Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

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

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|Deletion sorting|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Brad Farmer

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

There has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Kahlenberg

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

BLP that reads like an organisation article. Lots of interview and profiles, passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, I am the one who created the article. I have no financial relationship with the subject 66.112.246.20 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to wiki-editting, but happy to make any proper edits to avoid deletion. Just message me with some guided assistance and I will be happy to make changes. StepToMyLeft123 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Kick channels

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

WP:NLIST requires the subjects being listed to be discussed as a group in any significant depth by reliable sources. Although some sources have discussed Kick's channels collectively, those are all about the controversies and publicity stunts those creators have caused, not about their number of followers [1] [2] [3]. The abundance of coverage of WP:SENSATIONAL events that were designed by online celebrities for the exact purpose of gathering media attention is rarely a good argument for notability, and I doubt that this topic needs a stand-alone list considering that Kick (service) is already an article (which meets WP:NCORP mostly because of the coverage of said controversies to begin with). Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Internet, and Lists. Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources here do focus on talking about the numbers of followers of specific big channels of this website (e.g. Amouranth, xQc and Adin Ross), but NLIST requires those creators to be discussed as a group, not individually. And needless to say, celebrity gossip websites and online databases are rarely reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the nominator's reasons, this list is unmaintanable. The data in the table comes from a dynamic database that claims to "collect[] and aggregate[] streaming data from Kick.com using statistics and charts" (whatever that means). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasib Piriyev

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

Article about a non-notable businessperson and CEO. Previously declined in WP:AFC but moved to mainspace anyway. Sources are just WP:PASSINGMENTIONS and does not cover the subject WP:INDEPTH. Some the sources are regular WP:ROTM. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Azerbaijan. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nasib Piriyev is a notable entrepreneur and business leader whose contributions have been recognized by multiple independent sources. He has significant projects in the fields of Energy, Lifestyle, Capital financing, Culture and Philanthropy, which have been covered by major national and international outlets, including Azertac,HELLO! Magazine, and The New York Times.

His ventures, including AzMeCo, Buta Arts Centre, and Woodford Finance, have had measurable impact on countries including Azerbaijan, United Kingdom and Malta, as reflected in multiple sources. Nasib has also linked to recognitions including the film awards emerged by SONUNCU (The Last One), the work he co-directed. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Abramov

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

The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Volleyball. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helaman Jeffs

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

No indication of standalone notability. Hardly any coverage of the subject; notability is not inherited. (NPP action) C F A 💬 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. C F A 💬 20:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Finley

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no significant coverage of Guy Finley, his work or his teachings in reliable secondary sources. Most of it is blog posts and primary sources. A 2007 discussion ended with a Keep result, but the votes all relied on notability determined by Google hits, a Google featured link and Amazon sales rankings. These are outdated standards. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Philosophy, Spirituality, and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a great example of a clear WP:NBIO fail. None of the sources are reliable as they are blogs, and I couldn't find any other coverage of this specific Guy Finley (there were other hits but nothing of interest). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!vote I think most musicians deserve a chance Natlaur (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballerina Farm

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

I noted that the article has multiple issues, but upon further review, I'm not sure this meets Wikipedia's standards WP:N. Winning regional pageants and having a lot of TikTok followers is not necessarily grounds for meriting an article. Flangalanger (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Flangalanger (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.wsj.com/articles/instagram-stars-make-farm-life-look-delightfulminus-the-manure-11629733123 and other references in the article show this passes the general notability guidelines. I click the Wikipedia reference search at the top of the AFD and find even more coverage from this year. https://www.thecut.com/article/ballerina-farm-hannah-neeleman-culture-war-response.html https://www.vogue.com/article/on-ballerina-farm-and-ballets-crushing-lessons-in-femininity https://people.com/who-is-hannah-neeleman-ballerina-farm-controversy-explained-8686193 https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ballerina-farm-trad-wife-hannah-neeleman-1235072506/ https://www.vulture.com/article/whats-going-on-with-ballerina-farm-hannah-neeleman.html Dream Focus 22:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Glamour and the Wall Street Journal are RS, I'm not sure what else you'd look for... We have about a dozen sources, some better than others. We at least have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Well past WP:GNG. If nominator is still concerned about the article straddling Hannah's career and farm, (per this edit summary [4]) I'd be fine renaming to "Hannah Neeleman" to reflect the focus of most coverage (which is almost entirely focused on her portrayal of tradwife culture, not just TikToks and pageants!). Oh, and I know traffic isn't usually a factor at AfD but for what it's worth, the article has gotten 246,000 page views in the past two months [5], on par with many former US presidents.[6] Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG and has coverage from reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilham Kadri

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

I have not found sufficient reliable, independent news coverage of the topic, which is required by WP or the General Notability guidelines RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails WP:GNG.--Gabriel (……?) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Hagi

