Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Nathan Ssewali

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

No indication of notability, and virtually no coverage in reliable sources. All the sources appear to be paid placements originating from a PR/SEO campaign in mid-2022. Yuvaank (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Uganda, and Canada. Yuvaank (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Israelis

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

This seems to be a bit of WP:SYNTH, since there is no mention of the term in all but one of the sources. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of coverage of the concept (see the references already present in the article), but different terms are used, such as Anglo-Saksim. Shalom Horowitz, described as an "Anglo-Israeli lawyer". Move to Anglo-Saksim is one possibility, but Anglo-Israelis is probably preferable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Baldelli

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

Having gone through the available source material, I have been unable to find anything to establish significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. His main work of note was a single book about social anarchism, which has received some attention but not much more than a passing reference in most sources (see Google Scholar results). David Wieck's obituary for the Social Anarchism journal, listed in the further reading, appears to be the only work specifically about Baldelli that could lead to any development of this article. As this article appears not to meet the notability guidelines for authors, I'm recommending it for deletion. A possible alternative to deletion could be redirecting to social anarchism, although he's not mentioned in the body of that article, so this may not be appropriate. Grnrchst (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Philosophy, Politics, Social science, and Italy. Grnrchst (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's an extensive biography in the Dizionario biografico online degli anarchici italiani (which was originally a print publication and is now updated and expanded online)[1]. Between that and the Wieck obituary, I'd be fine with "Keep" if only there was a third published source. The Dizionario points to an undergraduate thesis, but it's unpublished. Jahaza (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd hope with an extensive list of publications for WP:AUTHOR notability, but I only found one review so far.[2] It would be good if someone has access to Italian library sources to search those. Jahaza (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, REDIRECT to David Wieck, where Baldelli and his main book are mentioned. If more sources emerge the article can be broken out again. 04:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Scott Jenkins (sheriff)

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

WP:BLP1E Considering the bribery conviction and pardon to be one event, individual is not otherwise notable. Delete and merge content to Culpeper County, Virginia NE Ent 16:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a bribery conviction is extraordinarily rare nowadays. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd still consider that all of one event, and $75k in bribes is a rather trivial amount when we look at other criminals that have articles here. I don't see a notable career either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Shah

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

Unable to find any independent coverage, as almost all of the sources are either interviews or passing mentions in unreliable or unbylined sources. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Interview sources are more than fine. There are plenty of them: e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's completely absurd to think this person might not be notable. They founded the most successful chess journalism / media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess. The nominator lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to be familiar with the subject and did not put adequate effort to look for sources. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from chessbase.in are WP:SPS, and thesportzplanet.com, perlenvombodensee.de, and fountainink.in are more like blogs with little or no editorial oversight. To clarify, ChessBase has existed since 1986 and the Indian version was only co-founded by him. Claiming that “they founded the most successful chess journalism/media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess” reflects your bias and is not policy based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Halken

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

Lack of significant coverage; could not find more sources with significant coverage to demonstrate the actor's notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Denmark. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:NACTOR ["the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.") and the page in Danish please, to check the said roles--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.

Keep: Clicking on the Gnews link above brings up more than a trivial amount of Danish articles, [10] for example, suggests a long career and seems to be well-known by the public. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Pisati

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

Before I edited this article, it linked to a youtube video, the artist’s website, a blog, and a place to order an album of his—all placed under the references section. The article exists in three other languages—commonplace for most older articles—and they all cite databases which sit in the authority control template on English Wikipedia, and are insufficient to make this article notable. Checking online, I cannot find other sources. Roast (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Italy. Roast (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We are not MySpace. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Rathee

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

Her brother Ankur Rathee is notable but Notability is not inherited. The references used in the article are typically WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Mentions, interviews, and unreliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, United States of America, and California. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fully agree with nominator rationale. Chronos.Zx (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She had multiple significant roles in notable productions, including lead roles in Tara vs Bilal,Broken But Beautiful and roles in the main cast of Kapkapiii, and Decoupled, thus clearly meeting the notability requirements for actresses, see WP:NACTRESS.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Feichthaler

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. WP:ROTM lawyer doing his job. Poor referencing despite multiple AFC reviews. Full of WP:CITEKILL Is WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Politicians, and Florida. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The article was moved to mainspace by its main author, not a reviewer. Subject is not notable for the reasons already outlined in the AFC comments; it should be returned to draftspace. Anerdw (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify due to dreadful state of sourcing (I identified and removed 6 or 7 references that failed verification, and there's WP:REFBOMBing); WP:SPA editor likely has a WP:COI. May not pass WP:NPOL. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I see no prospect of this becoming a viable article. Notability is not shown or even indicated. --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonadea. This was rejected at AfC multiple times and is WP:REFBOMBEd out the wazoo-including 10+ self-cites & 5 that are election results from Lee County (at least one is the same results listed under different titles). I don't see the point in draftifying especially given it was rejected as a draft seven times over the past year and the SPA still tried to unilaterally move it into the mainspace. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources at all. Fails NPOL by a mile. We are not Facebook. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malevolent Creation members

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

It's debatable whether a list dedicated to all former/current members significantly sourced to WP:QS bloggy sources of marginally notable band is encyclopedic. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Music, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Boufarhat

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

This article reads somewhat like a resume mixed with a blog, possibly because the subject, per the article, "keeps a low public profile". The references, though 30, are not predominantly about the subject; many are ammouncements about his company, and several others are general articles that mention him in passing. The few sources that are actually about him profile him for having a lot of money, either locally or in Forbes, and are not generally in depth. He does not appear to be personally notable. This is also a problematic WP:BLP, devoting a lot of space to his personal health. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United Arab Emirates, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of enduring (or even basic) notability. His brief time in a UAE school didn't really leave any footprints here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubong Essien CSP

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

Bypassing WP:AFC twice, no indication of any notability in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Simple copy and paste from draftspace — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure vanispamcruftisement with no evidence of notability, not in the draft and not to be found by searching. (I reckon this is G11'able, but also happy to let the discussion run its course if preferred.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of secondary coverage of notability, even if there were, there is no worthwhile content to preserve in the face of TNT. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby Cohn I love the idea of perverse content! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent it has been 1 0 days since I have made a spelling mistake. I've updated my response for clarity.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Vanity piece. WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fact that I had to remove creator Thekkagram (talk · contribs)'s response to the nomination from the article itself is, on top of the already-mentioned issues, an strong indicator that this does not come (or have any realistic chance of coming) anywhere near meeting any policy or guideline, much less the GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nomination, Fails WP:BIO Destinyokhiria (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anshuman Magazine

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft deleted, then draft denied. Original AFD rationale, which I agree with: Mentions, interviews, and unreliable sources (mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA) is all I can find. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. I also suspect WP:UPE. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Delhi. UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the only participant of the previous AFD: @CNMall41: - UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per the first discussion. Nothing I can find since the last which shows notability. Would suggest salting the title based on the second AfD and the creator objecting to the WP:ATD they were afforded prior to moving back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significan award or work which proves it ito be a notable profile. Fails WP:PERSONAlmandavi (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William LeGate

AfDs for this article:

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

4 years ago a contested WP:PROD, contested, brought to AfD, no comments, soft deleted, and then WP:REFUNDed. The same criteria apply today: he's a guy on a couple lists who has had some jobs. The article relies very heavily on things that are not WP:RS, including quotes from the subject, and even cites to his social media accounts.

Substantially all coverage, including that which I searched for on news sites and Proquest, relates to the companies mentioned and not to him. Of 24 references, 4 are social media affiliated with the subject, and 5 are lists of names. The singular remaining reference that is actually about him is [11] which is a local newspaper profile taken when he was a teenager. The awards, similarly, are not significant enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. FalconK (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). FalconK (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage about the pillow company with David Hogg (who gets most of the mentions), LeGate is only secondary... I don't see enough coverage otherwise to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

László Kelemen

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

Sources were created by László Kelemen. Two are the same and one is his lawfirm. How is this notable? Earth605 (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not notable. I couldn't find a single independent source. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Steelberg

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination, but it's been 10 years and the previous one was no consensus on the erroneous assertion that founding companies makes a subject inherently notable. Related nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Steelberg but I'm writing this one separately because it is a second nomination, even though the articles are substantially identical.

No evidence of notability. Search through Proquest, Google News, and other internet searches yield no apparent coverage other than in connection with his job. While frequently quoted in interviews, there is little to no notability-establishing 3rd party coverage in reliable sources treating him personally. Award lists do not contribute to notability. Relevant information here is already included in articles about the companies he's founded, and founding companies does not confer personal notability in and of itself (not in WP:BIO). The article is congratulatory in tone and it has not been possible to improve it using WP:RS since 2015 due to a lack of relevant sources. The NYTimes article referenced in the article treats the company Brand Affinity and not Chad [12]. FalconK (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United States of America, and California. FalconK (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Steelberg

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

No evidence of notability. Search through Proquest, Google News, and other internet searches yield no apparent coverage other than in connection with his job. While frequently quoted in interviews, there is little to no notability-establishing 3rd party coverage in reliable sources treating him personally. Award lists do not contribute to notability. Relevant information here is already included in articles about the companies he's founded, and founding companies does not confer personal notability in and of itself (not in WP:BIO). The article is congratulatory in tone and it has not been possible to improve it using WP:RS since 2011 due to a lack of relevant sources. The article was created by an account which has solely edited pages about this and closely related topics. FalconK (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United States of America, and California. FalconK (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Haapala

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

Restored PROD. Rationale for PROD: Non notable filmmaker/academic. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of IMDB, primary sources and listings but nothing with any real independent coverage about him. Awards are not major. UtherSRG (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. UtherSRG (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous/concurrent discussion at WP:ANI#My Wikipedia page of over 15 years is Suddenly Gone and I have no clue as to why despite checking deletion logs (permalink). —Cryptic 02:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a foregone conclusion. User:UtherSRG obviously came across this via the dumb discussion at ANI where a bunch of veteran editors, in an apparent effort to prepare this article's creator User:Thehaaps for what will be reams of blatant WP:CIVIL policy violations from unconscionably cruel assholes here, swarmed him with new and unique and verbose ways of telling him he's a fucking idiot. Any decent person can see that all of these messages should have been directed at him somewhat privately, either on his talk page or via email, but maybe pantsing the guy on a high-traffic noticeboard was the kind thing to do since he'll be better prepared to enter the AFD arena to do battle with this community's meanest, most untouchable oldsters. I wonder why, in light of another editor at that ANI thread promising to hold off on nominating this article for deletion until it could be worked on, UtherSRG had to speed up the process of executing this good-faith, badly overmatched person but in the end, this is guaranteed to get deleted so whatever. City of Silver 03:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd found the RFU request before seeing the ANI discussion, so maybe you should check your attitude and assumptions and keep the discussion here purely about the article in question. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Had you first read what I said before you responded to it, you'd know I said literally nothing, not one word, that isn't about the article in question. City of Silver 06:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as admin who restored the PROD in response to the ANI Cryptic linked. I did not see the Refund request before UtherSRG processed it but we ended up in the same place. I did not do an exhaustive BEFORE and likely won't have time before this discussion concludes, it was simply a contested PROD. To anyone who didn't wander here from any of the aforementioned discussions, the subject is aware of this link and may participate. They are relatively inexperienced and here in good faith. Please pardon any errors. Star Mississippi 03:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In full disclosure, I notified Explicit as the admin who originally responded to the PROD as I neglected to on restoration. Star Mississippi 03:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Star Mississippi- I'm completely green in this arena and I appreciate some of the more tolerant comments from you and City of Silver and SnowRise. I certainly didn't mean to set of a firestorm- just was trying to find out why a wiki page that had been around for over a decade seemingly vanished overnight. It's been made pretty clear to me that the page is going to be removed, but I certainly am grateful to encounter some nice folks in here like you who didn't make me feel like a total pos. Anyway- Cheers. Thehaaps (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, don't worry about it: we were all new at one point or another. With that, you're taking everything with an unusual degree of grace -- a number of people in your boots throw epic kicking and screaming fits -- and we appreciate your courtesy. Ravenswing 16:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm here from the ANI thread myself. @EEng did a thorough review of the sources previously in the article (turning up nothing notable), but my own BEFORE holds much the same: that the indie films and shorts with which the subject's been involved fall well short of notability, that such awards as are claimed are minor, and that the subject doesn't meet any of the pertinent notability standards. Ravenswing 04:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is often what is done when restoring deleted PRODs so let me put in a pitch for that here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify should only apply to recently created pages, not one that was there for years before. This AFD should come to a decision about whether to keep the topic or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wandered here from WP:ANI. Searches I've conducted turn up nothing that shows that this passes either WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. TarnishedPath^talk 08:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, I don't think draftify is appropriate because the subject still wouldn't be notable. Draftify is generally appropriate where either an article is newish or where notability can be shown with a bit of work. TarnishedPath^talk 08:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment draftification is a dubious outcome because (1) it's usually used for newly-minted articles that were pushed into main-space prematurely but could become acceptable with a bit of extra work, while this article has existed for a long time, and (2) draftification can easily become deletion-by-waiting-6-months (i.e. Thehaaps, if you don't get the article about you up to Wikipedia's notability standards within 6 months in draft-space, or at least remember to make periodic edits to it, it will be automatically deleted). I would recommend that Thehaaps keep a personal copy, so that if this article is deleted, and they subsequently find better sourcing and wish to resubmit, they can recreate the improved article through AfC (Articles for creation). This is a safe and relatively private way to check notability and wording, and avoid the unpleasantness of being dragged through the more negative public noticeboards. Elemimele (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion at ANI. Subject is not notable. I'd recommend that Thehaaps copies the content of this article and if he needs it for his work, uses it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Admittedly the article is well written, but it still doesn't meet the guidelines for notability. » Gommeh (he/him) 14:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV found in any searches, just passing mentions. If it's exposure you seek for your work, then I suggest you direct people to your IMDb page, as it's a top search result and probably gets more page views than this article ever did. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia.☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 19:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear notability fail and very clearly was an attempt at self-promotion. I oppose draftifying. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per City of Silver. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Marwah

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable businessperson. The sources are mostly primary/press releases or broken links. Fails Wp:GNG. Created by a blocked user. Zuck28 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Delhi. Zuck28 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be notable but lacks significant coverage. I suggest to improve the article with the notable news links.Almandavi (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Özer Türkmen

