Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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

People

[edit]

Waya Boy

[edit]
Waya Boy (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, disputed draftification. Potentially created by an author with a COI but no firm evidence so cannot be re-draftified without discussion at AfD. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet comments. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan Merrony.
Their are a few features from reputable sources from the country of the the subject but thier is evidence of online presence and the subject has been verified on several social media platforms hence consider editing the article that deleting it. Thanks Bobby Colhn. Dan Merrony (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dan Merrony (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
I think it should not be deleted, we should make some correction though Marvokayz (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Marvokayz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Jean Bourguignon

[edit]
Jean Bourguignon (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)

Suspected hoax. No information found under the name Jean Bourguignon or Jean-Jules Bourguignon. Creator did no other work beyond adding him to a list of inventors. Also likely not the first person to invent the first remote control toy car or radio alarm clock as those histories are reasonably well documented and have no mention of him. Cannot find sources for the claimed medal from the Salon des Inventeurs either. Article has been unreferenced since its creation in December 2007 and was originally tagged as such in March 2008, with the date updated in March 2011. Kazamzam (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent any sources. The English credits him with the "the first perpetual movement watch" and the Dutch with the first "solar-powered" watch. Apparent hoax. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Megan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Stu Megan (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:SIGCOV. Some passing mentions in the ext links but not sufficient for a WP:BLP. No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years. No updates. scope_creepTalk 08:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Kothe

[edit]
Mahesh Kothe (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 held non-notable positions, such the mayor and corporator of a small city. A BEFORE search returns results related to election preparations, which are routine and lack significant independent coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:POLITICIAN. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other people who hold the notable position only as mayor & still have a Wikipedia are as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malti_Rai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priya_Rajan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadwal_Vijayalakshmi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramila_Pandey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firhad_Hakim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Agarwal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junaid_Azim_Mattu
The person is question - Shri Mahesh Kothe, apart from being a mayor has also initiated one of most important project that is Solapur IT park.
Read more about it at - https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/news/maharashtra/solapur-get-it-park-5000-jobs-expected-29124 Mohit Gandmal (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Tan

[edit]
Melissa Tan (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)

Other than winning the national Miss Universe in 2006, nothing of note can be found on her since then. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not surprised. The pageant would have not been covered in the UK or the United States but would have been covered in Southeast Asia. The best sources are probably offline (at that time; maybe digitized now?) newspapers in Malaysia, and I don’t believe most are available through The Wikipedia Library.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above two articles were accessed through ProQuest in The Wikipedia Library and are from the two of the major newspapers in the country at that time. – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they are both English sources which tends to cover a different type of content scope targeted more toward English speaking expats. I would expect better coverage in the Maylay language papers.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Sales

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a session musician, and not found references to add. I do not think the existing references demonstrate that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. There is no obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funkefeller

[edit]
Funkefeller (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 about a not-notable electronica producer. Of the article's 5 references, 1 is to their non-notable label's website, and the other four are all blog articles written by that label in a community feed. Also, he seems to have started the label himself the same year this article was written. The Wikipedia article seems to have long outlasted the artist and their label, all because they formatted five references that looked legit at a glance. Here2rewrite (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Zahed

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Vicky Zahed (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 our notability criteria – doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Ratekreel (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. V. S. Rama Rao

[edit]
S. V. S. Rama Rao (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)

Unsourced since January 2009. The only source I can find for him - at least in english sources - is IMDb, which is not considered RS on its own. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan White (DJ)

[edit]
Alan White (DJ) (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)
JiveBop TV Dance Party (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)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio DJ and a spinoff article about his purported "television show" that may or may not ever have actually existed, with neither article properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media personalities or their shows.
As always, broadcasters are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage and analysis about them to establish that they've been externally validated as significant by somebody other than their own public relations agent -- but the BLP is "referenced" to one deadlinked unreliable source, one discogs.com directory entry about somebody else who isn't Alan White and one glancing namecheck of Alan White's existence in a newspaper obituary of somebody else who also isn't Alan White, absolutely none of which constitutes support for the notability of Alan White.
And meanwhile, the "television show" article is actually serving primarily as a coatrack for a largely reduplicated summary of the BLP, and not actually saying even one word at all about a "television show" until the very end, when it finally reveals that the "television show" that's posing as the article's nominal subject is "currently in pre-production" -- except it's said that since the day the article was created in 2011, and the article has never been updated since then with any evidence that the show ever actually started airing. And it's also based entirely on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about either Alan White or the "show" present there either.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting a headache on this one trying to locate sources. Too many people named "Alan White", and several active in music.4meter4 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hall (publisher)