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

Her acting roles are small or in movies that aren't notable themselves and she hasn't established herself as a notable artist. While there is considerable media attention, much of it feels sensationalistic. I might be overlooking something since I don’t speak Romanian but her notability shouldn't simply stem from her father being a famous footballer (WP:INVALIDBIO) Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Romania. Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She seems to have notability on her own as an actress, though is hard for me to evaluate the notability of the films she acted in.Anonimu (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be kept, she seems notable in her own country Natlaur (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gheorghe_Hagi#Personal_life -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same thoughts, I've seen Kira Hagi's article and honestly I think the Article still have what to be improved, as the movies she acted in, e.g. 167.250.71.19 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Shoop

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

Another dime-a-dozen TV weatherman article, with hardly any content since its 2008 creation that fails to establish why subject is notable. Sources before and after death are primary, with no viable third-party coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a Palestinian, I would fight those who occupied my land

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

No claim to notability, and was clearly created with a political slant. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might make sense if this was a super well-known phrase that had been analyzed as such in multiple outlets. Instead, the article is about the various times Ayalon expressed this kind of sentiment and notability is very much in doubt. It's also true that the article has serious NPOV problems. Pichpich (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems not to be coherent as a standalone article. I think for a quotation like this to have an article it would have to rise to the level of Ich bin ein Berliner or similar. Other than that it probably belongs as part of the biography.Andre🚐 01:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ami Ayalon could be expanded with material about this, but this standalone page is excessive and slanted. Not sure what the deal with all the italics and quotation marks is either. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is about interviews and human right that says all people have a right to defend their land, Whatever race they are and whatever status they have. This article has an implicit reference to human rights and human equality and is compiled based on clarified documents. championmin^Talk 02:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't disagree with what your saying. This just isn't the place to make the point.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random quote. No encyclopedic notability. NOTNEWS and NOTRANDOM apply. gidonb (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a phrase like Sí se puede, with a longstanding legacy/impact. It is likely too soon for an article on this. Given developments and Ami Ayalon's prominence, that COULD change, but I don't see this passing a ten-year test as of today.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. I understand the sentiment, but it’s just not notable. Cf. Palestinian law. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance we could WP:SNOW this? Seems fairly decided. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden scope and retitle: The encyclopedic topic here is something like Israeli politician statements of empathy with Palestinians or Israeli acceptance of Palestinian right to resist, and should cover the examples in this source: Massad, Joseph (2024-09-16). "Why Israeli leaders admit if they were Palestinian they would fight for freedom". Middle East Eye., among others:

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kanabar

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. His company is also nominated for deletion. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally promotional content, clearly failed WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other users suggesting this is being used for promotion. Monophile 💬 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page has WP:PROMO all over it. The subject did not make any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as businessman. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Promotional, but the subject also does not have enough news coverage. There were a few announcement type articles, that may have come from a press release and there was an article about his stamp collection.Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darpan Sanghvi

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Singapore, Maharashtra, Spain, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boma Obi

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source she was mentioned was this. Aside that nothing else. The rest are just school profile while some of the source like the 4th one has nothing to show about than a home page of the site. Gabriel (……?) 01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Education, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article calls her "a Fellow of the International Federation of Library Association (IFLA)". I cannot verify this and do not know what it means; maybe the IFLA/OCLC Early Career Development Fellowship? Honorary Fellows of IFLA [7] would be notable through WP:PROF#C3 but she is not listed there, so it must mean something different. The early career one would definitely not pass that criterion; it is a different meaning of fellowship. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biography has a lot of statements with no source to back them up. Which fails to meet WP:PROOF and could end up be a WP:NOR. Just checked the reference on ref 2 and it says 404 page not found. Gabriel (……?) 05:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, I can't even verify that she's a fellow of the claimed organisations. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPROF#3 and #6. Sources available cannot be used to satisfy GNG. Best, Reading of Beans 08:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a professor that doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Being a so-called Fellow of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions doesn't justify notability. The publications are very very poor, and can't be used to justify WP:NAUTHOR regardless. This list will tell you the lack of notability (former fellows). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. University librarian is a position that does not confer automatic notability, WP:PROF notability is not evident, and there are serious verifiability issues here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Hashem

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

BLP of the founder of a religious sect. The sect itself appears to be notable but it does not seem that the leader himself is. I think a redirect to Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light would probably be best. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Egypt, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok which three of these do you think provide the best in-depth coverage? Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De General