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

The article has been unsourced for over a decade, and I haven't been able to find any sources that cover the subject or suggest that it existed at all. The only existing references point to Wikipedia itself. The page was PRODed unsuccessfully, so I am resorting to an AfD. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Cyprus. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This page is two paragraphs long, one of which contains his resume, one of which is about descendants. That's not an encyclopedia article: it's an obituary. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tired to find sources but with little success. Somehow the editor created it a long time ago in 2011 and was relatively left untouched until now. Agree this is an obituary and not an article. I think it is time to let this go. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Couldn't find any sources. The name Türkmen makes difficult to find sources. It should be noted he doesn't have an article in Turkish Wikipedia or other languages. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nisar Rahmath

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

This article was previously moved to draft space due to concerns about notability and insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources. I reviewed the draft and declined it for lacking significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline (GNG). However, the creator has since moved it back to mainspace without addressing the sourcing concerns. While the subject has received an award, I believe it is not sufficient on its own to establish notability without substantial independent coverage. I'm bringing this to AfD so that other editors can review the article and share their opinions on whether it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Afstromen (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Afstromen (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Nisar Rahmath received the Kerala State Film Award for Best Costume Designer, an official and notable recognition by a government cultural body. The article is supported by coverage in reliable and independent sources, including a feature profile in Deccan Chronicle and an interview in Manorama Online, both of which discuss his background, career, and achievements in detail. Shakheeb (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shakheeb, I've removed what appears to have been an accidental duplicate !Vote of yours. Just making a note of it here for clarity sake. Netherzone (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Safar Khan Mandokhail

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

Was declined at AfC, moved to mainspace anyway. Was draftified, then moved back without improvement. Not nearly enough sourcing to pass GNG, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for references in the google and the news but I couldn't find any reliable and independent sources to the subject to demonstrate it's notability. Thus, fails to show WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and WP:TNT. Too much purple prose. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omri Ceren

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

Fails WP:NBIO (and WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR). Non-notable mid-level staff member in the U.S. Congress. There simply aren't enough reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Israel, United States of America, and Texas. Longhornsg (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More likely to pass the GNG yet from what I could see no pass of that either. gidonb (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gofer

AfDs for this article:

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

This would be a PROD if it were not for the previous AfD. This article contains only unsourced trivia, an unsourced etymology, and a definition. Stubifying would violate WP:NOTDICT. I would gladly redirect if I knew a suitable target. Janhrach (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Janhrach (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a WP:DICTDEF with a list of questionable examples, and nary a reference in sight. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to courier. Why wasn't it deleted a decade ago Easternsahara (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Watson

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Aŭstriano (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Health and fitness, United States of America, and California. Aŭstriano (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has minimal sources but just enough to warrant a Wikipedia listing, that said, I will respect other editors if the decision is delete. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy McKinney

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted last year through AfD, was restored through Refund (not exactly sure why), but same issues still apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Nebraska. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-draftify - Why was this moved to mainspace?? ^EF⁵ 21:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify - Filmssssssssssss moved this back to mainspace without ensuring the article was up to quality standards and as of yet I don't see concrete evidence of this person's notability cited in the article. Departure– (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like EF5 saw promise and sources in February and wanted to work on the article as a draft, after which Filmssssssssssss moved it to mainspace without any additional explanation. I've notified these two. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EF5 was the editor above who questioned why it was moved back into mainspace. I would have re-draftified it, but it is ineligible for draftication now that it has been moved back. However, the result of the AfD could result in it being moved back to draft by consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Evan Longhurst

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

Created by a single-purpose account, with a possible COI or even PE, and they haven't addressed any of these issues at their talk page. I have to admit, however, that the subject does seem to be somewhat notable and worthy of an article, but the COI issues are concerning (to say the least). Another version of this article exists in draftspace at: Draft:Christopher Longhurst, which was rejected twice due to an apparent lack of notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and New Zealand. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - how big a deal is the King's Service Order -- would his KSO make him notable? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It’s quite a low award. Schwede 66 09:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-level award; it ranks between CNZM and ONZM, so two rungs below a knighthood. So KSO on its own is not sufficient to confer notability. Paora (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a charity, we can't allow anyone to use our resources for personal gain. The richest guy in the world wants to use that as an excuse to ruin us financially. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the author of the article almost certainly the subject or has a close relationship given the ownership of the rights to the portrait and I don't believe the sourcing is SIGCOV. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Wilson

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

While I have no doubt in the reliability of references provided in the article, this subject does not look notable to me for several reasons. She has only been in office since January, with there being little coverage of her life and career, particularly because there does not seem to be significant coverage of that in reliable sources (as it can be seen, the references only briefly pass over what she has actually done in her life and instead concentrate on her political beliefs). As far as I'm aware, an official is not presumed to be notable only based on their political beliefs (most of this article is actually related to that instead of her short career). This then might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, where a politician could become notable in the future for their career accomplishments, and not instead of their political views. To close this off, there is coverage of this person in reliable sources independent of the subject but is this coverage "significant"? We could write a ton more articles like this where there's news coverage of someone's political beliefs, but little to none about what they have accomplished. I should also note that while the creator of this article has expanded several major articles to B-status which is sure appreciated, they were previously banned from creating articles in the mainspace and instead had to use the AfC system. This is one of the articles created since the ban expired in April. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United States of America. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes that is significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how so? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIGCOV, I think you've confused significant coverage with coverage of what you think is significant... Your argument doesn't make any sense otherwise. Significant coverage of political beliefs counts just as much towards notability as significant coverage of political accomplishments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than WP:TOOSOON, I would argue independently of that, she is not notable. Most of the sources were published at the same time so there is no demonstration of sustained coverage. The citations from the end of May are redundant. existence ≠ notability. There is a lot of masking a lack of notability. The article lists every job she's ever held. A vague position at Gettr for an unlisted amount of time is not encyclopedic. The sourcing is also misapplied. For example, the statement that she was sworn in on May 27th does not appear in the Forward despite the citation. Again, adding references to mask a lack of notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kingsley, and some of her commentary, have received significant coverage from major sources in the short time she had been in the public eye. This coverage is only likely to grow, although I believe she is notable now. As a side note, the article is pretty well-written too. CarlStrokes (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anish Shah (Businessman)

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

Business person does business things. None of the refs provide WP:SIGCOV, subject fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and India. UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in this article, Anish Shah qualifies under WP:GNG, as he's the CEO of Mahindra group which is in India's top 25 companies. And he has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as far as I researched after founding this article via Special:Random/Draft.

So I will improve this article asap to follow the Wikipedia:GNG completly. and kindly explain this- Business person does business things so I can know what wrong I did in this so I can improve that also. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the previous CEO of the same company has very old wiki article. Anand Mahindra Just sharing. I know it doesn't matter much. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IVickyChoudhary: Being connected to a notable entity does not grant notability per WP:INHERIT. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that notability is not inherited by association per Wikipedia:INHERIT. However, the argument for keeping this article is not based solely on Anish Shah’s role at Mahindra Group, but on his own notability, which is independently established through. Multiple reliable and independent sources that provide significant coverage of his leadership, strategic decisions, and business vision as Managing Director and CEO of Mahindra Group. Kindly search on Google about him. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References say he's a businessperson doing business things. That's not SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review. While I understand the concern that "businessperson doing business things" doesn't automatically imply notability, I respectfully argue that Anish Shah meets the WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.

He has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources such as Forbes India, Economic Times, and Business Today, which profile his leadership, strategic direction, and impact at Mahindra Group. This coverage goes beyond routine job announcements, it reflects independent journalistic interest in Shah as an individual business leader, not merely in the company he leads. His coverage is not trivial, routine, or tied to a single event. I will continue to improve the article by adding more sources that fulfill WP:SIGCOV and will restructure the article to reflect their depth and focus. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Business person does business things" … and on a global scale in ~~Choudhary's~~ Shah's case. Mahindra Group is huge ($23 billion plus). There are Mahindra tractor dealers in farming towns across North America. I'd be stunned if ~~Choudhary~~ Shah isn't notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: You mean Shah, right? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Yes. Thanks. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Copplestone

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability. The subject is a software engineer and founder of what looks like a non-notable company. The only source cited is a basic funding announcement, which doesn't establish anything on its own. There is nothing out there that gives in-depth, independent coverage. No sources that meet WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. I was considering nominating this and the two related articles for deletion myself when I saw them in NPP. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little to no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is almost nothing about this man in the article, so it's clearly not a biography.Blackballnz (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SERIESA. Literally everyone I know from New Zealand is a software developer. We are not here to promote anything about investments, nor act as a director of inventors and the companies that they founded. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ant Wilson to which this article is related. Nothing is said about this guy anywhere. FalconK (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Luz

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

This was originally a WP:PROD, with me stating "Unnotable WP:NACTOR which has been mostly unreferenced for years." This was then deprodded by Kvng who then said "consider addressing Template:Pinoy Big Brother contents comprehensively". I don't exactly know what he means by this, but if the argument that he is primarily known as Big Brother contestant, then this falls into WP:NBIO (as we don't have a reality TV-specific policy, unless WP:ARTIST comes into play), and this will just be a rehashing of the Big Brother content and would just give WP:UNDUE weight on a non-BLP activities of a biography. As stated on PROD, this has been unreferenced for years, considering the 2 references used fail WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck it seems like {{Pinoy Big Brother}} links to a lot of potentially unnotable subjects. Don't we want to try an address that more comprehensively. Deleting this article will leave a redlink in the navigation template which leave readers worse off. Removing the redlink makes for an abridged list in a not-helpful way. Maybe the template is ill conceived. Maybe it needs to be adjusted to make it clear that it only links to notable contestants. In which all the other unnotable ones should also be sent to AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've stumbled upon this article with clean-ups of filmography lists; Filipino actors are the only biographies that include a "Network" or "Film studio" or similar column to filmographies. This is akin to Calista Flockhart's filmography showing you that Ally McBeal was aired on Fox. This biography still has that (LOL). If this AFD leads to a keep, I'd be removing the "Network" column on this article. I'm hesitant on nominating other Pinoy Big Brother articles because I have participated in similar AFDs recently, on products of ABS-CBN's (the same TV network that aired Pinoy Big Brother) reality shows: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maloi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen (singer) which obviously failed WP:BANDMEMBER but ABS-CBN fans came in droves and WP:BLUDGEONed the AFD to a no consensus on Maloi, and almost certainly that same outcome on Gwen. That will almost certainly happen to more borderline and newer cases for Pinoy Big Brother. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that quiet prods or pointy deletion of individual articles on the margins of beloved subjects are not be seen as improvements by many editors. I'm not sure fans coming in droves to support material is a bad thing. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beloved is different to WP:NBIO. We have AFDs to determine which among the margins gets to be cut or be left here. If we have fans of certain of people skewing discussions by bludgeoning it, now that is concerning. As for this specific person, his Pinoy Big Brother appearance is from more than a decade ago, and his last TV appearance is also more than a decade ago. Of the two references here, one is from the Philippine Entertainment Portal, which qualifies for WP:RS. I can't access that right now (maybe WP:LINKROT?) but this seems to be solely on the context of him being in Big Brother. The other is PinoyExchange, a web forum that no longer exists. As for the three non-Big Brother TV shows on his filmography, it's not stated if this is a main, recurring or guest role, or for how many episodes (Filipino filmographies usually do not show how many episodes was this for, and none of these other non-Big Brother appearances are cited.

I tried searching anything notable about his appearances at Be Careful With My Heart but found nothing. That article labels him as "recurring cast". I've tried looking for other recurring actors that do not have articles, I only had hits for Robert Ortega (who is apparently a politician in Manila), an extensive PEP article from 2013 that arguably qualifies for WP:GNG. You can also argue Micah Muñoz also qualifies. Paul Jake Castillo is just gossip fluff. Arvic Tan seems to has his break in 2021. Others are either empty or are passing mentions (such as for Divina Valencia, Tart Carlos, JM Ibañez, Joan Marie Bugcat, Kelly Gwayne dela Cruz (Tagalog), . This reference even omits Luz (LOL) as part of the cast; maybe he didn't make it to the finale.

Also, if you have a problem with "quiet prods" or "pointy deletions", there's always one of those drama boards to report me to. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with anything you've done and WP:ANI is one place I'm aware of that better at fostering division than WP:AFD. My work shows me that a lot of material is deleted through prod without adequate review due to submissions from editors not well versed in deletion policy or unable or unwilling to do a competent WP:BEFORE. Ineffective WP:PRODPATROL and the limited responsibility placed on administrators who actually do the deletions are also factors.

