly), rather than the creation of the other fifteen articles being errors.
  • Seven other WP articles reference Margaret D. Nadauld. This is specified as a measure of notability.
  • WP:SUSTAINED is established by several sources:
    • the 2005 masters thesis,
    • the 2008 Spectrum retrospective article,
    • the news report of the luncheon honoring her nine years after leaving office,
    • the peer reviewed research from 2015 assessing her impact,
    • the television interview with Nadauld in 2015 analyzing organization changes made by the church,
    • multiple invitations to speak at university graduations in the decades since her service, and
    • the fact that several quotes from her speeches and books regularly appear on social media and quote collections, such as on Goodreads, twenty-plus years after her tenure. This google image search shows several hundred examples: [52]. Do I need to link some of these as sources? Davemc0 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the sources of this version of the page, they are (organized by supporting notability):
3. The Spectrum article is actually good.
21. OK, but also just the school newspaper that her husband was the president at
28. OK
2. A short biography (and a speech she wrote), I think a lot hinges on if this biography was provided by her or written independently. If it's the former then it doesn't support notability at all.
6. a mention
7. a mention
8. a mention
9. a mention
15. a mention
16. a mention
23. a mention
10. trivial
12. trivial
13. trivial
14. trivial
18. trivial
19. trivial
20. trivial
22. trivial
24. trivial
25. trivial
26. trivial
4. primary, no notability
5. primary, no notability
27. primary, no notability
29. entirely consists of quotes from her, no notability
1. no mention
11. no mention
17. no mention
I think you are overstating your case here when you might not need to. As far as the other factors go:
500,000 people at the time she was president according to the best article about her but potato potato.
I've looked through the other presidents, many of them are also notable for things besides being president and at least one of the others I think doesn't have enough sources on her page for her to be notable either.
Good point
The masters thesis barely mentions her, I didn't find the 2015 peer reviewed research about her impact, which source is that? Again the spectrum article is the best article for her notability.
@SolxrgashiUnited can you have a look through the Spectrum article and let me know what you think? Moritoriko (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, im unable to access it. For some reason the site does not open. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. What behavior do you get when you try? We're talking about these two links, right? [53] and [54]. It works for me on two computers and two browsers. Weird. I can make a copy for you somewhere if you need me to. Davemc0 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cloudflare blocked me. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pain! I put copies of the two halves of the article on my Google Drive here: https: //photos.app.goo .gl/DyDaHMCEB2iaFrkG8 (you have to copy and paste the link without spaces). If Cloudflare blocks that for you I could put them on my talk page for a short time and then delete them. Cheers. Davemc0 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources:
2. Agree that the bio doesn't indicate notability if she wrote it. Typically, the university leadership will put together a bio from a few sources. But ignoring the bio, this source is a college graduation address, which is a strong indicator of notability, especially since she was invited 20 years after her presidency term ended.
6. Five paragraphs are about her and what she said. The other 6 paragraphs are about Faust, who also spoke. So this is much more than a mention.
7. The article is about six speeches given. Three paragraphs were about hers. That's more than a mention, in my opinion.
Er, the histories were 2011, not 2015. They are refs 16 and 18. 16 is a history of the whole organization, and has three paragraphs about Nadauld and her tenure. That's NOT trivial, and places her leadership in the context of the broader history. The later paragraph about camps is also regarding the 8400 acre camp that Nadauld started.
18. The other history. One long paragraph places Nadauld's 2002 changes in context. I'd promote this one from "trivial" to "a mention".
29. Correct that it's not a news story about her. The fact that a network affiliate news organization chose her to interview about the actions of a 16 million member church is how this indicates notability. And the fact that the station did so 13 years after Nadauld ended her leadership in the church's organization is the indication of WP:SUSTAINED.
The size of the organization (1 million vs. 500,000) came from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. It's a 1991 figure. I know the church grew between 1991 and 2002, so I was surprised to see the 500,000 figure. Similarly, that article says she visited 25 countries as president, while the Ensign College bio says 55. I don't know which is more accurate.
Anyone have thoughts about the couple hundred post of quotes of hers that are currently floating around social media? Recall that sources in articles and actual notability are completely separate concepts.
I can't track what you're replying to with your other comments. Which was a good point? Which was overstating my case? If you don't think I need to state the case more strongly I'd sure appreciate if you would render a "Keep" or "Speedy Keep" opinion to help us all move on.