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

Aside the drug traffic of a thing. I don't see any WP:GNG on this comedian. Wikipedia is not a newspaper per the controversy to make it look like his notable. Other source are interviews and while reading further on the news I had to find out that per the content on the newspaper that he was associated with the journalist per ref2 so therefore not independent. Gabriel (……?) 18:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 18:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am conscious of WP:BIGNUMBER but I see he has 5,500,000 followers on Facebook and 375,000 on YouTube so sources may exist? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nigerian skit makers are well good at buying social media engagement from third party site especially when being paid for an endorsement they try to package their life for more deals. Meanwhile all this platform also support sponsored features like promotion of page, post and all that to generate more engagement. That doesn’t still qualify WP:GNG. That is why most of this people their source come from interviews ( associating with the journalist ) which can’t be no longer independent. You can see User:Celestina007#Analysis on "Nigerian sources" to have more idea about Nigerian ways. If they were more stories like the one of the drug trafficking I would have count him as a notable per Wikipedia guideline but relying on their followers it’s a weak point. Your response are still welcomed. Gabriel (……?) 20:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
De General Did you read this? How is this an interview? If they are seeking for interview, then why was news about their drug traffick published online? All the sources are used are from reliable newspapers in Nigeria Tesleemah (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comedian is notable per WP:Notable as they have independent sources, the controversy were also written in a neutral manner and I don't see a problem with that. I also added the stub template which means the article can be expanded as more sources come up. But for now, they are ok to stand on Wikipedia.Tesleemah (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stub article doesn’t mean they can’t be AFD. I am judging from the current situation as it is on the main space. People like De General it is only when they cause trouble they gain the newspaper attention that is why he gained one from the drug trafficking which passes independent source & significant. Aside that is there any other source you wanna provide that is independent and significant to proof notability. We can’t just call someone is notable all because they are famous. Gabriel (……?) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find how they are related to the journalist here or am I missing something? If he truly want them to write for him, how come some news outlets published his negative news? Tesleemah (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna know if you are missing something you can read the article from the link above I dropped earlier which directs to Celestina007. If you can provide 3 to 4 negativity then I will withdraw the AFD or any notable award won by the comedian from reliable source. Gabriel (……?) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and I didn't see where all newspapers are to be condemned, rather he suggested these articles should be vetted. For the negativity I added up to 5 references under the controversy. In fact, going online now, I saw more of the news about his drug trafficking. Tesleemah (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable newspaper are not to be condemned. Nobody says so. Meanwhile aside the drug trafficking you haven’t said anything than that to proof notability. The subject it’s just a Too soon and you saying more future sources are coming up, who knows?. We can’t vouch for any subject progress. Except you have a close connection with the subject then a rethink will be considered. Gabriel (……?) 21:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already declared on my userpage I don't have close relation with any of the authors I write about nor do I write on behalf of any employer or organisation. I will not appreciate being connected otherwise. Kind regards Tesleemah (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This sufficiently passes GNG, he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. The sources [addresses] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I also do not smell any COI or sponsored contents going on, sources seem natural. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Delete: On further checks, this is all centred on WP:BLP1E. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have already checked the sources, unless there are new sources I can’t see, this entry is sourced to interviews and the routine coverages surrounding his arrest. Best, Reading of Beans 13:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although centered WP:UNDUELY on his arrest by NDLEA, I disagree with Gabriel's statement, that "Nigerians are usually known for buying followers". We all know that he is a celebrity but haven't received mainstream content review and WP:SIGCOV. Like other comedians, it's usually few coverages atleast to meet WP:ENT. Bearing above as well as WP:BIG, I wouldn't oppose having this article as a redirect to List of Nigerian comedians. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Starkey

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

Fails WP:GNG. The justification for the creation of the article in 2007 was that Starkey "was one of the last surviving veterans of WWI" even though he joined 8 months after the war ended. Both references (which are now permanent dead links) appear to be from his local paper and one is his obituary. I can't find anything when searching for further references except for a clipping of his wife's obit in the same paper. GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pennsylvania. GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. I don’t see what he did is in any way notable. He joined the armed forces after the Armistice of the Great War and didn’t do anything else except living past 100. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, it used to be that any possible WWI veteran was considered notable by some back when this article was created, even if it was WWI-adjacent at best. Some have yet to have an AfD, such as this one and Robley Rex. There was an AfD a few months ago for a guy who showed up for induction into the Army on November 11, 1918 and was just dismissed because the armistice had been signed earlier that day and an earlier AfD was closed as keep with the reasoning being that he "assumed the risk" and that made him one of the "last surviving WWI veterans". Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasheel Aukhojee

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

Appears to be largely promo for the business. Sources are interviews or profiles of the company. He's a doctor that does at-home visits, which is rather routine. I find nothing in news or other searches that would help us prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mauritius. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Wood (William Lawrence Hansen)

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

There are no secondary sources that provide information about this person; the entire article is based on primary sources and the article itself admits that little is known outside of government copyright documentation. As a result of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Bill Hansen, he is in the credits as an editor for a variety of television programs and related media that may become Wikipedia articles in the future. Most of all, he has composed music with a variety of notable composers. The other references can likely be found, as requested in the first banner. Starlighsky

Future notability is not a consideration at AfD. And his notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from other composers he may have worked with, or from projects he may have worked on that may (or more likely may not) be notable. What we need is reliable, secondary sources. Can you provide those?? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to find those. Starlighsky (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an abundance of information on ASCAP of his music as well as who performed his music. However, it is challenging to understand.