As for how we make decisions about whether to delete stuff, I appreciate that the ideal it is not a vote and a single editor with a policy-based argument should prevail over mass of fans. I just want to leave open the option to appease the masses in some cases and that this can have good long term benefits of making these deletion discussions less divisive, less lawyerly and make Wikipedia a more accessible and better place for new and enthusiastic editors. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in mentioned references and all the roles he had played was special appearance or guest only rather than significant role or main. Fade258 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NACTOR, he clearly did not have multiple notable roles in TV or movies. --hroest 16:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Unlimited as preferred WP:ATD ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered redirecting this myself after this was deprodded and before this AFD but this guy has several other credits aside from PBB:U. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan Akbas

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

Questionable if it meets WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Akbas appears to have no article on the Turkish Wikipedia (or any other). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He has coverage in national and international media and has appeared as a commentator on major news channels including NTV, CNN, and CNBC. That makes him notable. Here are some links of his appearances in reliable media outlets:

https://www.ntv.com.tr/video/ntvpara/piyasalarda-gundem-abd-secimleri-baskanlik-yarisinda-son-duzluk,_18Sr328O0uXSzkdyxVAxw

https://www.ntv.com.tr/video/ntvpara/piyasalarda-suikast-gerginligi-altin-ve-petrol-fiyatlari-yukselecek-mi,SXRCMrx7-EqxDVs2vsPHBg

https://www.ntv.com.tr/video/ntvpara/abdde-secime-geri-sayim-biden-ve-trump-canli-yayinda-karsi-karsiya-gelecek,Fl7BRlU5mEGeWkDDNEnAbA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP2M13RsKzc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEaTJ5UoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu2L2leUXQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhci1n7eI4Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfZrH6_XAes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacmocc (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Russell Surasky

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Russell Surasky

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

I don't see any improvement in notability since the last AfD in 2021. There are a few passing mentions and he has been quoted by Fox News a couple of times, but still nothing in terms of WP:SIGCOV. This page appears to have been created and deleted multiple times over the last 7 years under various titles such as Russell Surasky, Russell S. Surasky, Russell S Surasky, Russell Scott Surasky and Bridge Back to Life. See also Special:Contributions/8.25.157.160 who was blocked in April 2025 for persistently trying to promote this doctor across Wikipedia just days before this page was created. Yuvaank (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Medicine, and New York. Yuvaank (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cui Songwang

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

Broadly unsourced biography. ~~Subject is only notable for his coverage of the 2007 Chinese slave scandal, and the article is almost entirely just a fork of the article we have on the topic.~~ The only biographical paragraph is completely unsourced. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and China. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to be about the event per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject covered the 2011 Chinese slave scandal, not the 2007 Chinese slave scandal. There is enough information about the 2011 slave scandal to support a separate standalone article rather than merging this topic to the 2007 slave scandal article.
1. Wan, Meng 万萌; Liu, Ying 刘颖 (2016-03-10). "暗访黑煤窑曝光"智障奴工"交易" [Undercover investigation of illegal coal mines exposes the trade of "mentally disabled slave laborers"]. Central China Normal University. Archived from the original on 2023-01-26. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "2011年9月4日晚，河南电视台都市频道报道了一条智障奴工的交易黑链。这条电视新闻报道的关键是该频道最年轻的首席记者崔松旺假扮智障人卧底黑砖窑，混进河南登封一家黑砖窑进行偷拍暗访获取的重要信息。经过他的暗访及报道，在驻马店和郑州等地发现多处黑窑厂，以暴力强迫智障者无偿劳动。随后，河南省原阳县、登封市、西平县及驻马店市四地警方分别出击，并在砖窑解救出近30名智障奴工，并抓获多名涉案包工头。"
  From Google Translate: "On the evening of 4 September 2011, the Urban Channel of Henan TV reported a black chain of slave labor involving mentally disabled people. The key to this TV news report was that Cui Songwang, the youngest chief reporter of the channel, pretended to be a mentally disabled person and went undercover in a black brick kiln in Dengfeng, Henan Province to secretly film and secretly investigate and obtain important information. Through his secret investigation and reporting, he discovered many black kiln factories in Zhumadian and Zhengzhou, which used violence to force mentally disabled people to work for free. Subsequently, the police in Yuanyang County, Dengfeng City, Xiping County and Zhumadian City in Henan Province took action respectively, and rescued nearly 30 mentally disabled slave workers from the brick kiln, and arrested several contractors involved in the case."
2. Demick, Barbara (2011-09-07). "Chinese police rescue 30 disabled men in brick factory raids". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "The unusually public raids Monday were prompted by a report on Henan provincial television by a journalist who had gone undercover posing as a disabled man at a train station, where he was grabbed by a recruiter and says he was sold to a brick factory. The case is an embarrassment for Chinese authorities, who have promised to stamp out slavery and the abuse of the disabled. In a 2007 scandal that shocked the nation, hundreds of people, including many teenagers, were rescued from brick factories and coal mines where they’d been held captive, tortured and poorly fed. In the latest case, some of the slave laborers were reported to be blind. They had been held as long as seven years, working without pay. They had been beaten with belts on the back and the groin, according to the television report."
3. Liu, Xiangrui (2011-09-06). "Brick kilns enslaving disabled workers". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "A number of illegal brick kilns in Central China's Henan province have enslaved and abused mentally disabled workers, local media reported on Sunday. Meanwhile, the practice of smuggling such workers has developed into a local business. Public security departments in four involved counties and cities rescued about 30 enslaved workers on Monday and detained some of the kiln bosses and managers, said Cui Songwang, a reporter with the TV channel of City Report in Zhengzhou who exposed the scandal. Cui disguised as a mentally disabled person near the Zhumadian train station and was sold to Wan Chengqun, a kiln operator in Zhumadian, for 500 yuan ($78) after he was taken on Aug 17 by two unknown men."
4. Franceschini, Ivan (2017-06-14). "Slaving Away: The 'Black Brick Kilns Scandal' Ten Years On". Made in China Journal. ANU Press. JSTOR j.ctvgd1hr.31. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "In another remarkable story, in September 2011 Cui Songwang, a reporter for a Zhengzhou television station, hung around a train station posing as a disabled man for two days, until he was kidnapped and sold to a kiln manager for five hundred yuan. Cui said he was forced to work for three hours, beaten and deprived of water before he managed to escape and report the case to police."
5. Ramzy, Austin (2011-09-08). "Another Slavery Scandal Uncovered in Central China". Time. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Four years after China’s last major slave labor scandal, a group of disabled men has been freed from a brick kiln in the central province of Henan after an investigation by an undercover television reporter. Some of the men had been forced to work for years without pay, enduring beatings and poor food and living conditions, the state-run China Daily reported. The abuses were uncovered by Cui Songwang, a reporter for a Zhengzhou television station, who hung around a train station posing as a disabled man for two days until he was kidnapped and sold to a kiln manager for 500 yuan (about $75). Cui said he was forced to work for three hours, beaten and deprived of water before he managed to escape and report the case to police."
6. "Survivors tell horror stories in slave factories". Xinhua News Agency. 2011-09-08. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "In order to uncover more details, Cui Songwang, a reporter from Henan Television, disguised himself as mentally disabled and roamed around the city's railway station, trying to mislead human traffickers. After days of smoking discarded cigarette butts and eating leftovers at snack stands, Cui was thrust into a taxi by two human traffickers who sold him to a kiln called "Hengtai" for 500 yuan (78 U.S. dollars)."
7. An, Baijie (2011-09-07). "Rescuers struggle to ID disabled kiln slaves". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Most of the 30 enslaved and abused workers rescued from illegal brick kilns in Central China's Henan province have been unable to give their personal details to police due to their mental illness, public security officials said on Tuesday. Henan police liberated the victims, some of who have worked without pay for more than seven years, in four counties and cities on Sunday."
8. "Four convicted for forced labor: report". China Daily. 2012-12-17. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Four people received jail sentences after they were found guilty of forcing people with learning disabilities to work in a factory in Henan province, local newspaper Orient Today reported on Monday. Wan Chengqun, general manager of a brick factory in Henan province's Xiping county, was sentenced to three and a half years in jail with a fine of 10,000 yuan ($1,600), the Xiping county people's court said on Sunday. ... The case was initially exposed in August 2011 by a local TV program. A journalist pretended to be a person with learning disabilities at railway station in Zhengzhou."
9. Wang, Shiyu 王世宇; Cao, Bei 曹蓓 (2011-09-06). "河南解救近30名智障奴工" [Nearly 30 Mentally Disabled Slave Laborers Rescued in Henan]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "河南智障奴工产业链浮出水面后(昨日本报A16版曾作报道)，河南省原阳县、登封市、西平县及驻马店市四地警方分别出击，并在砖窑解救出近30名智障奴工，并抓获多名涉案包工头。"
  From Google Translate: "After the Henan mentally retarded slave labor industry chain surfaced (reported on page A16 of this newspaper yesterday), the police in Yuanyang County, Dengfeng City, Xiping County and Zhumadian City, Henan Province, respectively, rescued nearly 30 mentally retarded slave laborers from brick kilns, and arrested several contractors involved in the case."
10. Jiang, Xinze 江欣泽 (2020-11-21). Ye, Chenxin 叶琛欣 (ed.). "多打捞工人们原汁原味的声音" [Give Greater Voice to Workers' Authentic Stories]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "九年前，河南电视台记者崔松旺连续多日在火车站假扮智障人，捡烟头、抢食地摊上吃剩的凉皮，最终“如愿”以500元的价格被卖进黑窑厂干活，卧底期间多次被打，后协助警方控制了8名黑窑厂老板和招募人，解救智障奴工30名……崔松旺们真实地体验并记录着基层人民的生活，与他们同呼吸共命运。"
  From Google Translate: "Nine years ago, Cui Songwang, a reporter from Henan TV, pretended to be a mentally retarded person at the train station for many consecutive days, picking up cigarette butts and snatching leftover cold noodles from the stalls. In the end, he was "as he wished" to be sold to a black kiln factory for 500 yuan to work. He was beaten many times during his undercover work. Later, he assisted the police in controlling 8 black kiln factory bosses and recruiters, and rescued 30 mentally retarded slave workers... Cui Songwang and others truly experience and record the lives of grassroots people, and share the same fate with them."
11. "卧底记者崔松旺：挨打冒险只为揭示真相" [Undercover Journalist Cui Songwang: Beaten and at Risk, All to Uncover the Truth]. Guangzhou Daily (in Chinese). 2011-11-16. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15 – via Sohu.
  Thea rticle notes: "今年9月4日之前，除了同事，知他者不多。9月4日之后，国内媒体记者不知道他的已很少。他叫崔松旺，河南电视台都市频道首席记者。他干了件不成名都难的事：装成智残，让人贩子卖进黑砖窑，完成了智残人士被奴役全过程证据的采集。他的《智障奴工》系列报道让8名黑砖窑老板和招募人被抓获，30名智残者被解救。其间，他吃别人吃剩的凉皮，挨黑砖窑监工耳光和皮带抽，深夜里在齐腰深的水里摸索逃命。"
  From Google Translate: "Before 4 September this year, few people knew him except his colleagues. After 4 September, few domestic media reporters did not know him. His name is Cui Songwang, the chief reporter of the Urban Channel of Henan TV. He did something that was hard to be famous: pretending to be mentally retarded, being sold into a black brick kiln by human traffickers, and collecting evidence of the whole process of mentally retarded people being enslaved. His series of reports on "Mentally Retarded Slave Laborers" led to the arrest of 8 black brick kiln bosses and recruiters, and the rescue of 30 mentally retarded people. During this period, he ate the leftover cold noodles of others, was slapped and whipped by the black brick kiln supervisor, and groped for his life in waist-deep water in the middle of the night."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support your analysis; however, I have two outstanding questions. Is there really a separate 2011 event, or is this just an ongoing extension of the 2007 scandal? If the latter, we could merge everything to Slavery in Chinese brickyards or similar. Secondly, if we split into two articles (2007 and 2011) what should the jounalist's name redirect to? A disambiguation page? I misunderstood and now see your claim that our article on the 2007 scandal is incorrect in claiming Songwang's involvement. The author of the Cui Songwang article, Hhqrhh, appears to have added the claim which I have now reverted. I support the keep and rename proposal. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott King (artist)

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

This article doesn't appear to meet the WP:BIO. Specifically I do not believe there is enough widespread coverage by secondary reliable sources. I have tried to do some research, but of the few sources available these are either primary sources or linked to the subject. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Visual arts. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources exist - I'm finding coverage online to substantiate sigcov. Not !voting yet, but I'm pretty sure he meets notability for GNG if not also for NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yikes! I can see why this was nominated for deletion in its previous form. I have updated the article to show his work in MoMA and Tate. But it sure needs a little bit more help. Crummy article is used on https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/scott-king-2763 and https://contemporaryartsociety.org/artists/scott-king --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I apologise if I may have been a bit hasty with the deletion discussion! I had a short search for sources and came up short, but it looks like I could've dug a bit deeper. Appreciate the work you've done :) Sksatsuma (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sksatsuma, when searching for this artist (at least from the U.S.) many of the hits that come back were for Corretta Scott King, so it helps to use additional search terms like "graphic designer" or "artist" or "illustrator" or even U.K., England or British. This helps filter out the correct Scott King. If you haven't already read WP:BEFORE, there is also some helpful info there. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone Thank you for the advice - it's appreciated, it was definitely something that could've been done more thoroughly. I have read WP:BEFORE but did not follow it well! Sksatsuma (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The works of this British graphic designer are present in the notable museum permanent collections of the (Tate, and MoMA), therefore meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST; while the in-depth significant coverage in these: meets WP:GNG: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Additionally, there is this interview in Andy Warhol's Interview magazine which has quite a bit of editorial content and in-depth discussion (not a trivial interview). Other interviews: [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Interviews are normally thought of as primary sources, but I consider the first one listed here to be in-depth enough (and with enough input from the interviewer to be considered). Exhibitions include the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Barbican and Studio Voltaire in London; Museum of Modern Art and White Columns, in New York; Palais de Tokyo, Paris; State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg; Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago; Portikus, Frankfurt; and Kunstverein Munich. He's notable. Netherzone (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riaan Manser

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

Promotional article about a person with one source that reports on the WP:SINGLEEVENT. The rest is unsourced puffery. No longstanding WP:SIGCOV. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, Cycling, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. A long article based on a single source seems problematic. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Shammi Thilakan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage and most sources are non-bylined churnalism, mentions, or otherwise unreliable. Previously deleted A7 and G11 under Abhimanyu S Thilakan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marco (2024 film): Appears to fail GNG. Also WP:TOOSOON for NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:GNG.Sync! (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On which sources do you base that assessment?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shalom

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

This entire article, beyond the opening paragraph, is about a totally different person. Should be deleted or sent to drafts. How this passed the new page checks I can't understand. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Boxing, and England. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be a copy paste of Moses Itauma, besides the first sentence. Masohpotato (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I imagine that the creating editor (same for both Moses Itauma and this article) based this article on the previous one and forgot to remove the copied text. I have now removed it. Anxioustoavoid as far as I can see no-one up until now has marked the page as reviewed, so it has not passed the new page checks. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Ping me if you can find three reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the above !votes, I think Shalom passes WP:GNG. Understandably, I think frustration over this article passing our new page check system may have yielded insufficient WP:BEFORE. There are numerous articles which mention him by name and cover him to an extent that I would say passes WP:SIGCOV: e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Some of these might be debatable given that much of the coverage relates to the Eubank vs Benn fight, but there are articles with interviews of him and discussion of him as a promoter going back to 2024 - if he is a promoter who is being mentioned by name in article headlines across multiple fights spanning years of time, that seems notable. I will also ping Bearian per request. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Flipandflopped. And yes, this is a flip-flop. Please add the sources to the article. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Article has been updated. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on the new sources that have come to light.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Pradeep

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the first two sources are the same source, one in English the other Malayalam and does provide in-depth coverage but independence is questionable as it is clear some of the content came from him (his dreams, etc.). Another source is about his wedding with a generic by-line so WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the other sources are not reliable or a press release so does not meet WP:GNG None of his roles are significant (no starring roles and toward bottom of cast lists) so does not meet WP:NACTOR either. S0091 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His role in Padakkalam is clearly significant and can be considered a "starring role" and is certainly not "toward bottom of (the) cast list". Please see this article in The Hindu; he's on 3 of the 4 film stills in the article. Can we redirect to the Cast section of that film (at least for now)? Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon cite that Hindu source in the article so it is at least there as part of the history if it ends up either being deleted (which can be restored) or redirected. You might be right about Padakkalam...maybe not starring but at least a significant role. The only issue I have with it being redirected is he is part the cast in other works and if redirected a reader will only get pointed to one them. However, happy to defer to others though and no issue if a closer opts for that as WP:ATD. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 what are your thoughts about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am good with an WP:ATD. Just noting that a lot of times this winds up with the redirect being undone and coming right back to AfD. Either way is fine with me. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I know it could lead to disruption in the future but that is a deal with it if it happens. I have gone ahead and added The Hindu article. Thanks Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon for bringing it forward. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is lot more to add Infinityeditor (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudip Pandey

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is may not notable according to WP:NACTOR and does not meet the requirements for WP:SIG in reliable, independent sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Asia, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep despite the earlier deletion. The coverage of his death seems to just barely qualify him. Pinging Zuck28 who added Pandey to the List of Bhojpuri actors in January. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the nominator has a very low understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. They’re just nominating random articles created by me as an act of retaliation because I nominated a few of the articles they created about non-notable subjects. Their rationale for the AFD is unclear as, why they believe it should be deleted, anyways I leave this matter for fellow editors.