[edit]
Daniel Hall (publisher) (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)

Nearly all of the listed sources seem to be connected to the subject. No indication of notability, and additional searching found nothing. CutlassCiera 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nilsson

[edit]
Jessica Nilsson (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 only has one (unreliable) source. No indication of importance besides directing one feature film, as all the rest of the credits are small projects. CutlassCiera 16:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Brown (American football)

[edit]
Keith Brown (American football) (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 a partial hoax. It looks like there was a Keith Brown who played college football at Rhode Island but he never signed with an NFL team. He just had a tryout in 2006. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Chauhan

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

Subject was twice declined in AfC and also fails NACTOR, as the subject has not had significant roles in notable films or shows. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the WP:OR added by User:Saurang Vara who denies any COI despite being familiar with the subject's personal information. The subject's role in Chhello Divas does not appear to be significant and none of the other films have substantial content to be considered when evaluating Mayur Chauhan according to NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say his 3 roles in productions that have a page on this WP are not significant? And why should Karsandas Pay & Use be considered non-notable? I found some coverage about Saiyar Mori Re too. He seems to meet WP:NACTOR, -Mushy Yank. 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned films do not meet WP:NFOE/ WP:NFILM. Karsandas Pay & Use has two reviews, one from TOI with an unknown critic and another from an unknown website. Saiyar Mori Re has no reception section and Samandar (film) has two local reviews! From a WP:BEFORE search, none of these films have been distributed outside Gujarat. Just because these films have articles on Wikipedia does not mean they are notable in the first place to be used as evaluation criteria for Mayur Chauhan. Either way, there is zero coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a critic writes for a national publication such as Times of India he is considered nationally known as per discussions at WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discusisons on What is a "nationally-known critic"? and "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India aren't closed and there is no consensus either. Let me know if I have missed any archived discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rmr. Ragulvarma

[edit]
Rmr. Ragulvarma (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 couldn't find any information about this individual through Google searches, which makes me inclined towards this being a hoax. None of the references cited in the article appear to mention the person, and the content seems to be copied from the article on R. S. Munirathinam. Since the article was accepted via AfC, initiating a deletion discussion might be the most appropriate action. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RAGULVARMA PRABHU/Archive, Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU, DEEPA RAGULVARMA, Draft:DEEPA RAGULVARMA, PMK RAGULVARMA, Draft:RAGULVARMA PMK, User:RMR2004/sandbox and Draft:RAGULVARMA RMR. Falls well within CSD criteria of A7, G3 and A10, or G5 if anyone fancies reopening the SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A complete mess aside from the issues mentioned above. Procyon117 (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Tychmini

[edit]
Natalie Tychmini (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Oliva

[edit]
Alexandre Oliva (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: N. The only sources I could find about him are tied to the FSF, GNU, or make passing mentions of his name in routine coverage that is almost entirely about Linux-libre. Since notability is not transitive, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was dePRODed on the basis that he received a "prestigious award". This "prestigious award" is given by the FSF, which is an organization that the article and the PROD rationale makes very clear that he is a part of. Regardless, this was dePRODed without the addition of independent sources, so this goes to AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing for this person found, there is an author Alexandra Oliva, which isn't this person. I don't see any acceptable sources used either, as the nom explains. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Oliva clearly meets items 1. and 2. of WP:ANYBIO ("has received a well-known and significant award" plus "has made a widely recognized contribution ... in a specific field"). The fact that he is part of the Free Software movement does not diminish the merit of his award in any way. It just stands as proof that his life-long contributions were acknowledged by his peers.
He is cited as reference or acknowledged in several books in a period spanning almost three decades:
  • Fourth International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems - Proceedings, by IEEE Computer Society (1998)
  • The International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, by Mohamed G. Gouda (1999)
  • Unix backup and recovery, by W. Curtis Preston (1999)
  • Windows to Linux Migration Toolkit - Your Windows to Linux Extreme Makeover, by David Allen (2004)
  • Backup & Recovery - Inexpensive Backup Solutions for Open Systems, by W. Curtis Preston (2007)
  • Actor-network Theory and Technology Innovation - Advancements and New Concepts, by Arthur Tatnall (2011)
  • Cybersecurity - A Self-Teaching Introduction, by C. P. Gupta, K. K. Goyal (2020)
  • Coding Democracy - How Hackers Are Disrupting Power, Surveillance, and Authoritarianism, by Maureen Webb (2021)
  • A Propriedade Intelectual do Software - análise histórica e crítica, by Rodrigo L Canalli (2021)
  • Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), by Yash Pratap Singh Narwaria, Dr. Maulik K Rathod, Anindita Dutta Roy, Tanmay Agrawal (2024)
He was one of the co-founders of Free Software Foundation Latin America [1] in 2005, and still is one of its board members [2]. As a promoter of free software, he has given dozens of lectures in Brazil (this governamental site lists just a few) and abroad. —capmo (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledgements or mentions in books are not a measure of notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Do not throw random citations and random lectures at us and hope that one or two of them sticks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The award that you keep citing is tied to an organization Oliva is actively part of—it is not an independent honor and does not count at all towards notability. His membership in the Free Software movement does not establish notability either, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown absolutely nothing to demonstrate that WP: ANYBIO is met, but even if you did, the guideline very clearly states that "meeting one or more [of the standards] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Show me significant coverage from sources that meet WP: RS, or this content doesn’t belong here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (writer)