Davemc0 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davemc0 You should remove the bolding from your later comments, as editors are allowed only one bolded !vote in any discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. "I don't think" isn't really the standard for deletion. Clearly, the individual is notable. (Capricious AfD noms really do diminish WP.) DesignatedGrammarian (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. . Seems to satify satisfy quite well the requirements of WP:GNG. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't know about the canvassing rule. Someone pointed it out right afterward, and I apologized and haven't done it since. While I was not neutral in phrasing my request for help, I think the people who I asked to take a look mostly meet the description of "concerned editors" under "appropriate people". The only canvassed person who responded is a very expert reviewer of new pages, so I believe the discussion is not very tainted. Anyway, sorry. Davemc0 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think "Speedy Keep" DOES apply here. The fact that the nominator chose a rationale does not negate the fact that it was a vexatious nomination. If otherwise, any vexatious nomination could circumvent "Speedy Keep" by simply randomly mentioning a rationale. But the rule appears to be designed to prevent that:
"The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion. For example:
  • obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured content or April Fools jokes) (WP:SK 2.a.)
Davemc0 (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per today's revelations regarding canvassing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Sources 6 and 7 confirm this person was the chair of the organization. Source 21 is also confirmation, albeit brief. If the role itself is notable, we at least have basic confirmation of this person holding that role. The rest is more than enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much of the discussion of the subject is of the I don't like it sort. My personal opinion is irrelevant. The organization that she lead appears to be the LDS equivalent of the Girl scouts or Girl

Guides. The "coverage problem" with all LDS leaders has been that they didn't get much media coverage until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shugavybz

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

Yet another article on a musician who has done literally nothing notable to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources from here and a cursory search suggests nothing useful. They're either interviews with the subject, or routine coverages that are entirely dependent on the subject. This is, as usual, a properly written article from the author on a non-notable musician to pretend notability. Also, the TurnTable Certification System of Nigeria is dubious in its entirety. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are either puff pieces that are meant to confer notability on him or interviews. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Afí-afeti your comment makes it sound like you are arguing for a Keep but you neglected to actually declare this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Manna

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're now at a split opinion, so worth relisting in an attempt to garner further clarity on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

[edit]


Academics and educators

[edit]

Emire Khidayer

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

Not convinced this passes WP:GNG. The current references are certainly not up to scratch, and I could only find one reference on Google News relating to the subject here. Uhooep (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Misgeld

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

The article lacks any clear indication of WP:Notability. Xpander (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherilyn Elston

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

Article has been around for a few years but does not indicate how the subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NACADEMIC. ... discospinster talk 17:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Respondek