Thank you for pinging me.

Zuck28 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actor, Mentions, unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayshree Misra Tripathi

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

This article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR the specific notability guidelines and the sources cited in this article are not considered as WP:SIG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Poetry, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added reviews of her work, though the 2025 book is an edited book so it accounts less towards notability. I also revised the page and removed citations that were non-notable mentions of Tripathi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom there is nothing to demonstarte subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for keep is that she meets WP:AUTHOR, not WP:GNG. Any thoughts on that? DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Nominator is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Zuck28 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamani Srinath

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Winning an award does not grant inherent notability. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Music, and Indiana. CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. SachinSwami (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nomination Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is really "the highest Indian recognition given to people in the field of performing arts.", then this loks like notability. PamD 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she has an article in Telugu Wikipedia - I have merged her two records in Wikidata, so it now shows as a link from the en.wiki article. PamD 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 OK, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 7 and 8 appear to be met, unless you consider that 8 only applies to western popular music. PamD 19:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[24]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[25].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen: you duplicated one of the sources which could indicate you did not look closely enough at them to see they are mainly routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Are you talking about The Hindu article or both?Afstromen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No, I listed the source initially to point the awards. It was not my intention to list it twice or to give the impression that the sources were different. Afstromen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation. I still maintain that neither of those are independent. I would also think if she won the "highest award" as claimed, there would be more than just NEWSORGINDIA and a few interview type references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Naidu

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

Fails to establish notability independent of his association with Ratan Tata, per WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, and WP:INHERITED.

His startups do not meet WP:NCORP due to modest scale and event-specific reporting, and the book lacks significant critical reviews or awards to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuck28, Before taking any abrupt or random action, always ensure proper research is done and all sources are thoroughly verified. Acting without accurate information can lead to serious consequences and misunderstandings. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can see numerous siginificant coverage on reliable sources like this: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and there are many more in line. Easily passes WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources are about a Linkedin post he made. Two have no bylines. Toadspike [Talk] 05:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:GNG.Sync! (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ali Karim

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

Pundit whose article is primarily sourced to pieces written by themself, and is really only known for WP:ONEEVENT – the controversial filing a report for sedition against the Chief Minister Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT and the subject is the author of several of the sources cited - that makes the sources more of primary sources than independent secondary sources. Patre23 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He's 22 years old. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Self written articles can't be considered for establishing notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a case of a badly written article, not notability. The person is notable enough and is cited by many sources, and it was the article writer's fault for using primary sources. We should instead improve the article, not delete it. If we were to refer to WP:GNG, it says that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As I will mention below, the person in question has significant coverage in the media over the course of time, and they come from reliable sources independent of the subject (newspaper and television). The person is not only known for one event, and WP:ONEEVENT is therefore not applicable. Although the article talks about his police report, he is actually more known for his analysis, which is found both on newspaper and television. These, however, are hard to cite due to the inaccessibility of Malaysian media online, such as TV reports not being entirely well documented. The person being 22 does not mean that it is too soon, as WP:TOOSOON refers to something that is still too early to anticipate. The person, as mentioned, is an established writer and political analyst in Malaysia, and has even been referred to by television for election analysis along with notable domestic radio stations such as IKIMfm, aside from his weekly newspaper writings. The reason why the article is considered self-citing, as it is citing his analytic works on Utusan Malaysia, the oldest living newspaper in Malaysia which is well-established and reputable. We can see that most of the citation is to refer to the time he started writing, or certain things like his personal information which is part of information included at the end of newspaper articles where they write the biography of the author. What we should do as editors is to help improve the page's quality, not remove pages entirely just because it's in a messy state. EmpHaziqR (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meyzenq

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

This disambiguation page is unnecessary. At present, there is only one Wikipedia article referring to an individual with the surname Meyzenq, namely Raymond Meyzenq. The creating editor appears to consider an individual listed on the Salomon Group article to be a notable figure and therefore has created a disambiguation page. However, there is no existing article on this individual to substantiate this claim of notability. Therefore, this disambiguation page should be deleted or be redirected, with CAT:RWP, to the existing article on Raymond Meyzenq, since he is the only person with that surname currently covered on this platform. QEnigma (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a surname page, not a dab page. It's reasonable to include the CEO, for whom a redirect would also be reasonable. PamD 08:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: It was a disambiguation page until you altered it ([32]). Your position would have been much clearer if that was included with your post. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma It was always a surname page. It was incorrectly labelled as a disambiguation page. PamD 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma But, OK, it might have been helpful if I had pointed that out ! Sorry about that. PamD 11:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I understand your position. However, it would have been preferable to make the alterations through consensus. That was the primary reason this article was listed on AfD forums. Nevertheless, I maintain the view that this article, whether a disambiguation page or a surname-related entry, requires the inclusion of more notable individuals with existing Wikipedia articles in order to be retained. As you are aware, there are numerous senior executives across various notable companies who do not have individual Wikipedia articles on them and are therefore not included in surname-related pages. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma I don't think any specific consensus is needed to remove an incorrect {{tl|dab}} template and add the correct {{tl|surname}} template. The AfD template says "Feel free to improve the article".

Plenty of CEOs don't have links, plenty do. I've made a redirect from him to the company, and tweaked the dab page accordingly. PamD 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fasih Ur Rehman (entrepreneur)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Part of the StayCalmOnTress SOCK farm created to circumvent the deletions of Green Entertainment and the name variations they have attempted to create. CNMall41 (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing - I did a thorough WP:BEFORE, but pointing out just the first three sources on the page, they are all bylined as "web desk" so no editorial oversight, likely paid-for press, and under same concept as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has all the hallmarks of paid editing. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines based on multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of his career and impact in the media and business sectors. Reputable Pakistani media outlets such as Daily Pakistan, Dawn Images, Samaa TV, and Startup Pakistan offer editorial content discussing his professional background, leadership, and contributions which I believe that it satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG. Ayudessie (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Yar Baloch

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

This article should've been deleted alongside Republic of Balochistan and Balochistan Freedom Declaration last month, and for similar reasons. This was redirected to Republic of Balochistan, then to Operation Herof 2.0, then to Insurgency in Balochistan. While it was a redirect, I nominated it at RfD with the same type of reasoning as what was successfully used against Republic of Balochistan, but I got impatient and later withdrew it and decided to restore the article so it could be speedied under criterion A7, but that one was declined because the sources used (News18, The Economic Times, The Times of India, the Hindustan Times, ANI News and Firstpost) constituted a "credible claim of significance" according to one editor. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - New coverage of the subject has emerged as recently as yesterday in The Globe and Mail. This figure has recent media coverage that is ongoing, and while cited sources do contain bias, they still constitute fact-based news from credible institutions. Effort needs to be put into improving the state of the page. Ike Lek (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the prominent personalities who has been in the major national and international news recently.Almandavi (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there's coverage (such as in the Globe), please link it for other editors to review, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Mail has since put a disclaimer on their article that it is third party content not verified by them, and upon second look it does indeed seem unreliable. In addition the the sources listed in the original request, I will link a few other potential sources below, although I cannot guarantee their independence from political interests. I suspect a speaker of Urdu, Kannada, Hindi, Punjabi, or Balochi may be able to better identify credible sources.

Ike Lek (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Merello

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

This individual does not pass WP:GNG or fulfill the requirements for WP:BIO as this person has "not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Coverage of this individual in media is routine or passing mentions. Some of the sources do not appear reliable or particularly independent.

The argued notability of this person by editors that have removed prior tags appears to hinge on certain "honors" such as the "Order of the Eagle of Georgia" and the conception of "Lord Leslie" while these honors might sound significant it appears that honors like these can apparently be acquired without much difficulty (according to a source that was previously cited in the text by one of the contributors and later removed).

Another concern is that a number of the key contributors of this article appear to be very close to the subject including HearldicFacts and Mediascriptor. Another key contributor was previously blocked for sockpuppettry Judasith1234 which is not a good sign. Nayyn (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Nayyn (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Law, Singapore, and Antigua and Barbuda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only passing coverage in low-quality sources. Worth mentioning that HeraldicFacts added a picture to the article which was uploaded by Judasith1234 to Commons 19 minutes prior, so another likely sockpuppet.

— Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 14:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Arcaist - I will not take a position on this page retention, however just to clarify yours and @Naayn comment on "sockpuppetry", it was a misunderstanding of 6 months ago, which was opened in a sockpuppetry debate and resolved through a discussion and a final decision of several Admins, that ended with the deletion of user Judasith1234. It is unfair and incorrect to motivate a further deletion proposal based on this specific topic as it was already discussed and resolved in full previously. HeraldicFacts (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The subject meets WP:GNG through multiple non-trivial, independent sources covering his diplomatic and cultural roles. While some honours may appear unusual, they’ve been reported by independent media and involve internationally recognised institutions, not self-promotion. Rather than deletion, improvement is the constructive path forward, especially given existing sources and the subject’s international footprint. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done a WP:Before on this individual? Which of the references would you consider to be "non-trivial, independent sources"? I struggle to find a source that would be considered either to support this individual's dubious claim to notability. If editing is the way forward, how would you propose to edit this piece so that it is appropriate? I'm afraid WP:AKON applies here. Nayyn (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Giacomo Merello clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Multiple reliable, independent secondary sources provide significant coverage of his career and roles, beyond routine mentions. Concerns about the subject’s honors and the contributors’ proximity do not negate the existence of independent sources demonstrating notability. Below, I outline the sources and relevant policies supporting retention of the article. Roles and impact: the coverage centers on his notable roles – as a Special Economic Envoy of Antigua and Barbuda, as a legal expert in digital assets and legal heraldry, examples 1. https://expatliving.sg/antigua-and-barbuda-citizenship-by-investment-and-coat-of-arms/Expat Living - this interview is a secondary source (Merello is the interviewee, with the magazine providing context) and offers significant biographical detail, demonstrating coverage in an independent publication; 2. https://www.henleyglobal.com/events/henley-partners-presents-celebration-caribbean about his activities as diplomat; 3. https://www.vietnam.vn/en/viet-nam-truoc-nga-re-tai-san-so-tin-chi-carbon about a seminar held for the State Bank of Vietnam. 4. https://antigua.news/2025/05/17/bridging-oceans-and-opportunities-giacomo-merello-on-promoting-antigua-and-barbuda-in-singapore-and-in-asia/ Antigua News - this is far beyond a trivial mention – it’s a full profile of his activities and impact, published by an independent news source (not a press release); 5. Multiple other independent articles about him from VIR and Malta Invest; 6. https://www.liveranionline.com/immagini/118224/retrospettiva-marcella-bella-cantante-con-il-figlio-giacomo-merello-nel-1985 ; https://dilei.it/spettacolo/marcella-bella-figlio-giacomo-singapore/1279204/ ; https://www.wemusic.it/marcella-bella-chi-sono-e-cosa-fanno-nella-vita-i-figli-carolina-tommaso-e-giacomo/ are all articles directly about him in connection to his very notable singer mother Marcella Bella, and not just as a routine mention, these are all independent secondary sources and are not "routine mentions" but the subject is the main topic. These roles have been covered in context by third-party sources, indicating he is a “significant, interesting, or unusual enough” person to deserve an encyclopedia entry, as per WP:GNG. The titles on their own may not necessarily meet by themselves WP:BIO, but in connection with all the rest, they definitely support and they have multiple mention in secondary sources on their own, like Debrett's, RSN, and Royal House of Georgia. On the Scottish Feudal Baronies there is currently in place an editing war which makes deletion based on that also shaky and not well thought. COI claim is vague and per WP:COI policy, an article should not be deleted solely due to who edited it, especially if just to fix objective links and factual elements, and any promotional tone wascleaned up by neutral editors in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Mediascriptor (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that Mediascriptor has been blocked as a sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep I was doing a random round of edits and came across this one. As I did that before, I thought my knowledge could benefit Wikipedia. Anyway, I think according to WP:NONENG Italian sources could be added and are reliable. And, according to WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor the subject seems notable. Also, I have seen discussions where admins say that even a single reliable source is enough for notability verification. AppleBoosted (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmah Pinky

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The references are either dead links or reports of minor details such as changing the company that manages her work, not substantial coverage of her. Searching for better sources was a total failure; it turned up this Wikipedia article, her Facebook account, a site offering downloads of her music, etc, no reliable independent sources. (PROD contested with no reason given. ) JBW (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. JBW (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS for notability.Littenberg (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Item

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

This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion by at Draft by Spiderone under section G11 for CIO/ promotional issues. It was deleted under this section for unambigious advertising by Admin UtherSRG. After, it was recreated and moved to mainspace. New Pages reviewer SunDawn moved it back to draft as it still had serious issues, but the page was put back in main space again.

The issues brought up by experienced previous editors remain here-- This individual does not pass WP:GNG as they do not appear to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There is a passing mention of this person in the Financial Times that is used in an undue and highly over generalized way to "support" claims here. Similarly individual appears to run a news organization that is used here to support claims in the text. Ambassadors and minor "nobles" are generally non-notable.