[edit]
Michael Cohen (writer) (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:PROMO, not a pass for WP:BASIC. No reliable source in the article, nor ones I could find online searching for "Michael Cohen"+"UFO" to try to avoid all the references to Trump's personal lawyer, gives significant coverage to Michael Cohen. Instead they only cover his paranormal/aliens output and give him a trivial mention (e.g., in this piece, "Those who smell a hoax point to several suspicious aspects of the video, including the fact that the man who posted the piece, a paranormal enthusiast named Michael Cohen, has been involved with several other videos of UFOs and other phenomena that are of questionable authenticity.").

That UFO Digest and similar are not reliable sources hardly needs explaining. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Hue

[edit]
Warren Hue (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)

Relying on self-promotional press releases without significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Pridemanty (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Reyes Zobel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Joel Reyes Zobel (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 meet WP:BIO fails in WP:GNG. Royiswariii Talk! 01:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Fayad

[edit]
Ibrahim Fayad (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)

From what I can tell this individual does not meet WP:NBIO. The article had two sources, but one was completely unrelated to this man at all and was instead about The Crown (TV series). The only remaining source is simply a link to his ResearchGate account. I'm not getting much of note on a BEFORE search, although it does seem to be a fairly common name, so someone else might have more success. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delia M. Sosa

[edit]
Delia M. Sosa (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 individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC, which presumes notability only when multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I have reviewed the sources in this article in the source assessment table below:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPDjc9-xVc NPAF via YouTube No Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. The remainder are bridges between speakers at that event. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker ? Moot as clearly independent and clearly non-secondary ✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (1) No Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. There is no independent content here. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker ? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary ✘ No
Everyday Trans Activism Podcast No Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is a raw audio interview of the subject. There is no independent content here ~ Per WP:ABOUTSELF for the response of the interviewee. As for the remainder, this appears to be a WP:SPS inasmuch as "Parents of Trans Youth" appears to be a one-person organization, and the founder is the one interviewing and publishing. ? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary ✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (2) Yes Seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting Yes Why not? Yes Seems to contain a reasonably decent amount of independent prose to be considered significant coverage. ✔ Yes
Tufts School of Medicine website No This is a profile by a University PR department of own of their own students. No This is a university PR blog; WP:SPS ain't good enough for facts about living people ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
500 Queer Scientists No This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
[https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2023/ama-gender-affirming-care Endocrine Society Press Release No This is a press release No This is a press release No There is not so much a mention of Sosa by name in the piece. ✘ No
Them Yes Seems independent to me Yes For sake of argument No There is one sentence of independent coverage of Sosa in this piece; ther remainder is a quote of the article subject's. ✘ No
500 Queer Scientists No This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject. ? This is the same as source 6; nothing new. ? This is the same as source 6; nothing new. ✘ No
MedPage Today Yes Why not? Yes Why not? No Sosa is quoted in the piece, but there are (generously) a mere 2 sentences of independent prose about Sosa in that piece. ✘ No
USA Today Yes USA Today is an indepenent WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:GREL per WP:RSP No While Sosa is quoted thrice, there is very little independent prose about Sosa; WP:NBASIC requires that coverage that contributes towards notability be both secondary in nature and independent of the subject. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have also conducted an online search to see if there are additional sources about this person. I was able to find a nomination form for a medical student association role (clearly non-independent), and an interview on the website of The Broad Institute (Sosa appears to have been employed/had a role at the Broad Institute at the time, so the source is non-independent). As such, I don't see multiple sources contributing towards notability here.