ACE Repertory (ascap.com) Starlighsky (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAP is a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t have biographies on every single person who ever lived and worked in the movies or on TV. We are not, nor ever been, a directory of everyone in “The Business” like ASCAP or IMDB. I hope everyone understands why we strive to be more reliable. This page has to be deleted because there’s not enough information about the person, other than a bare minimum of what he edited. According to our policy: “Biography articles should only be created for people with some sort of verifiable notability. A good measure of notability is whether someone has been featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources.” Sorry. Bearian (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to add that it is the biography of an editor who went by a pseudonym to write music with notable songwriters. Starlighsky (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I research this, the more it seems like the television and film projects could be valuable resources for the Wikipedia community:

As William Lawrence Hansen:

Al Jolson's Old-Time Minstrel Show 1952

William Lawrence Hansen

(Compilation: songs and text)

BMI Television Sketchbook Sketches (1951)

William Lawrence Hansen

& Henry M. Katzberg

19 Celebrated Baritone Solos (1950)

William Lawrence Hansen

(Compilation)

Songs from the film Bambi (1951)

Edited by Bill Hansen Starlighsky (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melony Munro

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

There is no available WP:SIGCOV of this beauty pageant contestant. Munro's name appears in WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the winner of the competitions, but without SIGCOV there's a failure on WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. (Miss International Queen USA itself appears non-notable and as such winning it does not constitute a WP:ANYBIO #3 pass.) I don't see a plausible redirect since Munro has been a third-place contestant in different contests, but open to a suggestion should anyone have one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NBASIC. ANYBIO is not applicable. C F A 💬 02:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per in-depth nomination, my BEFORE does not add any sources to make a suitable claim of notability. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding anything here which would lead to this subject meeting the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is also failed per Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants), which is still not notable enough for that article. Apipattana (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyrika Holkar

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

A promotional biography of a businesswoman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:ADMASQ, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Whitney Nakayima

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:BIO or General Notability Moarnighar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all notability guidelines. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Agbogu