A number of significant edits on this piece are by users who have only edited this article or closely related articles including Redredwoman, Darniel ramos garcia1980 and Ignatius Shitanda, which appear problematic. Nayyn (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Italy, and Antigua and Barbuda. Nayyn (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Looking at this, what really stands out is how consistently this person shows up as notable across totally different areas.

First, you've got high-level diplomatic work covered by big international organizations.

Plus, major financial news outlets aren't just mentioning them in passing,they're reporting on specific, impactful actions that actually matter.

And on top of that, there's formal recognition in official, publicly accessible registers.

This isn't just one-off mentions. it's a real public profile built from multiple angles. When you see that kind of consistent, independent coverage across diplomacy, finance, and official channels, it really drives home the point of encyclopedic relevance.

It directly answers what the Notability Guideline looks for: significant, reliable coverage from multiple independent sources across different spheres Wadurorsch (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. While I appreciate @CROIX' local knowledge, I'm not persuaded Item is a "household name" in A&B. The only news coverage I can find is either low-quality or not more than a standard press releases. I don't see moving the article to draft as a solution, as that has already happened multiple times without improving the quality. What I am seeing is a lot of peacock prose with a suspicious amount of single-issue accounts focused on adding more low-quality referencing. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 14:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't go through all references on the page as it is refbombed beyond belief, but the ones I did check were either dead links or trivial mentions. One reference (Ref. 18) is certainly in depth and secondary, but is so overflowing with praise that I have to wonder if it's a paid or otherwise somehow promotional content. No opinion on keep or delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The individual received significant coverage both in relation to his reporting on the Credit Suisse AT1 case and his role as an ambassador. The following publications (just a few examples) are secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Furthermore they dedicadet an entire article (and not a simple “passing mention”) to the individual in relation to the Credit Suisse AT1 Case:

- Financial Times "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop"

- Finews "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge In The Writedown Case Of CS"

- El Espanol "Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España: "El caso Credit Suisse AT1 ha sido una expropiación""

- Dominica News Online "Antigua and Barbuda ambassador Dario Item makes sensational international scoop in Credit Suisse AT1 case"

- Antigua Observer (which is NOT antigua.news) "Investigations by pizza lover Antiguan diplomat led to major Credit Suisse revelation"

- EconomiaDigital “Credit Suisse mintió a sus clientes justo antes de caer asegurando que no había retiradas de dinero”

- Insideparadeplatz.ch "AT-1-Geschädigten platzt Kragen: Klage gegen St. Galler Richter – Inside Paradeplatz"

The following media outlets/agencies (again just a few examples) published an entire article dedicated to the individual in relation to his role as an ambassador:

- UNWTO "UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda share vision of tourism for growth and opportunity"

- Yahoo Finance “Ambassador Dario Item on Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne Speech to the United Nations”

- Dominica News Online "Antigua & Barbuda's Foreign Affairs Minister praises Ambassador Dario Item as a game changer"

- Antigua Observer "Ambassador Dario Item advocates for more Antiguan and Barbudan missions to be established abroad"

- CadizDirecto: "Dario Item el hombre clave de Antigua y Barbuda en Europa"

- The European Financial Review “Dario Item, Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda: How We Can Help it Bounce Back”

There are perhaps hundreds of articles about this individual online (Reuters, El Pais, Die Weltwoche, Tagesanzeiger, Corriere del Ticino, etc.). The media coverage is definitely significant. Mediascriptor (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this is just becoming a WP:REFBOMB, much like the article itself (which at this point has significantly more references than e.g. the current German Defense Minister, and we probably wouldn't argue that Item is more notable than Pistorius).

Notability isn't the same as coverage. There are thousands of community leaders, politicians, or athletes that have plenty of news mentions and interviews without deserving a standalone article. Sources are a means to and end, not an end in themselves: the question is whether what's backed up by the sources about the subject is notable. Dozens of sources all rehashing the same 2-3 facts about the subject or summarizing yet another interview isn't good proof of his notability. Yes, he is the ambassador and UNWTO representative (as the article tells us with no less than 13 sources) and yes, he might have played a role in a scandal at Credit Suisse, although neither the scandal nor his contributions are even mentioned there despite being a GA.

As WP:GNG states, ""significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (emphasis mine). — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 18:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article is not necessarily in a perfect state, Dario Item is a household name in the country with extensive coverage in reliable sources. Item has been mentioned in some of the most reliable independent sources in the country’s media such as Antigua Observer (only newspaper in the country with a proper editorial staff) and the Antigua Broadcasting Service (only major television station in the country). A search for his name yields significant results. While the article is not impressive, and could be moved to draft space as an alternate measure, the subject fully meets the notability requirements for an article. CROIX^talk 13:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This guy fully meets the notability requirements for an article. His name has an extensive coverage in independent, authoritative and reliable sources. Furthermore, his revelations on the AT1 Credit Suisse case are of significant encyclopedic value..Juliannua (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this vote be disregarded. This is a 10-year-old account with one total edit, which is this one. Given that there have been several suspicious accounts working on the article itself, there is a significant risk of sockpuppeting here. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 14:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that I only have one edit. I have other edits in WIKI ES. You only need to look at the Edit Statistics. But even if I only had one edit, what difference would it make? Don't I have the same right to express my opinion as all the other editors? I see unnecessary aggression and bias in what you generally write.

@CROIX is a very experienced editor who lives in Antigua and Barbuda. If he writes that Dario Item is a “household name in the country” and “has been mentioned in some of the most reliable independent sources in the country’s media” such as Antigua Observer and ABS, how can you refute him without providing any concrete evidence and still expect to remain credible?

How can you, objectively, not consider the Financial Times to be authoritative?

In Spain, Dario Item is well known both as an ambassador and for his revelations on the Credit Suisse case. His name has appeared in many newspapers, including the highly authoritative El País (which interviews him often) and El Mundo, which interviewed him on the subject of the king's immunity (“La inviolabilidad del Rey, garantía de "estabilidad" en todas las monarquías parlamentarias de Europa” https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2021/02/23/603556b7fdddff256c8b4605.html). I have also seen significant media coverage in Switzerland. I don't think these facts are disputable. Juliannua (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juliannua, yes all editors are able to weigh in on this conversation. What I think Arcaist is bringing up with the regard to editing history is that it appears some editors who have contributed here bring up concerns about the possibility of WP:SPA.

As the draft article and was speedily deleted under Promotional and CIO concerns earlier, and other experienced editors have previously raised concerns, Arcaist brings up a valid point here.

This is because a number of those involved are new editors (CreateAccou4343nt555, Ignatius Shitanda), have few edits on EN wikipedia (such as yourself, Eternaldao7, Sharkwriters), few recent edits on EN wikipedia (SY DIGITAL, Kerry muga) or when they have contributed more broadly, they have contributed significantly to articles about Item or entities/individuals connected to him (Antonio Pérez Villanueva, Darniel ramos garcia1980 Jesus Sanchez Herrera, Mediascriptor).

Nayyn (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new, my account is from 2021. I know a good amount of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You saying that I'm new to Wikipedia while being unable to check for my account age and contributions contributes to the fact you don't seem to really check into and know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines so well as you seem to make it. Using such argument of account age is not really useful in any way here and does not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and disperses attention, and there is policy/guideline against it.

14:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC) CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject clearly meets WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources. It's quite surprising to see Nayyn claim the Financial Times piece is a "passing mention." The article, "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop," is demonstrably about Dario Item and his role in the Credit Suisse affair, providing in-depth coverage, not a mere mention. This alone is a strong indicator of notability. Beyond the FT, Mediascriptor and Juliannua have already listed numerous other strong international sources like Finews ("A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge..."), El Espanol ("Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España..."), and even the UNWTO ("UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda share vision..."), which dedicate substantial reporting to Item's activities, both concerning Credit Suisse and his ambassadorial role. The sheer breadth of coverage across different countries and languages (Spanish, German-language Swiss, English) underscores a level of international notability that goes beyond just local interest.

I also agree with Juliannua; their points are valid, and their !vote should be considered on its merits. Disregarding a contribution based on edit count, especially when they articulate clear reasoning referencing sources like El País, isn't productive. Furthermore, CROIX's local knowledge as an experienced editor from Antigua and Barbuda, stating Item is a "household name" and well-covered locally, should carry weight when assessing regional significance.

Concerns about "ambassadors and minor nobles" being generally nonnotable (per Nayyn) seem selectively applied here. Wikipedia hosts articles for many ambassadors, including other Antiguan diplomats such as Karen-Mae Hill, Carl Roberts (diplomat), Walton Alfonso Webson, and Claudius Cornelius Thomas, some with arguably less international press than Item. If the notability criteria are met through independent significant coverage, the role itself isn't an automatic disqualifier. I'm not currently editing the article and have no COI; I'm simply bringing these points up for fair and neutral consideration. The evidence provided by multiple editors points to sufficient notability here, and I hope others will take a second look in light of the above. While the article might benefit from further refinement (as many do), the sourcing supports keeping it. Eternaldao7 (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fundamental question for WP:GNG is whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In Dario Item's case, the evidence points to yes, specifically because these sources document a clear impact and influence he has had, particularly concerning the Credit Suisse AT1 bond affair. The Financial Times detailing his 'big Credit Suisse scoop,' Finews highlighting him 'leading the charge,' and El Espanol exploring his perspective as a key player, all speak to more than just passing interest – they document a person whose actions have had tangible, reported consequences and have generated significant discourse in international financial circles. This demonstrated influence, extensively covered by independent media, is precisely what establishes encyclopedic notability." Kerry muga (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Hello everyone. I've been reading through this discussion, and as someone who values Wikipedia as a place to learn about people shaping current events, I wanted to offer my thoughts. It seems to me that Dario Item is exactly the kind of individual one might reasonably expect to find information about here.

When a story like the Credit Suisse AT1 bond issue makes headlines internationally – and we see publications like the Financial Times writing dedicated pieces about "the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop," or Finews explaining how "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge" – it naturally sparks public interest.

People will wonder, "Who is this person at the center of this significant financial news?"

To me, that's where Wikipedia's role becomes so important. It's not just about whether someone is a "celebrity" in the traditional sense, but whether they've become a figure of public discussion due to their actions or involvement in noteworthy events. The articles in El Español, and even reports from places like Dominica News Online or the Antigua Observer about his diplomatic work and the Credit Suisse revelations, show that his activities are being discussed across different countries and contexts.

It feels like the core question of "has this person done something that made reliable, independent news outlets talk about them in a significant way?" is clearly answered with a "yes" here. The fact that he's also an ambassador, involved with the UNWTO, and has received various recognitions just adds more layers to why someone might be looking him up.

If parts of the article needed tidying up, that's what editing is for, and it sounds like good work has already been done on that front. But to remove the article entirely would feel like missing an opportunity to document someone who has demonstrably stepped into the public sphere through actions that have drawn considerable, legitimate media attention. It just seems like information people would genuinely be seeking. Sharkwriters (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My assessment is that the subject, Dario Item, satisfies the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). This is based on the presence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, particularly concerning his activities related to the Credit Suisse AT1 situation and his ambassadorial functions. Several specific publications provide coverage that appears to meet the depth required by WP:GNG: The Financial Times article dedicates substantial content to Mr. Item's role and actions, which constitutes more than a passing mention. Finews similarly focuses on him as a central figure in a noteworthy event. El Español offers an extensive profile, indicating significant interest from a major international publication. These sources are generally accepted as reliable and editorially independent. And these are just 3 of the many international sources other editors already mentioned and can be found in reference footnotes of Item’s article. The subject's diplomatic roles and interactions, such as with the UNWTO ([link, e.g., https://www.unwto.org/news/unwto-and-antigua- and-barbuda-share-vision-of-tourism-for-growth-and-opportunity]), provide further context of a public profile. While notability isn't inherited from a position, significant media coverage of activities undertaken within such roles contributes to fulfilling WP:GNG. Recognitions like the Scottish titles (referenced under legislation such as s.63 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 - [33]) and awards (e.g., from the Royal House of Georgia - [34]) are supplementary details that round out the individual's public record, though the primary basis for Wikipedia notability remains the independent secondary source coverage. The existence of articles for other Antiguan diplomats, as noted by other editors here, suggests that holding such a position is not an automatic bar to notability if WP:GNG is otherwise met. The key consideration is whether this specific individual has garnered sufficient independent coverage, and the evidence regarding Mr. Item's role in the widely- reported Credit Suisse case, in particular, points to this. While any article can benefit from ongoing editorial attention to ensure neutrality and sourcing precision, the available information indicates that the notability threshold for inclusion has been crossed. I think he has enough recognition to be considered in WP:GNG as his fellow peers also have their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SY DIGITAL (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This article and its subject clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and the following is proof of that, falsifying the deletion nominator's argument. First, the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources are the findings of my independent research for sources on Google that cover the subject Dario Item which asserts notability criteria by providing significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources:

ElHuffPost (2020-10-23). "Antigua y Barbuda, un destino turístico ligado al desarrollo empresarial". ElHuffPost. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by ElHuffpost with factual information on Dario Item's role as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
O'Murchu, Cynthia; Smith, Robert; Ashworth, Louis; Walker, Owen (2023-05-24). "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop". Financial Times. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by Financial Times establishes factual, in-depth information on the article's subject as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, journalist/writer, lawyer, and his role on Credit Suisse's case, contrary to what User:Nayyn claims. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Ortín, Alberto (2023-06-13). "Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España: "El caso Credit Suisse AT1 ha sido una expropiación"". El Español. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by El Español with in-depth information on Dario Item's role on Credit Suisse's case and factual information about him being a Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, and lawyer. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Insider Monkey Interviews (2020-11-04). "Ambassador Dario Item on Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne Speech to the United Nations". Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source on Yahoo Finance with factual information on the article's subject as an Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda.
UN Tourism (2024-02-06). "UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda Ambassador Dario Item Share Vision of Tourism for Growth and Opportunity". UN Tourism. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by UN Tourism on Dario Item role as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, and Permanent Representative to UN Tourism. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Gerber, Samuel (2024-04-05). "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge In The Writedown Case Of CS". finews.com. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by finews.com with factual information on the article's subject as an Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, journalist/writer, lawyer and his role on Credit Suisse's case. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Bautista, José Manuel García (2023-01-16). "Darío Item, el hombre clave de Antigua y Barbuda en Europa". Cádiz Directo. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by Cádiz Directo with factual information on the article's subject as an Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, and Permanent Representative to UN Tourism. NO evidence of WP:PRSOURCE as User:Arcaist claims.
Michael (2024-12-04). "Ambassador Dario Item advocates for more Antiguan and Barbudan missions to be established abroad". Antigua Observer Newspaper. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by the country's native major news information Antigua Observer Newspaper with factual, in-depth information on the subject's role as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda and on UN Tourism.
johnson, jennelsa (2022-10-28). "Antigua and Barbuda consulate opens in Monte Carlo". Antigua Observer Newspaper. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by the country's native major news information Antigua Observer Newspaper with factual information on the subject's role as Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda.
La Nueva Crónica (2023-01-30). "El embajador Dario Item nos presenta el boom turístico de Antigua y Barbuda". La Nueva Crónica. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
- Reliable source by La Nueva Crónica with factual information on the on the article's subject as an Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda.