Because this individual appears to fail the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC, I believe this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utkarsh Gupta

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Utkarsh Gupta (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)

Still fails WP:NACTOR, so fails WP:GNG. One ref, questionable, was added after the previous AFC decline, and it isn't WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 and 2 are not independent, source 3 has mention about subject quitting mtv show, source 4 and 6 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and Source 5 is passing mention about the subject about being first choice for the show. RangersRus (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How's source 2 not independent in entertainment category? Reminder, it's ruled out as not entirely independent in politics because of it's Political Alignment with the current indian regime.[1] Source 2 isn't the passing mention as it covers the subject who's quitting the show also source 5 covers two actors who were competing for some film role, the subject is among them, how's that the passing mention? (Reminder: Article titles usually tell readers what/who the article is going to cover/who's the subject). source 4 and 6 which are from the same website are indeed ruled as questionable in most cases but looking at it's discussion here, you have to choose what to source as it's still trusted by majority, also we are required to read any questionable context to see whether there's any sign of WP:COI, these articles (4&6) which are said to be of 2015 have some quality and reliable information in them plus less or no promotion. I still think the article should be kept. ANUwrites 12:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 4 and 6 are unreliable for all reasons and that is why by consensus it was listed under unreliable Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Generally_used_sources. You can discuss about the source on WP:ICTFSOURCES talk page. When I mentioned about source 2 not independent means that the article is not independent of the claims (interview) made by the subject himself. Sources are recommended to be secondary independent. Source 5 is just passing mention and nothing significant that is needed to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A WP:NACTOR pass with at least 2 lead/main cast roles (ergo significant) in notable productions; existing sources (some presented here) allow to verify it. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Maharashtra. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Analysis. Note that in show "Kaisi yeh yaariaan" the subject was not a lead but played the character of best friend of the main lead.
  • Source 1 writes about the subject quitting the show by sharing subject's Twitter message.
  • Source 2 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
  • Source 3 is promotion and advertising the subject by sharing his Instagram.
  • Source 4 is passing mention.
  • Source 5 is passing mention about the subject being one of the contestant on the MTV Splitsvilla Season 8
  • Source 6 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
  • Source 7 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
  • Source 8 has videos of different episodes of a show "Pyar Tune Kya Kiya" and the subject was in episode 1.
  • Source 9 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
  • Source 10 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
  • Source 11 is not independent with interview of the subject talking about his role in the upcoming TV show.
  • Source 12 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
  • Source 13 is dead 404.
  • Source 14 is linked to jio cinema and suppose to show overview info on fuh se fantasy web series but quickly jumps to another screen but nothing significant on the subject.
  • Source 15 does not even have an entry about the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Two or more roles with verification of those roles is not what WP:NACTOR means. Two or more roles give us the presumption that there is significant coverage (not just verification). The coverage here is all churnalism, unreliable, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Heinz

[edit]
Federico Heinz (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 think this passes WP: N. I found one book that makes several mentions of Heinz (by Anita Say Chan), but everything else I could find is either not independent of the subject or references the subject in passing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some secondary sources with coverage. [16], [17], [18], [19], Whether this amounts to WP:SIGCOV is up for debate. To me it is borderline.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found [1] when doing a WP: BEFORE. [2] looks like a trivial mention. No comment about [3] and [4] as they are in a language I cannot read (though other people are more than welcome to translate those passages and make comments about them here). HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one. A possible WP:ATD would be redirecting to Fundación Vía Libre.4meter4 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable with your proposed ATD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iida Yoshitake

[edit]
Iida Yoshitake (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 remained unsourced for 18 years. No indication that sources exist or that this person is notable per guidelines. Original creator of this article was banned and confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Arsement

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

Fails WP:NBIO, nothing really significant just a series of "he did this" or unreliable sources. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources to make this article bigger 73.216.182.68 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kelleher

[edit]
Michael Kelleher (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 independent coverage of this individual that I could find (some interviews, but interviews are primary sources and fail WP:SECONDARY, and self-published coverage). Article has been tagged as unsourced since January 2024. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Stava Stensnes