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

The subject of this article does not pass any criterion of WP:NPROF. Although very detailed, nothing in this CV is more outstanding than the average contributions of full professors. Moreover the article is largely written by its subject, is full of WP:PEACOCK terms and lacks of reliable sources D.Lazard (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) With comparison to the page was created, my PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC POLITICAL record is much augmented. In months it will appear new links to newspaper articles. It contains a series of links to public newspaper information on my person.
(!!!) 2) I added a few valuable sentences and information to wiki terms, WITHOUT SELF-CITING:
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hermite_interpolation
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Companion_matrix
It is very surprising, how above terms WAS WITH HOLE - WHAT IN CASE ROOTS ARE *MULTIPLE* ??? The problem was solved already before word war II (~80-100 years ago), and the "wiki community" does know it ??? I started to fill those gaps in the knowledge You present !!! You should be more humble in judging others.
3) If You defectively be able to, delete be sure it will reborn in a version which will be free of current drawbacks. I am going to correct it and aware of a few general minuses of it. But it deserve to be correct, not delete.
4) The page is to be re-create in a few languages, i.e. German, Spain and French. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article:
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Computational_complexity_of_matrix_multiplication
contained nothing about galactic size algorithms and that there are also available usable ones (since 80-ties!). I added sentence about it, but is was broken by Mr D. Lazard to:
"On the opposite, above Strassen's algorithm of 1969, and Pan's algorithm of 1978, whose respective exponents are *slightly above and below 2.78 have constant coefficients that make them feasible.*"
Above is a NONSENSE both mathematically and in the very language layer.
Thus I suggest Mr Lazard not insinuate to delete my personal page, better look what You are personally writing. Jerzy.Respondek Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not so worried about published monographs, as their effects on the broader scientific community. Publishing articles is what every academic does after their research, we need to see that it has an effect on others, usually by their citation factor among other things. Other criteria would include the invention of a new concept or theory, or authoring an important/notable textbook in their field of study. None of which seems to apply in your case. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but try another criterion than citations: analyse the gaps in just wiki articles I corrected.
Why they were so hollow ? Wiki just makes effects on broad scientific community. We should not misguide a broad audience, pretending (or believing) that the case of multiple roots will never happen. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Filling in gaps in articles doesn't make you notable. I do the same and don't have a Wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I am filling the gaps, which firstly I filled in science. More precisely, solved it in optimal way as the first person. And they appear in basic notions. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> " (..) I asked the community of Wikipedia editors whether the page about you should be deleted. So far, all intervening editors (except you) agree that this page must be deleted."
They got a superficial impression, so for such a case is just a discussion. Look at the holes I filled in a few articles on elementary topics. The area of confluent Vandermonde matrix is too less known up to now. I shall give only one example: it is usable even is such an elementary methods like solving recursive equations by matrix tools. My arXiv work (waiting for review now) enumerates above a dozen (revision will have even more) of elementary applications. But what we have now, in wiki (But already I corrected two articles) and not only in wiki ? Authors are pretending that the case of multiple nodes in Vandermonde does not exists... But the theory on that was mature enough in 1932. Moreover, working on my arXiv I spent months to analyse a few dozens of algorithms to invert them - no one gives quadratic efficiency. Even if published in SIAM (in general N^3), or developed by authors which have monographs on special matrices (saying that it is possible to do in quadratic time, but surprisingly do not write how to do that, write only N^3 algorithm). The article on confluent Vandermonde matrix in wiki is still very poor. Even the definition was without source, I corrected it. But is was devised in 1901..
The <feasible> algorithms on FMM deserve to be promoted, if We want that the FMM topic will be ever applicable, not only the Strassen's.
Look deeper into my public activity, there are links to participation in science-policy parliamentary commission(*), advisory board at the government level, press agency news and opening plenary talks at reputable word conferences in Comp Sci/math. It is not typical, when scientists working in mat and computer sci participates in public life, especially shaping EU science politics.
In close years also a few another english-written press agency news will appear.
I am planning to rework my wiki page since a few years, but I wait for apperance of my book, to include it as milestone in scientific part of my career.
I am also in contact and consulation of my national reputable wiki editor, which advises me how to make my personal page professional, obeying wiki rules.
Besides, even if deleted I am sure that after another ~5 years my sole scientific results will justify the rebirth. However, I will not reveal my cards.
(*) British would name it "House of Representatives". Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> The only existing algorithm" is unsourced, and PROBABLY wrong, even if one restricts existence to quadratic complexity
If there exists another always quadratic algorithm, I would be very curious to get informed of such an ?
But disclaimer: it must not pretend the algorithm, be written in a generic pseudocode or even a human-style description how to invert it. Only C/Pascal/Fortran form of the algorithm is viable enough to prove it works always in quadratic time.
Read the abstract from my arXiv, nothing add but nothing to remove:
"The author was encouraged to write this review by numerous enquiries from researchers all over the world, who needed a ready-to-use algorithm for the inversion of confluent Vandermonde matrices which works in quadratic time for any values of the parameters allowed by the definition, including the case of large root multiplicities of the characteristic polynomial." Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published news or papers don't prove notability in Wikipedia, I'm sorry. I don't know how else to explain this. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News about me are not self-published. They are published by national, public press agency. If sbody says about himself it is not automatically false.
Look also for another science-indicators than citations. Maybe the holes I fill are still not fully filled.
Last but not the least - are You noticing also public activities ? Typical mathematician's pages probably has not such a, thus I guess most here (I believe at first glance !) have overlooked it. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jónína Kristín Berg

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

Article lacks multiple sources with significant coverage (WP:BIO asks for multiple sources). The most substantial source is the first in the article, a short article in a newspaper.[72] Source 2 is a primary source listing higher-ups in a given organization.[73] Source 3 is a very short mention in a newspaper.[74] Source 4 is used to mention her role as an interim administrator, but with no other notable events occurring during the period. Source 5 is another primary source. A google search for more coverage yielded only social media. Wizmut (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]


Actors and filmmakers

[edit]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

[edit]
Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik:, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". Having created this particular article myself, I no longer see this page being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Fontaine