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

Disputed AfC submission. This subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO by all means. The milestone "Tony Elumelu Entrepreneur" does not inherently confer notability as over a hundred could be in a year. The source analysis below will give you further insight. I also suspect WP:UPE and WP:COI going on.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Vanderwaalforces
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/04/25/lagos-partners-naija-brand-chick-for-hospitality-trade-fair/	We can't be sure of WP:INDEPENDENT when there's no byline in the first place.	While publication is reliable per WP:NGRS, the piece is unreliable because we can't rely on a piece without a byline.	Utterly no, this is more or less a routine coverage.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/guardian-woman/metrowoman-entrepreneur-of-the-week-nelly-agbogu/	This is an interview.	Ditto.		✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq89nLdKp4U	Fails WP:INDEPENDENT.	Whether some will say TED, the publisher of this video, is reliable or YouTube is an unreliable source, this is unreliable still because it involves the appearance of the subject.	Ditto.	✘ No
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/05/africa/nelly-agbogu-naijbrandchick-intl-cmd/index.html	Reading this piece makes it clear that it is not entirely independent of the subject. The phrase "Courtesy Nelly Agbogu" at the end suggests that she is the source of this information, implying that either she provided it directly or the information is being shared with her permission or acknowledgment.	While the publication is reliable, we can't rely on a piece that fails WP:INDEPENDENCE.	Does not provide the WP:SIGCOV on the subject that we need on Wikipedia.	✘ No
https://thesun.ng/naijabrandchick-offers-game-changing-program-to-help-online-business-owners-dominate-sales-and-influence/	Reading this makes it clear that it fails WP:INDEPENDENT. The piece lacks a byline.	Reliable publication per WP:NGRS but the piece lacks a byline and we can't rely on such, especially when it fails WP:INDEPENDENT.	This isn't about the subject.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/over-200-exhibitors-expected-at-tourism-fair/	Unassessed because it does not even apply to the subject at all.	Ditto, and lacks a proper byline while looking like a WP:ROTM.	Ditto, and there is no WP:SIGCOV on the subject either.	✘ No
https://www.tonyelumelufoundation.org/marketing-materials/meet-the-selected-1000-tony-elumelu-entrepreneurs-for-2017	This is not a source or piece used to establish notability in the first place.	Ditto.	Ditto.	? Unknown
https://twmagazine.net/tw-tv/tw-everyday/women-love-nelly-agbogu/	Piece is an interview, thus failing WP:INDEPENDENT.	Ditto.		✘ No
https://www.globalbrandsmagazine.com/how-nelly-agbogu-is-transforming-nigerian-entrepreneurship/	Piece lacks a byline and reading it makes it clear that it is not entirely independent of the subject.	We can't rely on a piece that lacks a byline, plus the publication itself is not reliable because it looks like a part of a news PR system.	Piece does not provide the WP:SIGCOV we need.	✘ No
https://archive.businessday.ng/enterpreneur/article/nelly-agbogus-biggest-challenge-birthed-business-journey/	Piece is an interview, thus failing WP:INDEPENDENT.	Ditto.		✘ No
https://www.cnbcafrica.com/2017/business-of-healthy-living-in-nigeria/	Fails WP:INDEPENDENT as an interview.	Ditto, even though the publication is a reliable one.	Ditto.	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/lagos-govt-naija-brand-chick-continue-to-build-economy-through-tourism/amp/	If this is entirely legitimate, I wonder why it would lack a byline.	No byline, marginally reliable per WP:NGRS.	WP:ROTM or routine coverage.	✘ No
Citation 13: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/06/07/naijabrandchicks-dsi-programme-empowering-women-to-transform-industries/ , Citation 15: https://dailytimesng.com/four-reasons-to-attend-lagos-tourism-nbc-tradefair-nelly/ , Citation 16: https://lagosstate.gov.ng/lasg-reiterates-continuous-support-for-smes-as-lagos-tourism-nbc-3-day-trade-fair-ends/ , Citation 18: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/07/wema-bank-nbc-smedan-to-hold-inter-continental-trade-empower-women/amp/ , Citation 20: https://msmeafricaonline.com/wema-bank-and-smedan-collaborate-to-empower-women-led-msmes-through-naija-brand-chick-trade-fair/ , Citations 21 all through 24.	All these sources are unassessed because they cannot be used to establish a proton of notability on the subject.	Ditto.	Ditto.	? Unknown
Citation 14: https://businessday.ng/sponsored/article/naijabrandchicks-dsi-program-transforms-women-entrepreneurs-into-industry-leaders/ , Citation 19: https://businessday.ng/sponsored/article/fez-delivery-is-the-official-delivery-partner-at-nbc-african-fair-london-2024/	Sponsored pieces.	Ditto.	Ditto.	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/participants-laud-6th-naija-brand-chick-trade-fair/amp/	Lacks byline as usual, ditto.	Ditto.	Fails WP:SIGCOV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The assessment table created by the nom seems to disregard every source. My use of sources is based onWP:NGRS ensuring that the subject passes WP:GNG. I am even more surprised to see the assessment of CNN and TedX. Marking all the notable newspapers Vanguard, Punch, The Sun etc as unreliable makes me wonder what Nigerian Editors can then use for referencing. Also, kindly look at his talk page to see how our conversations based on his accusation prior to this went (I can’t seem to link to it). I will not vote a keep but would prefer other neutral editors to look into this objectively and vote accordingly. Mevoelo (talk) Mevoelo
Delete: I have confirmed the source analysis table independently and before reading it. I suggest the be a soft delete - without prejudice to future re-creation - because I sense that Nelly Agbogu approaches WP:BIO despite not quite being there, certainly as referenced. A major rewrite and re-referencing at this stage will change my mind, provided the WP:HEY is done sufficiently well. This means that unreferenced so called facts must be removed, and faux references must go, along with the facts they purport to verify. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the thorough source analysis, which I concur with, and according to which notability is indeed not established. I get the impression of someone who is 'famous for being famous', which probably at least in part explains the WP:REFBOMBING with flaky sources. Fails WP:GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The referencing is also rather lacking: I checked out a few of the sources, and the first one (#1) did not verify the DOB against which it is cited; the second (#7) is cited at the end of the 'Biography' and verifies only the very last, and arguably the least significant, statement in that section, with the educational history completely unsupported; and the third (#8) does verify that she worked for Schlumberger, but not what role she held. Which begs the question, if all those details didn't come from the sources cited against them, where did they come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source from which got the DOB is here, although it appears I ended up not adding it to the reference list. For the role she held, I cannot specifically state which of the sources but it was part of the info I got while researching. If I’m not mistaken, it was stated on her TedEx Talk. Mevoelo (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails to meet notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.Mysecretgarden (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails GNG with a tone of promotional. I wonder why the creator had to move it to mainspace after being warned--Gabriel (……?) 19:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are mainly routine news. She wasn’t listed as the top 20 entrepreneur by Yahoo Finance; rather by CAPHIQ—an advertising agency that distributed the listicle through GlobeNewswire. No other source seems to be substantial. Best, Reading of Beans 07:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Schwarz

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this previously unreferenced article about a composer, and added one reference. It is a passing mention, however, and I cannot find other coverage. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NCOMPOSER. Tacyarg (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Television, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Before search returned nothing. Fails WP:GNG or WP:Nmusic. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, additional web-search didn't help. But the person is non-notable as a musician too. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wesley Routh

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

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}}.

WP:BLP1E. Only notable for the shooting, and unlike Thomas Matthew Crooks, who actually injured Trump during the attempt, Routh did not even shoot close to Trump (sources have said he was 300-500 yards away). Even though the FBI has said this is an assassination attempt, very little is known about the suspect at this time. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:RAPID. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: He doesn't have to have injured Trump to be notable; that's not a requirement. Honestly, some of the good arguments used to support keeping the article of Thomas Matthew Crooks could apply to Ryan Wesley Routh. I'm just less convinced of his notability so I won't !vote to keep this time. I think we should wait for more details to appear before we try to determine whether or not he's notable; it's still too early. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Waiting is the best option for the next 24 hours. Leaning towards Draftify/Redirect if nothing else is dug up but his previous activism may be promising. Page metadata needs to be changed, it already claims this guy is an assassin (the point is somewhat moot but I think it’s premature). 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think waiting feels a little CRYSTALLBALLish. Presumed future notability really oughtn't matter when deciding whether an article is notable enough right now, which is all we're here to do. So there's probably an argument for the article being WP:TOOSOON. Still, I agree with you that many of the arguments used in favour of keeping Thomas Matthew Crooks could apply here (while also sharing your doubts about notability), so I'll hold off from a !vote for now. GhostOfNoMeme 12:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't participate in many of these debates. I think the original author should have waited longer before making the page in the first place. It's been made though and what's done is done - for the moment. Let's not further exacerbate the rush to make it by rushing to delete it. No one will suffer one way or another if we wait a bit before deleting it.