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

Subject is not notable as a chess player. No chess titles, no tournament wins, rank 1479 in Norway and 198485 in the world. Quale (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Torres Carrillo

[edit]
Antonio Torres Carrillo (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. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources Demt1298 (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charlotte Sartre

[edit]
Charlotte Sartre (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. No WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources that shows notability. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kai Trump (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)

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.
None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).
2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.
3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).
In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)
In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [22] [23] [24] [25], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.
The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.
But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.
Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:
The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.
For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.
For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. Only Matt Gaetz is interested. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.
1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.
2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[26]] and [[27]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Likely TOOSOON. Playing golf isn't notable, there is coverage of a speech given, but being social media star in 2024 isn't notable alone. We've had a flood of coverage since the event, but nothing before. I'm not sure this person is notable for what they've done; outside of the Trump name, what have they done to be notable. She's a "potentially notable" influencer, so nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent David Fraser

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added some references to this previously-unreferenced BLP of an actor. These are passing mentions, however. I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Washington. Tacyarg (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like the nominator, I was unable to find any significant coverage of Fraser, just cast listings and brief mentions in movie reviews. The closest to any biographical information was a Seattle Times movie review that added "Bellingham-raised" to his name (because it's local). (ProQuest 385333344) Not a notable actor at this time. Schazjmd (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note, often credited as the shorter name Brent Fraser. Satisfies NACTOR with significant roles in Wild Orchid II: Two Shades of Blue (as Brent Fraser, and Dead & Breakfast. (When I am able I will add sourcing that verifies that). Mentions in reviews is an important part of judging actors. They act in things. That's what they are known for. That's the sort of thing that should be in encyclopaedias. Who'd they play and in what. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shradha Sharma

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Shradha Sharma (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 WP:NBIO, most of the references are extremely poor or straight up paid articles about her company. [28][29] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed bin Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa

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

Fails WP:NBIO - political appointment with no notable history. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, sources not appropriate for a biography. Writing and speaking about sex and sexuality does not in and of itself confer notability, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.
I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.
Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.
1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.
2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.
3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."
4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.
Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.
That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.
One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).
I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?
Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.
By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [31]
These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need sourcing to back up these claims, "because, trust me" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a general statement which does not apply to this article. I think everything in the article is properly sourced. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is enough here to close as Delete but I wanted to allow some time to respond to the argument of the article creator. They claim the sources are sufficient so a source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Ref 1 Salon.com. is an interview, not independent
  • Ref 2 Sexual Freedom Awards is a primary source
  • Ref 3 Seattle Erotic Art Festival. is a primary source
  • Ref 4 Eros During Times of Social Change is an interview not independent
  • Ref 5 is a primary source written by Steinberg

Ref 6 is a commercial link to purchase his book

  • Ref7 can’t access this but a foreword is unlikely to be significant coverage
  • Ref 8 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
  • Ref 9 ditto
  • Ref 10 ditto
  • Ref 11 ditto
  • Ref 12 ditto
  • Ref 13 ditto
  • Ref 14 interview
  • Ref 15 interview
  • Ref 16 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source

Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things regarding primary sources.
Ref 6 links to public statements made by several other notable people about Steinberg and specifically his book which appeared on the promotional material related to the book (which are copied on the author's own website).You can easily view it in these same quotes in the opening pages for the Kindle ebook. Based on my experience as a publisher, it is very rare that people are misquoted in blurbs and other promotional material. Publishers take these things very seriously; they can get sued! Whether these statements are sufficient to establish notability -- I'll let others decide. What's significant is that a lot of people -- several of which are already on wikipedia -- have made statements about this person's writings.
With regard to interviews, it's a pretty standard way for a journalist to write about any author. Often the preface by the interviewer will try to contextualize a writer's contributions (that was particularly true in the Salon article). (Ref 1) Wiki specifically allows the use the self-published sources as long as 5 conditions are met See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and as I mentioned before, some well-vetted articles on authors on Wikipedia make use of actual quotes by the author often. One time I counted the number of times author John Updike was quoted in the wiki article about him, I think the number was 18. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aniqah Choudhri

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline as significant coverage by reliable, independent sources is limited. While Aniqah Choudhri won a notable poetry prize and has some publication credits, the article lacks substantial third-party sources that provide in-depth coverage of her life and career. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, poetry prizes are a dime a dozen, as surely you are aware. Winning ten prizes in poetry mean next to nothing if the awards are not important/notable enough. In my neck of the woods, they have monthly competitions in short stories and poetry, but I assure you none of the winners merits a Wikipedia article. End game: Without sources supporting independent notability, we do not have an article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