I easily found the above and many more sources covering Dario Item by using the following Google search string:

"Dario Item" -site:darioitem.* -site:dario-item.com -site:embassy.ag -site:medium.com -site:instagram.com -site:x.com -site:twitter.com -site:youtube.com -site:facebook.com -site:linkedin.com -site:wikipedia.org -site:pinterest.com -site:academia.edu

User:Nayyn did not provide any policy or guideline for their claim that "Ambassadors and minor 'nobles' are generally non-notable." Actually, WP:DIPLOMAT says that "For any individual (including therefore any diplomat) who meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria, we presume that an article about them is merited", as proved above with many reliable sources. Also, prior discussion on notability have been had that "Ambassadors (and equivalent, such as High Commissioners, UN Permanent Representatives and EU Permanent Representatives) would be presumed notable". As such, this Nayyn's argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable.

User:Nayyn didn't provide any police or guideline on why the users edits' they mentioned would be actually problematic. The way they put it, seems as an appeal to authority logical fallacy. As such, this argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable.

User:Arcaist didn't provide any evidence for their claims. A simple research easily results in reliable sources, as demonstrated above.

What could be argued is that, naturally, further improvements could be made to the article. I personally added 3 reliable sources to it.

CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreateAccou4343nt555 welcome to Wikipedia! As you are new here, let me be a bit more detailed in my concerns about this article and why I brought it to this forum. Hopefully this can provide a bit more understanding as Wikipedia has a lot of policies that can be somewhat confusing to navigate for on your first day here.

Regarding notability-- When it comes to the amount of sources out there about Item, having sources is no guarantee that a person is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Individuals must fulfill the general notability guideline with significant coverage in independent sources. Ambassadors are usually not considered inherently notable, but it is a case by case basis. WP:DIPLOMAT is an essay, not an official policy. I'm not convinced that because he's an ambassador he's notable, feel free to disagree, that's why we have this discussion here. While there are reliable sources that have been added that confirm his role, I'm not sure his accomplishments as ambassador fulfill the requirements of WP:ANYBIO.

Regarding his notability as a journalist: While the Credit Suisse case brought attention to Mr. Item and provides WP:RS on him, it is a case of WP:1E. I haven't seen enduring coverage of him as a journalist with the exception of this case. On Wikipedia, notability is not temporary. Currently the reliance on the scoop and one Financial Times article appears to take an WP:Undue weight when it comes to assessing Item's notability. Just because WP:ITSINTHENEWS doesn't mean that someone is notable.

Regarding his notability re his nobility: While Item claims many "noble" honors, I have concerns if any of them fulfill WP:ANYBIO given that it appears he is in the business of assisting others in obtaining these and works for one of the entities that confers such awards. Other claims of notability that he is married to a celebrity do not fulfill the criterion either.

I nominated the article for these reasons. The requirements for sourcing for Living Persons on Wikipedia are high and require reliability.

Beyond notability, I also raised some concerns about the independence and neutrality of this article. While neutrality concerns cannot be a reason to delete an article, given the way the article has been edited, my concerns about WP:SPIP and WP:COI remain. These have not alleviated by the nature of this deletion discussion. Please see my comment here where I explain my concerns about WP:SPA and WP:NPOV.

CreateAccou4343nt555, I hope that the above explanation makes sense. Please remember, this is my personal view -- and anyone is welcome to disagree! That's why this forum exists for others to weigh in and for consensus to be made. But please be respectful in your discussion, as comments such as "Nayyn's argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable" as you did above, appear uncivil and against Wikipedia policies for these things.
Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your first day here :-) Nayyn (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new, my account is from 2021. I know a good amount of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You saying that I'm new to Wikipedia while being unable to check for my account age and contributions contributes to the fact you don't seem really check into and know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines so well as you seem to make it. Using such argument of account age is not really useful in any way here and does not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and disperses attention, and there is policy/guideline against it.

The link in "having sources is no guarantee that a person is suitable for inclusion" is an essay, not an official policy or guideline. The sources I provided fulfill WP:GNG because it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", it is easily verifiable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) is a failed proposal, not a policy, guideline, or even an essay, thus this argument lacks evident value and is disposable. As in the sources I provided, consensus is that diplomats are notable and fulfill criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. With all the multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources I provided, it's obvious the subject passes WP:BASIC criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AND "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.".

There are multiple reliable, independent sources provided that fulfill Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) which are enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, so WP:SPIP and WP:COI don't actually apply here as deletion criteria of the whole article.

There is no actual good evidence basis for deleting this article, what should be done is that the article should be kept and further improved. Please, help with that following my example of for example adding reliable sources.

CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, just noticed your talk page created today! Welcome back! Nayyn (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page was created in 2021... I really don't know what you're talking about.CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I say welcome back, as your last contribution to Wikipedia was in 2023 on GNU Guix Systems so it has been some years now since you contributed , so I wanted to be clear in my communication. Nayyn (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my reply to Mediascriptor, notability isn't the same as coverage. We don't need another 9 sources all saying that he's the ambassador, or 10 online sources all repeating his three quotes on the supposed Credit Suisse scandal. Such WP:REFBOMBs do not help a notability claim if all they do is state the same thing, but in a bunch of different outlets. The question is whether what is being said in those sources makes him notable. As WP:GNG states, "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (emphasis mine).

The Credit Suisse section is both a case of WP:1E, full of grandiose claims about Item's importance not covered by the sources (he "significantly contributed towards public understanding", "being prominently covered", "continued to publish significant revelations", "published a new scoop", "recognized by the international press as a primary source for comprehending the Credit Suisse AT1s case", etc.), and seemingly not important enough to be featured at Credit Suisse.

I don't believe what's given in those sources reaches WP:GNG, and neither do some others in this discussion. You're free to think otherwise, which is why we're having this discussion. But let's not make it look like his notability is beyond all questioning just because a Google search produces some results. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a very difficult discussion that seems to be highly brigaded with tons of accounts with very few edits on en-wiki that are all !voting keep (some have since been blocked such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mediascriptor), the article itself looks like a WP:BLP1E / WP:PROMO article for a lawyer that represents people in the case against Credit Suisse and clearly seems to gain financially from this and increasing his profile around the Credit Suisse case. Even if we grant that the story itself is notable and that he had a significant part to play in reporting the story, this is still a case WP:BLP1E and WP:JOURNALIST where reporting one single story does not automatically mean notability in Wikipedia. I did make an attempt to comb through the first 40 references on the heavily WP:REFBOMB article on the subject and apart from a critical article on finews.com discussing all his conflicts of interest there wasnt any WP:SIGCOV, almost all links were trivial mentions, a snippet from him or some work done in his official capacity as ambassador (diplomats are not inherently notable). However, I wasnt able to find an in-depth secondary piece on him (apart from the critical finews piece) and many stories are about the CS case and not about him; looking at WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG I cannot find enough evidence for notability in all the sources provided, the only possible criteria would be NARTIST#4c based on the award that his media company (not him) got but I think that is a bit of a stretch and would only possibly qualify the media company he runs and not himself. On a different note, reading the article actually doesnt really explain what it is that makes him notable and what he really contributed to the reporting around CS, which is another major issue in the article, from reading all the cited sources I gather that he got an internal correspondence between FINMA and Credit Suisse where they disagreed about how the AT1 bonds should be treated -- again something that is supposedly his major contribution and is not even properly laid out in the article. --hroest 16:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP – I’m new to this article discussion but have read through both sides and the underlying Wikipedia policies. Based on the evidence available, it appears that he meets the requirements under WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

The Financial Times article “Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop” is not a trivial mention — it’s a full, dedicated feature published by a globally respected outlet. In addition, there are multiple other independent, reliable, and secondary sources covering his role as a diplomat, his media work, and his involvement in the Credit Suisse AT1 bond story.

Some editors have raised the concern of WP:1E (one-event notability), but I respectfully disagree this applies here. The Credit Suisse coverage appears across multiple outlets, countries, and languages, and there is a pattern of coverage over time, including before and after that case. That demonstrates enduring notability rather than fleeting attention.

Concerns about peacock language or reference overload (WP:REFBOMB) are valid for content improvement, but they’re not, on their own, sufficient grounds for deletion. The solution to promotional tone is editing, not erasure. Wikipedia policy states that articles should be judged on the subject’s notability, not necessarily on the article’s current perfection. See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.

I would also note that Wikipedia welcomes contributions from a wide range of editors, and that participation from newer or topically interested accounts does not inherently invalidate their arguments, as long as they follow policy.

In summary, regardless of the article’s imperfections, the volume and depth of coverage across major international media strongly support retention. With a more neutral tone and clearer organisation, the article can be improved further. Based on WP:N, I believe it should be kept. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more input from experienced editors would be very helpful. Additionally, reminder that if you can spot suspicious activity in an AfD, so can the closers - please keep things on-topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It seems that this person is responsible for breaking an important story to the press - but that's really just WP:ONEEVENT that he's known for. I noticed that is some of the sources about the story he broke, his name is mentioned merely once (El Pais) or not at all (Reuters) - that seems like WP:REFBOMBING and to me and is a strong indication there is not in fact, any in depth coverage of him as an individual (or, as it were, an Item). -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also in favor of salting per the high amount of sockpuppetry and brigading. Madeleine (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Addressing recent "Delete" arguments after delisting:

1: Re: WP:ONEEVENT / WP:REFBOMBING (D'n'B): This isn't a simple WP:ONEEVENT case. While the Credit Suisse AT1 affair is significant, Mr. Item's role within it received in-depth, direct coverage (not D’n’B somehow missed these) from reliable sources like the Financial Times and Finews, focusing on his actions and impact. The El Pais piece cited is also a substantial profile/interview, not a trivial mention. This isn't refbombing; it's evidence of significant coverage. His broader diplomatic work (e.g., UNWTO, Antiguan media) further shows a profile beyond a single event. 2: Re: WP:BLP1E / Salting (Madeleine): WP:BLP1E is about careful handling, not automatic deletion if the "one event" coverage is deep, significant, and about the person's central role, as is evident here. The subject's multi-faceted public engagement (diplomacy + financial case impact) also complicates a strict BLP1E interpretation. Procedural issues like alleged sockpuppetry, while serious, are separate from whether the subject independently meets WP:GNG based on reliable sources. The evidence here points to GNG being met. SY DIGITAL (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just don't see the sustained significant coverage in reliable independent sources necessary for a WP:BIO. Dozens of passing mentions, quotes from the subject, laudatory pieces from his employer, and an FT article, which I would say is on the human interest side of the spectrum as opposed to incisive, investigative journalism, are not sufficient. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC) SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Parra Vallette

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fail NPOL, as the mayor of a large city in Chile (Viña del Mar). He did so in full capacity following the removal of office of Rodrigo González, who preceded him. Although he was the mayor for only three months, the article could well be expanded using offline sources such as El Mercurio de Valparaíso. --Bedivere (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 334,248 is not large enough to entitle the mayors to be inherently notable. Let's be consistent with our judgments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put that into perspective then. It's the sixth largest commune in Chile by population. It's a large city in Chile. Bedivere (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Population doesn't mean high notability. Honolulu has a population of 344,967. Viña del Mar has more population than Orlando, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Des Moines and Anchorage, notable U.S. cities. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And in every one of those cities, a mayor would still have to be properly sourced to get their own article, and would still not be handed an automatic notability freebie on bad sourcing just because they existed as a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets enough NPOL, the subject of the biography has held an official position and has received sufficient media coverage. --Carigval.97 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is not about holding "an official position". Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mayor doesn't get an automatic notability freebie just because of the population of the city — the notability of a mayor hinges on the quality and depth and volume of WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources that can be shown to support an article with. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as directory entries and raw tables of election results and simple certifications of his election victories, which are not support for notability — and of the just two footnotes that come from reliable sources, one is a dead link and the other one is just covering him in the context of his candidacy in a much later non-mayoral election that he didn't win, and thus isn't supporting notability as a mayor. Obviously he could keep an article that was referenced properly, but the fact that his city has 334,248 people living in it does not magically exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the thing is that most news sources that could eventually support this article are offline. I'm sure lots of references could be retrieved from regional newspapers like El Mercurio de Valparaíso and La Estrella de Valparaíso. There is a Santiago Mercurio archive online but is only available to subscribers, a source which could eventually serve here. La Tercera and El Mostrador had online versions in 2000 and probably could be at least partially available on the Wayback Machine. The purpose of this comment is to show this could be further expanded and referenced with reliable sources but would need some effort gathering the sources. Bedivere (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of a three-month mayoral spell? Geschichte (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for sure, it's not a common event to have a mayor replaced in Chile. Their tenure was short but it certainly was covered by major national and regional sources.

Now, leaving that aside, there are some book sources that could be used to further expand the article. The Tributo a Valparaíso (Fernando Vergara Benítez, 2007) (partially available on Google Books) mentions the "tireless work by former mayor of Viña del Mar and social assistant, Mr. Roberto Parra Vallette, a pioneer in Chile, dedicated with his family for more than two decades to the rehabilitation of drug addicts, founding in 1982 (or 1983?) the Casa de Acogida Hogar La Roca" (p. 34). An article, from 2000, mentions him in this 2000 magazine, but the article is not completely visible. There is this El Mercurio article (Chilean newspaper of record) mentioning his election as mayor in an extraordinary city council session. There is an in-depth article by CNN, dated 2021, in the context of his candidacy for the Constitutional Convention. --Bedivere (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luis Trejo

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with access to archived Chilean media can write and source something more substantive than this. Mayors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for existing, and have to show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact — specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just states that he existed, and just cites the absolute bare minimum of sourcing needed to prevent it from being speedied as completely unsourced, without adding any of the more substantive content or sourcing that we would actually need to see. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article sufficiently meets the notability guidelines for politicians, as it addresses the first topic of politicians who have held province–wide offices, in this case, that of mayor of Viña del Mar.