Mentor397 (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just when does an attempted Presidential assassin become notable? When he succeeds in getting a shot off?Amyzex (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the tl;dr of things...he's not charged with attempted murder, because he never fired a shot, he was stopped before he could.

So its technically not an attempted assassination by legal standards, which is why he's only facing gun charges.

(yes the law IS that complicated and convoluted).

there's a reason why the article people are suggesting to merge this with is just called a "shooting" as opposed to an assassination attempt. GokuSS400 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this clearly was an attempted murder. There are three elements of an attempt:

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/attempt/

(1) intent to commit a crime

Routh clearly intended to shoot Trump.

(2) conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward completing the crime

Routh constructed a blind and lay in wait for something like 12 hours

(3) a failure to complete the crime

Routh failed.

So we have someone who attempted to murder a former and perhaps future President. Sounds pretty significant to me. 2601:8C0:A84:7C60:2929:656C:A4C6:41C0 (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Politics, Florida, Hawaii, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as it was reported that Routh had previous charges involving weapons of mass destruction, so this is not WP:BLP1E. 2601:603:300:AFF0:C55A:28C9:721:C5ED (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge back into the main article. As Trump was not injured and no shots were fired at him, I suspect Routh's notability to fade, like many of the other people who are listed at Security incidents involving Donald Trump. This is less of an assassination attempt as it is a security incident or foiled plan. (Luckily) the Secret Service did its job. Natg 19 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't create articles and then wait around to see if they become notable. That's not how this works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I'm not sure if it's a good thing to delete the article now that it's been created. Ideally it wouldn't have been created until we were sure that the subject is notable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting and draftify -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep laughable to even consider deletion - how much clear political bias does wiki need to unendingly display?! Arguments: obviously WP:RAPID since we have no idea how deep down the rabbit hole this one goes and obviously not WP:BLP1E since he was previously arrested with a fully automatic machine gun = weapon of mass destruction!2600:8800:FF0E:300:7C5A:797:4AF2:99DF (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automatic firearm is not a weapon of mass destruction, despite how the media spins it. It was not what Bush was searching for in Iraq, since there are literal tonnes of AKs there. Thus the WMD issue is a non-starter, so not relevant to notablity -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was charged with "carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a weapon of mass destruction" [8]. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He had a machine gun, which he did not actually use, not a nuclear bomb or similar which is what most people think of as a WMD.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was convicted of that same charge.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/5-things-apparent-assassination-attempt-trump-golf-courses-113712979 David O. Johnson (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owning an AK-47 does not in any way lend itself to establishing notability. This is Florida. If I had a nickel for everyone down here who owns a military style assault rifle, I could stop buying lottery tickets. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. Routh simply won't be significant enough in the future to justify it's own article. It should be merged into a section in Trump International Golf Club shooting. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles for other individuals of a similar level of notability for him who attempted to assassinate presidents without injuring same, including Cipriano Ferrandini, Richard Lawrence (failed assassin) and Raymond Lee Harvey.XavierGreen (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E gives John Hinckley Jr as an example of someone who gets an article anyway. Routh is analogous to Hinckley. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What’s the point in deleting something that has been so thoroughly researched and written? This seems like a cover-up by Harris stans Freespeech2024 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Ryan Routh to John Hinckley Jr. in terms of notability is an argument that doesn't stand up. Hinckley wounded a sitting president and several others including the Press Secretary, who later died of his injuries. Routh allegedly took aim at a former president and was scared off by the USSS before he could do anything. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above. Bedivere (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. No indication Routh is of lasting significance. Incorporate content in other articles where relevant.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting per BLP1E and WP:DELAY. One tends to get tired of people wielding WP:RAPID as a sort of get out of jail free card for the abuse of DELAY and the pervasive rush to create articles that do not meet our guidelines and are unlikely to in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't get very many presidential assassins here on wikipedia and presidential assassins are inherently notable and this event has lots of sources already. The FBI has announced this was an attempted assassination and that makes the subject of this article notable. He has been arrested and charged and will be prosecuted. At present, the FBI has not obtained an indictment which should come very soon, after which this Afd can be updated. Too soon to delete this article. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the guideline that says failed presidential assassins are inherently notable? I've been around a while but must have missed that one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can point you to numerous articles on presidential assassins which each have their own article. If you try to assassinate a president or former president of the United States, you will most certainly make it into the history books. I don't think I need to state the obvious. The "Guideline" is what gets reduced to practice on WP, and all these former assassins have an article which is reducing it to practice. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2016 assassination attempt on Trump in Las Vegas does not get an article for its perpetrator. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting per WP:BLP1E. No need for a biography and there is no reason it can't be covered sufficiently there. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He already had a fair bit of media coverage before his attempted assassination of Trump, due to his activities in Ukraine. And of course now with his attempted shooting and subsequent arrest and trial, there will be a whole lot more coverage. There doesn't really seem to be any reason to doubt his notability at this point -2003:CA:8718:B90B:3530:38D0:867B:345C (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting per WP:BLP1E and multiple editors above. He wouldn’t be notable without the golf club incident. Bondegezou (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The man didn't even get close, and he's about to go to prison for a very long time where I doubt he's going to have any more notable events that would qualify him for a wiki page. I say this as someone who voted keep on Thomas Matthew Crooks, this guy is not gonna remain notable enough to get his own page a week from now. --Aabicus (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passing WP:GNG right now. Would be presidential assassin. Which is rare. The sourcing is third party and good at the moment. Keep it.BabbaQ (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep; leaning on merge Certainly not a full delete, in case more info comes out and he warrants a page again, I'd like for the edit history to be easily seen for a potential reconstruction. But at the moment, there's not enough info about him to warrant him a page. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep per WP:RAPID and WO:HEY. Subject has had more reporting since yesterday. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only for now. Routh may become more significant as time passes but as of right now we have little to no information about him aside from his past endeavors. I say wait until the FBI interrogates him and we get a more fleshed out story as he is still alive.TJD2 (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable at the moment as more details about him is being unraveled. Suspect was caught alive by FBI according to sources and not dead. The Afd nomination is too quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 08:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This discussion should have started on the talk page per WP:ATD. Anyway... my keep opinion is based on WP:RAPID, another option is to have a redirect to the article where his name is mentioned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to nomination. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 10:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Temporarily Delete while he definitely has the potential for notability, it is important to remember that WP:BLPCRIME still applies even if he's been convicted of a previous offense. It is rather easy to have false/uncertain information circulate especially in the very early stages of a highly publicized event. The FBI/Secret Service has had less than a day to investigate this, and perceived notions around this case can change rapidly. And even then, they are not a jury which can give a conviction.