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

Out of 11 references provided, YouTube, IMDb (2), Personal website(2) (fontainemedia, as mentioned in the article) (2). Except for ref 10, none of the rest 4 refs mention the subject. Subject fails the basic criteria (WP:BASIC) for all 8 mentioned professional including WP:NACTOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. ANUwrites 04:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Bin Sojib

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

Lacks significant coverage that are not puffy PR pieces. Neither the businessperson nor his company appear to be notable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His company i will create, he is channel i music award winner, so, i was create his page Susdtr (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was accused of funding the 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement killing mission. I think there is a reason to keep this page. If you seniors think it is not relevant then you can delete it Susdtr (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mwijaku

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

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANUwrites 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Wilborn

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

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability here. Amigao (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamand Amirsoleimani

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is available to establish notability. IMDb and MUBI are not reliable sources (WP:USERG). Nxcrypto Message 10:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keely Shaye Smith

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

Notable mainly for being Pierce Brosnan's wife. However, notability is not inherited. All reliable references to her exist because she is Pierce Brosnan's wife.

Fails notability guideline WP:JOURNALIST --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Mendez

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

This is my first nomination, so correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the subject of this article is not notable. I haven't found any sources that would talk about him in detail. Li1411 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Rex

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

Total promo nonsense article, sourced to passing mentions with nothing meaningful in the way of actual coverage - and the only mentions of Rex are again, in passing, if even that. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dont label an article that I spent my time and effort working on nonsense. Talk to me with respect. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I was asked to review this article earlier. I tagged it as relying too heavily on primary sources. It seems like with how long this person has been around and the circles they trade in it would be easy for him to be notable by some metric, but his projects and interviews have no independent coverage and there's little to nothing I could find that discusses him in an impartial way. Reconrabbit 20:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the page so let me explain why. I will start like this.
In the early days of Instagram verification, before Instagram gave out verification, they didnt know how to select who was worthy of being verified and why those people were worthy and others were not. So they found a solution. One of the criteria they used to determine if someone was notable to be verified was to check out the number of DMs said person from other verified accounts. Getting DMs from verified accounts meant you were notable too. E.g an obscure music producer getting DMs from different big musicians meant he was notable even though he wasnt famous. Afterall some notable people work behind the scenes. Jimmy Rex's Show have had some great people on the podcast. In Wikipedia we call those "associates". Lots of people who have Wikipedia articles have been guests at his show. A non notable podcaster wont pull notable guests to his podcast.
There is something else I should point out. There was a debate about Giannis Antetokounmpo, and how his opening sentence should be worded. The bone of contention was whether he should be labeled as a Greek or a Nigerian-Greek. What put that argument to rest was a video from YouTube. In the video he said that he represents both Nigeria and Greece. These are the scenarios when Youtube videos can be employed. In Jimmy Rex's case, these notable guests are talking by themselves for themselves. You watch the video and see them. It is verifiable. When you say primary source, do you know that you mean that the words are coming from Jimmy Rex's mouth? And in this case, are they? Cokeandbread (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what WP:SOURCING is, because I'm not going to explain it to you. It details the different types and the fact that your article is a raging advertisement sourced to blackhat SEO doesn't help. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:YOUTUBE-EL.
And about SEO blackhatting, you are simply projecting, because I never had the intention for such. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how I am projecting? What does that mean? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some signs that you might be projecting onto me:
• You make assumptions about my intentions. With no good faith.
• You accuse me of doing something that you yourself might be guilty of.
• You seem overly sensitive to my words or actions, as if you’re taking them personally. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define projecting. Cause this isn't it. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have time for this. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Naveen Nazim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor/ assistant director. His claim to fame is as the brother of popular actress Nazriya Nazim and brother in law of Fahadh Faasil. Does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Jupitus Smart 21:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmin Chaudhry

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

This article fails to meet the WP:ENT or WP:BIO. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references are either trivial mentions or lack the depth required to establish notability. ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eldon Howard

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

Hasn't changed since previous AFD. JayCubby 02:48, 10 December 2024 (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 03:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re