Just as there are political figures with extensive coverage without holding an official position, in this case, it is a figure with historical notoriety without much media coverage. Carigval.97 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of a city is not a "province-wide" office. It's a local office that falls under NPOL #2, where the notability test depends exclusively on media coverage and cannot be passed without that. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rules, media coverage is a second important point, not necessary exclusive (that's why I was talking about cases where there are political figures without positions, but with sufficient references). Similarly, that position –mayor of Viña del Mar– is a province-wide office: that important city in Chile is a town in the Province of Valparaíso. Mr. Trejo has encyclopedic relevance as a mayor of a large city in Chile.Carigval.97 (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage is essential to passage of WP:GNG, not a mere option that can be bypassed. NPOL does not say that media coverage is optional; even a politician who does pass NPOL #1 (which a mayor does not) still has to have GNG-worthy sourcing too, and the only pass they get is that as long as their holding of the office is properly verifiable, we don't rush their article into the delete bin for not already being in a better state than it is — we give it time for improvement to a GNG-compliant standard, because it's an automatic given that the article will be improvable.

But mayors don't get the same indulgence: mayors only get articles if and when passage of the criterion for local politicians has already been shown off the bat, because there isn't the same guarantee that every mayor of everywhere can always be improved to a GNG-compliant standard. No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having to have GNG-worthy media coverage — there are just some levels of government at which the officeholders are given a grace period for improvement, and some levels of office at which they aren't given the same benefit of the doubt, but there is no level of government at which people are exempted from having to cite GNG-worthy sourcing at all.

I don't think you understand the definition of "province-wide", either. The fact that a city is in a province does not render the city's mayor into a province-wide officeholder, as he's mayor of the city and not mayor of the whole province. A province-wide office is one that has province-wide jurisdictional authority, like a governor or a provincial-level legislator, not a mayor of an individual town or city within the province. Mayors are local officeholders under NPOL #2, not province-wide officeholders under NPOL #1, which is precisely why a mayor cannot be exempted from having to pass GNG on media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasons, Bearcat, but Trejo's management as mayor of Viña del Mar is reflected in the document that refers to his social policies regarding legal aid, as well as in press reports that mention his management of the Viña International Festival. The lack of more digital news is due to the fact that the internet was not sufficiently widespread at the time. However, this lack is complemented by sufficient historical documents that do give him prominence in his field: the history of the mayoralty of Viña del Mar.

Regarding "No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having GNG-worthy media coverage", it's regrettable that there are cases where even long-standing English officials, such as Arthur Henderson, Baron Rowley (Labour), have few references, as well as Sidney Jones, Mayor of Liverpool, who does not register digital press releases, but rather press sources. Despite this, their notability lies in the positions they have held.

Finally, a city's case may remain provincial, but autonomous. Similarly, and being a local city, Viña del Mar is an important cultural and economic location (services, tourism). Based on this, and the fact that Trejo is a politician, the subject of the biography has sufficient notoriety to have held said office, as verified by official digital archives of proven reliability (Universidad Alberto Hurtado and notes from the Judicial Corporation). Carigval.97 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bring up WP:WHATABOUT "arguments". Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not just a matter of media coverage for the tenure of a politician's biography, a mayor in this case. The most important thing here is that "Politicians who have held international, national, or subnational office (such as members of national legislatures, governors, or mayors of large cities) are presumed notable." In this case, Viña del Mar is one of the largest cities in the country and is an integral part of Greater Valparaíso, the second largest urban agglomeration in Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igallards7 (talk) 3:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep: per Igallards7. The article has also been significantly expanded since the nomination. Luis7M (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NPOL does not state that mayors of large cities are presumed notable. The correct language in NPOL is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The language does not specify city size or even position a local government. The standard for all local politicians is what Bearcat describes earlier - the need to "show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact." This is true for a mayor of a population of 49, or a population of 32 million. In practice, this means that a local official should meet and possibly exceed WP:GNG to have a stand alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Zzz plant (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Knochelmann

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kentucky. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Knochelmann meets the notability guidelines for politicians due to extensive coverage of his tenure in office from local media, such as this article with biographical information. Other articles about his priorities and policies in office include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I know that this is not a criterion for notability, but as an aside I'll note that Kenton County is the third-most populous county in Kentucky after Jefferson and Fayette; there is substantial public interest in covering the county's leader. Mad Mismagius (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Yu

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Suffers from WP:BOMBARD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can understand the nominator's concern about "WP:BOMBARD" given the initial article creation, it's worth assessing the subject's actual notability separately from how the article came to be.

If Junie Yu indeed meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically for politicians, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and general notability, WP:GNG) through verifiable, independent sources, then the article should be kept. The focus should be on the subject's notability, not on the initial submission process.

Let's evaluate based on policy, not just initial impressions.

1bisdak (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Pam Baricuatro also fails WP:NPOL, she's one level of government higher than Yu (city vs municipality), and can be argued she may pass WP:GNG; of course that can definitely be determined by nominating that article for WP:AFD yourself as well.

Looking at the references on this article, it's Facebook, the Bohol provincial government, the Calape municipal government, election results databases, and actual WP:RS provide coverage mostly to his children (LOL?) passing the nursing board exams and being in a national beauty pageant, instead of him personally. There's one reference solely about him where his corruption cases were dismissed. Looking at all of this, delete as having failed WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the 2025 local election results, incumbent vice-mayor Sulpicio Yu Jr. unseated incumbent mayor Julius Caesar Herrera. See also the 2013 Bohol local election results.

Tas Qureshi

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

Prod that was redirected to Robert Braithwaite (engineer). I don't think it is appropriate to redirect to 1 of his patients even if notable. Braithwaite's article doesn't even mention Qureshi. Article subject fails WP:BIO. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here are the sources I could find [35], [36], [37], [38], and [39]. These are mainly database entries that prove he exist, some with a small bio but they can't be independent. I couldn't verify the majority of the sources or claims presently in the article and most that I could open were not BLP quality. Moritoriko (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as it stands is not in good shape - most of the sources are 404 not found, which is not helpful. I am still doing WP:BEFORE, and it may help other editors participating in this AfD to also search for the subject under his full name Tahseen Qureshi (as, for example, here) under which name many of his academic papers appear. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a de-prodded article, this is not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did a variety of searches under various permutations of the subject's name, and could not find really any reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, so I do not think WP:BIO is met. And although there is a track record of academic publishing (ResearchGate), I do not think that this meets any of WP:NPROF. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Speedy decline. Last deletion end of 2024 and nothing has happened since that time to show notability. Sources are promotional, non-bylined (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous voters @Wikibear47:, @Star Mississippi:, @Mushy Yank:, @Saqib:, @GrabUp: --CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
acknowledging the ping, and thanks @CNMall41

Unfortunately I do not have the on wiki time to do sufficient research to cast an opinion here and don't anticipate that changing in the next week. Will weigh in if I can and appreciate the heads up. Star Mississippi 01:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)m[reply]

Keep. Aina Asif meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on new coverage since the 2024 deletion. Her lead roles in Mayi Ri, Pinjra and Judwaa have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources like The Express Tribune and The News International. The article has been rewritten with a neutral tone and now includes bylined, non-promotional references that address the original deletion rationale. As creater, i have of the article written the article in neutral tone. Behappyyar (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out said sources? I find a few bylined articles that verify a role, but nothing about her. WP:NACTOR is not guaranteed for having roles as there is NO inherent notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR clear says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is significant sources about her acting in notable dramas. Behappyyar (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the entire thread as it is misleading not to do so - "Such a person may be considered notable if:" (my emphasis added). So....notability is not inherent here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Thank you for the clarification. I understand WP:NACTOR is not automatic notability. However, Aina Asif has received significant coverage in major Pakistani media outlets — not just for her roles, but for her rising status in the industry.

For example:

The Express Tribune published a feature on her Mayi Ri role and social impact: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2434576/mayi-ri-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction
The News International highlighted her performance in Pinjra in an article discussing child-centric storytelling: https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1002289-raising-questions
Reviews and interviews on platforms like Galaxy Lollywood and Dawn Images also cover her work in detail.

These are independent, bylined, and show non-trivial coverage, meeting the threshold for WP:GNG . I’m happy to continue improving the article if you feel more sourcing or clarification is needed.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided are either broken or lead to the homepage so I cannot review. Reviews and interviews are not considered significant for purposes of establishing notability. Interviews are not independent and the reviews must be of the actor, not just mentioning the actor with a review of the work. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the error. Here you go

[40] as rising star, [41] as a cast, [42] for his early drama roles, [43] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ref 1 - Intervew, Ref 2 through Ref 4 - unbylined paid-for and/or churnalism which is the same as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of this can be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Not even remotely notable. This article has been deleted twice yet somehow different users mange to restore the same version again and again. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just because someone acted in two more drama serials doesn't mean that they are now notable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibear47: I understand your concern about repeated recreations. However, this is not a re-post of the previously deleted versions. The article has been significantly improved with 'reliable, secondary, and bylined sources'. It now documents Aina Asif's lead roles in critically discussed serials like Mayi Ri, Pinjra, and Judwaa, with extensive media coverage that was not available at the time of earlier deletions.

The current version avoids promotional tone, uses a neutral narrative, and cites national publications like The News, Express Tribune, and Dawn. This supports a claim of notability under WP:GNG and shows growth since her earlier career stage.

I'm open to feedback and improvements but believe this version no longer qualifies for speedy deletion or a G4 tag.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the current version, how do you know what the deleted version looks(ed) like?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the references—because when the page was deleted, those references weren’t available at that time. Behappyyar (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to show the sources that support either?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is some coverage from reliable sources that establish notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask what I have been asking everyone (which still has not been answered with the exception of one use providing unreliable sources)......what "coverage from reliable sources" are you referring to that "establish notability?" Note WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Sorry, I was being lazy before.

Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News: [1] Khan, Asif. "Aina Asif: a rising star". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 2025-06-06. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This was incorrectly cited, so I have fixed it. It is a reasonably sized interview with the subject in a national newspaper, reliable source.

[3] "Aina Asif clocks four 'incredible years' of acting with gratitude note". jang.com.pk. 2024-11-18. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

Another important national newspaper, minor article about the subject.

[11] "Tuba and Aina Asif reunite". Daily Times. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This is a space filler but in a minor national newspaper.

Then we have 2 articles in the Middle East press about the series, but do mention Aina Asif as a star of the serial.

[6] "'Highest form of abuse': Pakistani drama 'Mayi Ri' shines light on child marriage and beyond". Arab News. 2023-08-02. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

[13] Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News:

Further the subject has 4 notable series ( Hum Tum , Pinjra , Baby Baji & Mayi Ri ) credited to her in the article, that alone justifies notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) this is an interview, not independent. 3) Unbylined churnalism crap (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 6) She is listed in the caption of an image in the article, nothing in the article itself about her. 11) Another ubylined article which is basically a short about something she said on Instagram. 13) Interview, again not independent, and only mentions her as having the role - nothing "about" her so just verification. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have no thoughts about this, but considering that this AfD will be relisted soon rather than being closed as keep/delete, I will leave some thoughts on this topic. Pakistani-based outlets often have dubious reputations as sources to be used on Wikipedia so I might !vote soon if time allows, but there is a number of sources here that could interest some users. But I suspect that these sources would fall under the "no byline, promotional, mentions, unreliable etc..." category. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit:, You are correct about the sourcing. I looked at a lot of these before giving up as you can see here and here that the bylines and promotional tone would fall under the same policy as WP:NEWSORGINDIA which I would argue applies to the entire subcontinent, not just a country. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was what I expect the sources to come up with. I am concerned though with the two WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote from some random users. The sourcing brought up by the first user speaks for itself; the sources often look exactly the same as the other "byline" articles as you claim. I am not am expert in determining the validation of the Indian/Pakistani sources, as they tend to masquerade promotion into their own articles. I will probably make my last decision tomorrow. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple significant roles in notable films and enough media coverage is available as sources. Zuck28 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR says "may" be notable. Having multiple roles does grant inherent notability. As far as sources, many have already been discussed. Can you point out which sources (outside NEWSORGINDIA) that would show notability under GNG?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more media coverage which, I found with a simple Google search.

1 2, 3, 4, 5. Zuck28 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Aina Asif plays significant roles in many notable television shows. Also this actress is famous and meeting WP:GNG. Deriu And (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536B 22:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aina Asif having significant coverage on reliable resources. Demonstrate notability in terms of Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you evaluate? Your WP:ATA are becoming an issue.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Most of the current arguments to keep the article are weak/shallow, but there is also not much support to delete the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sivad Heshimu Johnson

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

Fails WP:Oneevent and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Hirolovesswords (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.

As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.

Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.

Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.

Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications

The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic), Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!