[edit]
Bill Wylie-Kellermann (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 notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the arguments above. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Harpreet Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "he is certainly notable" does not carry any weight. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments should focus on policy-based reasons and the quality of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Banker has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.
Mister Banker, can you be more specific as to which sources help establish GNG? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: The subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE who is the appointed head of the highest temporal seat of Sikhs and to whom India's second highest category security was granted by the Indian government (The Economic Times, Times Now). He has also received other coverage over the years. See: The Quint, The Quint, NDTV, ABP LIVE, Business Standard — Mister Banker (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, therefore not usable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Have you even read what NEWSORGINDIA says? You need to show how this coverage falls under it. Simply saying it does, just doesn't cut it. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Mister Banker. Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first two sources only talk about granting Z security to him[34][35] and his refusal, they do not provide any other information about him. The rest of the coverage you are talking about is only due to his controversial statements over the years[36][37], this too is only about the statement he made , this source is only reporting his statement on his wife's arrest at the airport without providing any additional coverage about him, none of these sources have in-depth or significant coverage of his life beyond rudimentary attention to his controversial statements. My rationale still stands, he is only getting occasional news worthy coverage only due to his statements not because he is independently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, you have agreed that WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't apply here and that he is notable enough that the media seems it worthy to provide coverage to his statements which can be added to the article to let the readers know about his stance on socio-political matters. — Mister Banker (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "he is just notable, we all know this" are not worth much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once more: Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "surely, there are sources" just do not amount to much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As one participant says here, if this subject is notable, then "show the sources". Making claims of notabiity without highlighting evidence, either existing in the article or brought to this discussion, are empty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them address any of the concerns of the nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles." is not a good argument. We don't have articles for Every single number. He was referenced in multiple sources listed on the page and his page has plenty of content on it. S302921 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-check WP:OVERKILL. None of the sources crowding the wavelength address the nomination's concerns. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could argue that, but my point still stands. His article has plenty of information available to keep his page. S302921 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Arnold

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Adam_Arnold (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)

Nominating person again for deletion as this webcomic creator has not been active for a number of years and there are more notable comic creators that do not have wikipedia pages. There are even more notable people with this name that do not have wikipedia articles. Gomanga1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly does the Delete argument not hold water? You corroborate the argument by your take on sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have many articles on artists who are no longer active, that is normal for an encyclopedia. Gomanga's claim that "there are even more notable people with this name that do not have a wikipedia article" is irrelevant for a deletion discussion (WP:OSE) because it's fine if there are notable topics with the same name. The existence of those articles would just depend on whether someone has written them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking more participation. Considering a redirect outcome, which of the mentioned articles are being proposed as the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect – Per Maplestrip/Mable's suggestion above, redirecting to the Aoi House page as it is the author's primary series seems like it would make the most sense.
Gomanga1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gomanga1 has made few contributions in Wikipedia aside from the contested article.
  • Delete outright for lack of independent sources supporting notability. All proffered links are advertorials, trade magazines' routine announcements, and listings. Fails WP:GNG. Fails all WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something isn't adding up here. If there is enough evidence for independent articles on two works created by the subject; there probably would be enough for WP:NAUTHOR to be proved to save this article. Three critical reviews are all that is needed to prove that SNG. Unless those two works are also not notable, I suspect there may be enough reviews in the Aoi House and Vampire Cheerleaders articles to prove notability here. Did anyone look at the sourcing in those pages?4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't mind merging Vampire Cheerleaders into this article, instead of getting rid of this article. But the problem remains that none of the sources say anything at all about the author. It would just be along the lines of "he created x from here to then, and created y from there to thus" and that's it... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Antunovic

[edit]
Mike Antunovic (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 tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson.[2] He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid.[3][4] I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court.[5] There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders.[6] In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases".[7] David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/
  2. ^ Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest
  3. ^ Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03
  4. ^ "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03
  5. ^ "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03
  6. ^ "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03
  7. ^ Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Norberg

[edit]
Gunnar Norberg (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 hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete If notability is not met, it is clearly a problem- However. Even if GNG is met, if WP:BIO fails, it violates the BLP policy. Passing mention references aren't that acceptable either. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" as arguments. Can we get a source table? And what's this about violating BLP policy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People&oldid=1258818201"