For this reason I believe it is best to temporarily delete (or to draftify incase of reinstation) as this accusation is the only reason he is notable enough to be considered for his own article, and even then the notability is being debated above.

WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't be ignored just because this is a high profile case, and I am frankly a bit concerned that not a single person has even mentioned this guideline in the entire discussion . Floine (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, for the simple reason that there are independent global and third-party sources about him that tell and delve into his life and story. It is not the first time that is under the media spotlight [9] for is controversial supporting on Ukrainian-Russia war. For now he has considerable notability as a criminal. 109.114.14.46 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this individual has had a bit of a past, and one does not have to fire a bullet at a person in order to attempt an assassination on them. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I see it doing no harm to keep it. SlaterRaptor1976 (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I suggest we keep the content but merge it with Trump International Golf Club shooting SlaterRaptor1976 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep per others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:BLP1E on an event that itself is facing an argument on whether it deserves a stand-alone article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Thomas Crooks has one I don't see a problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloxzge 025 (talk • contribs) .

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument to use on its own. GhostOfNoMeme 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:BLP1E on an event that itself is facing an argument on whether it deserves a stand-alone article. I second deletion. Let us stop making an article for every idiot who trespasses with intentions to commit a felony. We are not a Tabloid! Delete immediately or lose the credibility as an Encyclopaedia. Also, giving visibility to such people reinforces their desire to kill.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.68.175 (talk • contribs)

Also, giving visibility to such people reinforces their desire to kill. Maybe so, but Wikipedia is not censored. What's important is the verifiability and notability of an article's subject. GhostOfNoMeme 12:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per his criminal history and past interviews with news media in combination with his most recent arrest. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the event page per BLP. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: WP:BLP1E. Nothing really happened here. The event itself might not even warrant its own article. C F A 💬 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not nearly as notable as Crooks, and he is also a living person so BLP1E is involved here. We can recreate the article later if we need to. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Now meets WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:RAPID also we have Squeaky Fromme, who also failed at an assassination where no one was hurt. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuxembourgLover: We also don't have Michael Steven Sandford who failed at an assassination of Trump where nobody was hurt. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a person grabbing a cops gun is not the same as police opening fire a a guy aiming at trump. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, see Salvador Ramos, a man who killed 21 people in ~90 minutes, also someone who doesn't have an article because the section on them is perfectly fine. The only notability by Routh so far is his involvement in an incident not even primarily regarding him (WP:CRIME). While he does meet Perp criteria 1, they still don't even know if this is the right guy. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out my comment, I have now realized that the two are barely comparable. Sir MemeGod  21:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per above fails WP:N until the shooter is confirmed articles should not be created. SKAG123 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge No need for a separate page here. The previous criminal history is not relevant to notability. Reywas92^Talk 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to find more articles that date back before his attempted assassination, including his marriage and his life with his wife. Plus, it is the second attempted assassination of Donald Trump during the 2024 Election. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't see any reason to delete this. I also expect a lot more coverage as he goes to trial and more details are revealed.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous attempted assassin of Trump's page was also kept. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per others