And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sci-fi & Fantasy Modeller, and Fine Scale Modeler are credible sources where he is the interview subject. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are usually considered primary sources, and additionally might not have sufficient independent content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on independent sourcing that speaks to notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something similar earlier in the conversation. By now, people may not be reading what I wrote, so I'm writing again. Because of the ignore all rules rule that was made to make sure that articles that are obviously notable are not deleted because of rules, I think that voters should think about whether they believe this article is notable rather than about policy. As I said earlier, why would non interview sources be any more credible than interview in this case? Many credible sources found him notable enough to write about. Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of bludgeoning or you will lose access to edit this discussion. That's your opinion to which you're entitled, but it does not overrule consensus which is what you have consistently been trying to do. Star Mississippi 02:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The consensus so far is to keep. Are you trying to divert from a consensus you don't like by accusing me of bludgeoning? "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. I don't like being lawyered. Orlando Davis (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi

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

I recently accepted this article via AfC. The subject has significant coverage in reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Print, and Hindustan Times, mainly around his death, but with in-depth info about his life. There's also a 2021 Hindi source with substantial coverage. I believe this meets the GNG, but to ensure consensus, I think an AfD discussion would be helpful so experienced editors can weigh in. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Only obituary articles seen. That is not notable. Dualpendel (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also found these sources on Google, [44], [45]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough references to demonstrate subject's notability. [46] - This is an in-depth coverage by reliable source Mongabay, [47]- An in-depth article by Hindustan Times. AndySailz (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was his death notable? Most people have obituaries. Where is the significant coverage outside of his death? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question please. If a news article about a person's death includes substantial coverage of their early life, career, and accomplishments essentially providing in-depth information directly about the subject, does that count toward meeting the General Notability Guideline (GNG)? Or is such a source discounted just because it's related to their death?Afstromen (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting on someone's life is exactly what an obituary does. If they were notable prior to the death, there would be significant coverage about their life during that time. So, unless something about the death is notable, it would not count. Otherwise, we could simply create new pages based on obituary sections of newspapers. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i wasn't aware of this. Outside his death, i found some sources [48], [49], [50].Afstromen (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi was a celebrity in Indian conservation circles prior to his death with many stories published about his work in Hindi and English. He also won notable awards, so he seems to clear the notability bar. Naturepeople (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was notable person before his death. He won awards from Rajasthan gov and he was featured in many popular news sites. Jodhpuri (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there coverage in reliable sources of the awards? Please provide links to the coverage in new sites and add to the article if you can. Dualpendel (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Rajasthan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject has got substantial coverage in independent media like The Print, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, and other. I think it passes WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Person was not notable before the death. Page is made up of mainly obituaries and reflections on his life. If he was worthy of notice prior to his death, there would be reliable sources covering his life more in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - https://www.hindi.news18.com/news/rajasthan/jaisalmer-meet-radheshyam-vishnoi-nature-lover-goes-for-100-kms-to-save-wildlife-his-spirit-inspires-5946711.html this article was published before his death. and many articles was written when he was alive.
Jodhpuri (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link timed out. Can you ensure you supplied the correct URL? Also, is this the only source? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you can google Jodhpuri (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/jaisalmer/news/jaisalmer-wildlife-savior-radheshyam-bishnoi-inspiring-story-134644803.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/barmer/jaisalmer/news/radheshyam-vishnoi-was-rewarded-with-young-naturalist-award-2021-129184236.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://hindi.news18.com/news/rajasthan/jaisalmer-meet-radheshyam-vishnoi-nature-lover-goes-for-100-kms-to-save-wildlife-his-spirit-inspires-5946711.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jodhpuri, the photo uploaded on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) mentions "Own work." Did you take this photo yourself, or was it sourced from another website? SachinSwami (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jodhpuri:, not my job to present your contention. I conducted a WP:BEFORE and the sources you provided do not change what I found. These are quite good churnalism but nothing reliable.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41,

I’m asking just to improve my understanding, could you please clarify why these sources are considered churnalism? As someone from India, I can confirm that Dainik Bhaskar is one of the top Hindi-language publications in the country and has a strong reputation. News18 is also a well-known media outlet.

Tagging @SachinSwami for his insights as well, as he is familiar with Indian news publications. Afstromen (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also, it sounds like you are asking on behalf of Jodhpuri since this is their thread. Did you mean to reply on a different thread? I am a little confused. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you view everything with suspicion? I asked only to improve my understanding, as I clearly mentioned. It's possible I asked in the wrong place. should I have brought this up on your talk page instead?Afstromen (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen:, I asked for clarification so as not to make an unwarranted accusation. Which thread was this intended for so I can address your question?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Hi @Afstromen, I'm a bit confused about the AFD process. I have some questions. If the page was accepted from AFC, why didn't you wait for experienced reviewers to review it before nominating it for AFD? Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? Also, the page creator Jodhpuri uploaded a photo on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) with the mention "Own work." I asked them about it here, but they haven't responded yet.- SachinSwami (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources, Bhaskar News has written against the wrongdoings of the Indian government, and even during IT raids on their office by the central government, they continued to raise their voice against such issues. We have seen this kind of journalism, but if a news article mentions the journalist's name, that source holds more weight; otherwise, the news lacks significant value. This is because promotional or social media information, or news created based on someone submitting a story to the office, often does not include the journalist's name. Hence, such sources are not reliable. Additionally, the Young Naturalist Award by Century Asia Group is a private award, not given by the Rajasthan government. SachinSwami (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean? Could you please be more specific?

Well I accepted this draft because I believed it contained significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. However, user CNMAll14 added a notability tag and raised a concern regarding the nature of the sources, noting that most reliable sources were published only around the time of the subject’s death. Due to this, I nominated the article for deletion so that more experienced editors could provide their opinion. I agree that while the sources are reliable, and have significant coverage but sources were published around the death time, which raises questions about whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline.

Before nominating for deletion, I confirmed that the article had previously been moved from mainspace to draft space. I accepted the draft based on multiple reliable sources but acknowledge my responsibility to address any oversights in evaluating the nature of the coverage.

Additionally, I did not review the image when accepting the draft, which was an oversight on my part.

If you review my AfC history, you will see that I take conflict of interest issues seriously and do not accept drafts when COI concerns are present. I also request COI disclosures as needed. Afstromen (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jodhpuri, Please answer here about your uploaded photo on Wikimedia commons. read Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest (COI) guideline, and disclose whether you have any COI.Afstromen (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41 had also tagged the second page. Did you check the page you accepted? And did you bring it to AFD? The answer to that is "no."

So, I have doubts about your review of the AfC history for that page. I created the page Nagamani Srinath, which was declined by Greenman and Gheus, with significant comments from them. Those comments were helpful for me to understand how to create pages properly in the future. I wanted to see what other important comments would come on that page. But suddenly, you accepted it, which was surprising to me. Later, when CNMall41 tagged the page for notability and unreliable sources, I checked some of the AfC pages you accepted and realized that, like me, you are also new to Wikipedia, so I ignored it. SachinSwami (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I still believe Nagamani Srinath is notable per WP:ANYBIO as she is a recipient of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award. While I may not be a highly experienced editor, I am doing my best. Instead of making allegations, we should communicate with each other constructively and respectfully. But again Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean?Afstromen (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also please See this. Afstromen (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with the tags placed by CNMall41 on the page. I also know that this page is notable, but receiving the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and having sources for it is not sufficient under WP:ANYBIO. The person must have made significant contributions to their field, earning widespread recognition (e.g., in arts, science, literature, sports, politics, etc.). This requires confirmation of their contributions through reliable and independent secondary sources. Additionally, if a person is famous only for a single event (e.g., a viral video or a single news story), they do not qualify as notable under WP:ANYBIO unless their long-term contributions or impact are proven through sources (see WP:BLP1E).

Also, I responded because you pinged me. I haven’t directly accused you of anything. Based on the photo added by Jodhpuri, I only mentioned that it “ I'm a bit confused" and asked about it while staying within WP:AfD rules. If my question has hurt your feelings, I apologize.-SachinSwami (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, but please take care of this. If you are unsure or confused about any of my actions, feel free to ask me anytime. However, I kindly request that no direct or indirect allegations should be made without reason.Afstromen (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes. this picture was captured by me. Jodhpuri (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is distracting from the notability discussion. As far as Nagamani Srinath, I went ahead and sent that to AfD here as I still have concerns and notability is not inherent simply for winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The sources in it are not reliable, and the award is also not credible. Importantly, according to the comment above, the person who created the page has admitted to taking the photo themselves. There may also be a possibility of a conflict of interest (COI).- SachinSwami (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person who created the page may have a conflict of interest, and the subject is not notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft as a WP:ATD. It is possible that sources before death exist and have just not been found. I would not rule out the opportunity to do so. BD2412 T 20:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there consensus for an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am extremely confused by the attitudes in this discussion towards obituaries. I think some participants may be confused about the distinction between death notices, which are typically short announcements or paid advertisements submitted by family members, and staff-written obituaries. A proper staff-written obituary in a reliable source is absolutely a GNG-qualifying source, and there is no requirement that we find coverage from prior to his death. See WP:Obituaries as sources. The obituaries in the Hindustan Times, ThePrint and The Indian Express are all bylined articles in reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, and I do not see any reason why they would not count towards GNG. MCE89 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to throw slight at voters in AfDs. Also, you are citing an essay, not a guideline or policy. Even if it were a guideline or policy, it still says "usually notable," not is notable. Fact of the matter is that someone worthy of notice (which is part of a guideline, not an essay) would be covered outside of the obituary. Sorry, but having press write about you around the same time to honor your life is not the same as the press writing about you for what you are accomplishing in life. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if you interpreted that as a slight, that was not my intention. You are correct that WP:Obituaries as sources is an essay, but what guideline or policy are you relying on for saying that obituaries are not GNG-qualifying sources? Obituaries are very frequently used as evidence of notability. In fact I would regard them as quite high-quality sources for biographies, since they provide a general overview of what someone has accomplished during their life rather than forcing us to piece things together from bits and pieces of coverage. I'm not seeing any policy basis for discounting obituaries as sources. MCE89 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, the main notability guideline, and the discussions associated with that guideline. The fact there is nothing saying the "don't" establish notability does not mean they do. I don't need to prove a negative.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says that someone is notable if they have been the subject of multiple pieces of significant coverage in sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. These obituaries appear to meet all of those criteria. I’m not asking you to prove a negative, I’m asking you why obituaries should be held to a different and higher standard. And the discussion you are citing is an informal talk page discussion from 16 years ago where several participants made exactly the same distinction I’m making here - a paid death notice in the classifieds section is not useful for establishing notability, but a staff-written obituary is. MCE89 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they were notable before their death, it would have been documented in significant coverage. It would be the same as if someone received a lot of press around a single event (see WP:ONEEVENT). An obituary is an indicator that the person is notable, but having several obituaries in reliable sources which are pretty much churnalism would not be considered significant coverage.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree and leave it there. I agree that obituary coverage can fall into WP:ONEEVENT territory when it’s focused on the manner or circumstances of death (which is why we have guidelines like WP:VICTIM), but retrospective coverage on someone’s life and accomplishments that happens to be published upon their death is in my view a perfectly good GNG-qualifying source as long as it otherwise meets the WP:SIRS criteria. We’d have a lot of historical biographies that would need to be deleted if there was actually a requirement to find SIGCOV from during the subject’s life. And I don’t really see why we would disqualify these articles as churnalism given that they are bylined articles in reliable sources. MCE89 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: MCE89 is correct, independent obituaries long enough for SIGCOV count towards GNG. The obits in the Hindustan Times, ThePrint and The Indian Express are clearly enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I would disagree. There seems to be discussions with this disagreement as well but nothing showing consensus that they do. Sorry, but having sources published about your life at the time of your death may indicate notability, but if you were notable when you were alive there would already be coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to any guideline or policy that explicitly states that independently written obituaries cannot count towards GNG like any other piece of independent SIGCOV? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed to discussions on people disagreeing about it, just like we are here. I think a RSN discussion would be warranted and will open one in the next day. Would be good to get something for this and future AfDs. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if RSN is the right noticeboard for this? RSN is for reliability, not notablity. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Sometimes my fingers have a mind of their own when my brain is in a fog (as it was earlier). Thanks for pointing it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Mayuran (Saba)

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

A bodyguard that lacks notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with Tamil references was notable and the LTTE named a sniper unit after him, known as the Mayuran Sniper Unit after his death.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the references are in Tamil, could this article be moved to the Tamil Wikipedia? ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG Recommend that sources be in English but as long as non-English sources are reliable and could be verified they are also allowed. -UtoD 10:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding the sources. I’m currently working on finding additional references in English or from more widely accepted Tamil publications. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article’s compliance with WP:RS. Thili1977 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing the discussion. While there are no English-language articles about Captain Mayuran (Saba), this is primarily because he served in a security role within the LTTE, which was not internationally covered in detail. However, his internal importance to the organization was clearly recognized — for example, the LTTE named a sniper unit after him after his death. His legacy is remembered through Tamil-language commemorative publications, obituaries, and community memorials. I understand the need for reliable sourcing and am doing my best to represent the subject neutrally and verifiably, within the limits of what is available. Thili1977 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the suggestion to move this to the Tamil Wikipedia, but I believe this topic has relevance for an English-speaking audience as well — especially in the context of the Sri Lankan civil war and the Tamil diaspora. Many members of the younger diaspora today can no longer read Tamil fluently, or at all. Having this article in English supports broader educational access, cross-cultural understanding, and historical documentation. I hope the article can be retained and improved here rather than removed or relocated. Thili1977 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original contributor of this article. Captain Mayuran (Saba) was a member of the LTTE during the Sri Lankan civil war and served as a close protection officer for LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. He participated in several key operations and is remembered within the Tamil community, especially for his role during the Battle of Pooneryn in 1993, where he was killed in action. The article is based on multiple Tamil sources, including contemporary reports and commemorative publications. I have aimed to present the content in a neutral, fact-based manner. I’m open to improvements and willing to add stronger references if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thili1977 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

Article appears to be a BLP failing WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. The sources listed are primary (1-7) or passing (8). A pretty substantial search turned up nothing covering this individual. Garsh (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Engineering, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which i provided are this man's own interviews. and its very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem though, interviews are primary sources and do not show notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do then. This article is very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I quickly found this article in Israel's newspaper of record. It's about Sassoon and about the organization that interviewed him. Haven't made up my mind yet. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be more about the organization that interviewed Sassoon and Saddam's regime, not necessarily Sassoon himself. I'm not sure that a two paragraph mention in an article about a related topic counts as significant coverage. Garsh (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beginning. If others want to continue the search, they can! gidonb (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaoul Sassoon mentioned is Zionist, who is son of Iraq's Grand Rabbi Sassoon Khadouri. not Engineer Shaul Sasoon Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaul Sassoon is different from this one on whom the article is about Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked some more and did not find enough for the GNG. The domain is not well-covered, so with regret. gidonb (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are news some sources such as Baghdad Observer and al-Watan.com, these are website sources and remaining are interviews in four parts (four refs can be interview themselves and two parts of interview is mentioned in a website separately Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if you want this article to be kept, please indicate Keep in bold font so it doesn't get overlooked. Also a source review would be very helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand. Can you pls explain me what you meant to say Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i believe the article should be kept, even thou its not currently at its best, it is good in expanding on reconigtion of iraqi jews during the 70s-2003, when jews are overshadowed in iraqi history. Local Mandaean (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG. Skitash (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's failing WP:GNG and lacking significant coverage. Cinder painter (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is important with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It gives an important information that just like Christians and Mandaeans, Jews were also a part of Saddam Hussein's government. Unlike the propaganda narrative spread by Israel on anti-Zionist leaders, whom they equate with total antisemitism. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, this shouldn't get resolved by whom someone likes (whether the subject or Saddam), or by whom we dislike. We regularly delete bios of wonderful people and keep these of villains, value free. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last chance for the keep !voters to provide sources in support of their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

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