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

Unable to find independent sources with significant coverage. The existing sources about and around "Saiyar Mori Re" are mostly routine coverage and paid PR/brand content, failing WP:NFSOURCES. I am also unable to find the minimum number of full length reviews, so it fails WP:NFILM entirely. The sources mentioned in the previous XfD are paid PR, as evident from the bylines and reviews from unknown websites/blogs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was this added to the Actors and Filmmakers list? It's a film not a person. -Mushy Yank. 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: See precedent AfD and arguments presented by User:DareshMohan, for example. A redirect seems warranted anyway (same comment) so that I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Freelance journalist/blogger, Brand promoted content and an article from an unknown website with no byline? Can you please read the nomination statement and WP:NFILM guideline once again and consider revising your rationale to a policy based one instead of how you feel about deletion? Here are some more PR articles that they have given out: [79], [80], [81] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please read DareshMohan's argument? Gujarat is not a "country" but I consider the film meets NFILM's inclusionary criterion #3, if you really wish me to provide a link to a guideline. I'll stand by my !vote, if I may. I've added a couple of things to the page, rapidly. -Mushy Yank. 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All you have added so far is just brand promoted content, routine coverage and passing mentions with no bylines. Nearly five years on Wikipedia, yet how you interpret WP:NFIC to fit your own views is astonishing.
    Here, "distributed domestically in a country" means distributed within India. This film didn't see the light outside Gujarat and we are not maintaining a database of films released in India, but rather of notable films released in India. Comparing WP:NFIC#3's weight of a film being released/distributed domestically in a country is nowhere close to that of a film being distributed within a state. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "didn't see the light outside Gujarat" is an absurd rationale. Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally, comprises multiple industries based on language and regional distinctions. The subject here being included in the Gujarati cinema, though less prominent than its counterparts like Bollywood or Tollywood, is still a significant part of this spectrum. Drawing a comparison between Gujarati cinema and the broader, more commercially dominant segments of Indian cinema is flawed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field. — MimsMENTOR talk 07:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't bring essays here. If you want to change existing policies, start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films).
    The current guidelines only support films that are successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film-producing country. You have contradicted yourself by mentioning "Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally". WP:NFIC#3 does not apply to major film producing countries and if Saiyar Mori Re were a significant part of this spectrum, it would have received reviews in reliable sources. Instead, it only has paid PR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep your tone out! this is a discussion space, essays, statements, facts and all are legit here. — MimsMENTOR talk 09:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It seems the nominator has completely overlooked sources from TOI and other reputable outlets (which still lack full consensus on reliability). With that, giving an additional consideration and collectively reviewing the coverage's from the sources from TOI, TOI 2, TOI 3, One India and from the Gujarati media: navgujaratsamay, gujaratheadline and abtakmedia as well as the film's feature at the International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 is enough for notability.--— MimsMENTOR talk 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TOI - Interview / Not independent / Pre-release coverage - Jun 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
    • One India - Partner content as indicated at the top - July 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
    • navgujaratsamay - Press release from trailer launch - Jun 27 (Part of PR)
    • gujaratheadline - Same as navgujaratsamay article / Press release from trailer launch - Jun 25 (Part of PR)
    • abtakmedia - Same as above / Press release from trailer launch - July 04, 2022
    • International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 - Trivial mention / no awards
    None of the above news media outlets covered or reviewed the film after its release. It seems you have overlooked both the sources and the nomination rationale. Would you mind sharing your source analysis below? Mims Mentor Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeraxmoira Before diving into a source analysis, could you clarify or provide evidence for your claim that each of all sources mentioned are "(part of PR)"? — MimsMENTOR talk 11:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of coverage following the film's release is sufficient evidence. Apart from that, the OneIndia article is marked as "Partner Content". As for the trailer launch, inviting all the news media is standard practice and has been done this way consistently. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point about the "partner content", I do agree with that. However, when I emphasized the need for "collective reviewing" and "additional consideration" of the sources. I recognize that the coverage may not be strong enough to 'firmly keep' the article, but your own analysis doesn't solidly push for deletion either, leaning more towards WP:BARE. As for PR evidence, there isn't concrete proof to back up that claim you made (when you are talking about policies). Pre-release/press release (earned media) coverage isn’t inherently promotional, and reputable outlets like TOI often feature pre-release interviews without the coverage being purely PR-driven. — MimsMENTOR talk 12:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are bringing in more essays to XfDs. Please understand that essays are not P&G and hold no significant value in XfDs. The TOI sources are insufficient for a standalone article, especially given that there are literally zero reviews available. There are three articles about the trailer launch featuring the same banner image, yet you believe this isn't sufficient evidence that the press was invited to the event. The sources here are nowhere close to meeting GNG or NFILM. If you disagree, please provide a source analysis that might help me better understand your point of view. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays arent binding, but they offer relevant interpretations in debates like XfDs, especially for borderline cases. Dismissing them outright doesnt negate their value in offering nuance. The TOI sources, while not extensive, still provide verifiable coverage. Prerelease coverage is common, even for non-blockbuster films. Moreover, you havent fully explained why multiple outlets covering the same trailer launch definitively proves PR involvement. The case is WP:BARE now. I believe I’ve made it clear what aspects of the discussion align with GNG, based on policy guidelines. The nominator seems fixated on a single point and dismisses valid considerations by labeling them "essays," which is unproductive. Since the conversation is going in circles, I’ll be stepping back. I suggest exploring more sources from Gujarati media to verify additional coverage of the film instead of narrowing the focus to a single angle.--— MimsMENTOR talk 14:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no source analysis? Cool. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? to count in more essay? Sorry No! — MimsMENTOR talk 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These sources can be used to write an article, but they certainly do not meet the standards required to establish GNG and there are no sources available after the film's release. Regarding WP:NFILM, there are literally no reviews for this film, despite it being released in the internet era. The fact that all the sources below greatly appreciate the film, its songs, trailer and its success, yet none of them have published a review, is quite amusing.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movie-details/saiyar-mori-re/movieshow/92209803.cms Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release20220713132245/ No Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect) ? Yes ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/saiyar-mori-re-new-song-manda-lidha-mohi-raj-is-winning-hearts-on-the-internet/articleshow/92653580.cms No Entertainment Desk / No byline Yes Yes ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-on-saiyar-mori-re-i-am-feeling-akhand-mauj-exclusive/articleshow/92200116.cms No Interview Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.zee5.com/articles/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release No Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect) ? Yes ✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2022/Jul/08/meet-kariyas-saiyar-mori-re-celebrates-rural-flavours-of-india-2474459.html No Express News Service / No byline Yes ~ ✘ No
https://www.oneindia.com/partner-content/jay-kariyas-debut-film-saiyar-mori-re-is-out-now-and-the-audience-can-t-get-enough-of-it-3433537.html No Partner content ? ✘ No
https://www.mynation.com/entertainment/film-saiyar-mori-re-wins-over-the-audience-despite-its-experimental-approach-filmmakers-express-sigh-snt-reuiuy No featured content / No byline ? ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/watch-saiyar-mori-re-makers-will-soon-drop-a-teaser/articleshow/92082623.cms No Entertainment Desk / No byline Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/gujarati-films-go-global/81859967.html Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-unveils-the-first-look-of-his-saiyar-mori-re/articleshow/92034340.cms No Interview Yes No Routine coverage from an Instagram Post ✘ No
https://navgujaratsamay.com/love-story-based-film-saiyar-mori-re--a-turning-point-in-the-gujarati-film-industrys-history/221700.html No Trailer launch press release ? Yes ✘ No
https://www.gujaratheadline.com/%e0%aa%b9%e0%aa%b0%e0%aa%bf-%e0%aa%95%e0%aa%b0%e0%ab%87-%e0%aa%8f-%e0%aa%b8%e0%aa%be%e0%aa%9a%e0%ab%81/ No Trailer launch press release ? Yes ✘ No
https://www.abtakmedia.com/god-do-is-the-best-rural-areas-love-story-sayer-mori-re/ No Abtak Media / No byline ? Yes ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/the-international-gujarati-film-festival-igff-returns-with-its-4th-edition-in-chicago-usa-this-year-exclusive/articleshow/101098950.cms Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ 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}}.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamna Pathak

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

Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see [82], [83], [84]. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources are quite poor and not independent of the subject with claims and interviews. Subject fails the criteria for WP:NACTOR who did not have significant roles in "multiple" notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are reliable, and the subject is well-researched with verifiable claims.
𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion on the sources added. Keep !votes, kindly comment based on our P&Gs and after giving a detailed analysis of the sources based on those P&Gs with a clear rationale why the article should be kept, not mere statements saying the sources are good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott

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

I struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beint

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

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR due to insignificant roles in films which are also difficult to verify due to the lack of reliable sources. Frost 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Sanchez

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

Declined PROD; apparently, it was PRODded years before. Old article. Fails a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletions

[edit]

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.


Categories

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Deletion_sorting&oldid=1030861123"