Waleed (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; does not satisfy the deletion requirements re: WP:BLP1E. To wit, requirement 3 (The event was not significant and/or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well-documented) is not met:

The event is significant; it is an assassination attempt of a former President of the United States. The example that BLP1E gives for notability is literally the Reagan assassination attempt.
The role of Ryan Wesley Routh is substantial; he is the primary suspect.
While the role of Ryan Wesley Routh is not well documented, this is covered by WP:RAPID as multiple people have noted, as the situation has not yet had enough time to develop and be written about.

𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The event was not "significant". The example given is the Reagan assassination attempt, where Reagan was severely wounded and nearly died. All that happened yesterday was that someone was found with a gun in a bush at Trump's golf course. No injuries at all – Routh didn't even let off any shots. All three criteria of BLP1E are met here (1: Covered in the context of a single event; 2: Obviously a low-profile individual; 3: the event was not "significant" enough to warrant a separate biography). C F A 💬 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but regarding Routh didn't even let off any shots I don't think it's known either way, yet. CBC and NPR are both reporting that it's "unclear" whether he let off any shots before the USSS agent(s?) opened fire. The New York Times similarly says it's unclear whether he took any shots "before fleeing" (presumably meaning the time between being engaged by the agents and his fleeing).

Personally, I don't think this will amount to anything like the Crooks event. I don't see it being significant now or in the future. GhostOfNoMeme 20:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough, I guess. I was reading this Politico article which states: The Sunday incident was “not like what happened in Butler,” [the sherrif] said ... “He did not get off any rounds, and that was because the Secret Service agent acted quickly,”. C F A 💬 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparent by now that the shooter did not manage to fire the weapon, but then again, neither did Squeaky Fromme. Given her association with Manson and her well-documented story she has her own article. Routh apparently has a well-documented criminal history and has been the subject of numerous interviews and articles; that on their own wouldn't be notable enough for a BLP -- but his involvement with what is an apparent assassination plot has made him notable. Similar to Fromme, her notability would be diminished had she not plotted to kill a president. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant media coverage, very similar to Thomas Matthew Crooks. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gregory Lee Leingang also tried to kill President Trump in 2017, but he did not get his own Wikipedia page. Neither men made a shot or any contact with him. Catboy69 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant media coverage. Don't see an issue since Thomas Crooks has one. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It is true that Thomas Matthew Crooks underwent the same treatment in its early stages, with attempted redirects along the way. I'm against using that as keep justification though, considering that he has been confirmed as the attempted assassin of his case, whereas Routh is unconfirmed-- not to mention that there were no shots fired nor injuries sustained. Reasoning for weak keep is that there is significant media coverage, paired with the identification of being a suspect. RadiantTea (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RAPID.Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Participant in a major news story. Another example of deletionism gone wild. Moncrief (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per earlier precedent such as Crooks. We are seeing the beginnings where political violence is being normalized once again in the US since the 1960s (Ronald Reagan's assassin wasn't really politically-motivated ..more of a celebrity fetish/crush thing ). Such novel developments should be represented via individuals such as these. I also disagree with editors saying "He barely did anything" , this also doesn't fit precedents in other cases (1) . Routh is notable enough , whenever he pulled the trigger or not. The fact he was the second person who attempted to assassinate Trump and has a clear political history compared to the late aloof and equivocal Crooks (Who literally was a kid), makes him in some way more interesting for readers.

TheCuratingEditor (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:LASTING. Not notable for just this one incident at this time, and appears unlikely to be notable in the future (with the event itself currently bordering on being notable enough to sustain an article). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RAPID. Neighborhood Review (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting _pbp 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he satisfies the notability requirements, the shooting and his Russo-Ukrainian War related activities combined together satisfy the guidelines.XavierGreen (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Given all the speculation, thorough coverage of Routh would unbalance the main article, but a brief summary is likely to produce an unbalanced account of Routh's politics and motivations. Nuance matters in a politically charged issue like this one, and the best way to maintain nuance is to maintain an article, at least for now. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point in time it quite literally is too soon to dismiss him as not notable or not worthy of coverage. It has been ONE day since the investigation began. To close the book on him and say he's not worthy of note is a rush to judgement on many fronts. While the investigation runs its course and the Court moves as well, it can be re-evaluated as more information comes to light. However for the moment, rushing to delete or saying both the would-be assailant and the incident are not notable is an extreme rush to judgement as there are obviously facts that we don't know yet. In cases like this it's best to wait a few days and as much as a week before making any judgement calls. GokuSS400 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This person tried to assassinate a former President who is a current party's nominee for president. This was almost immediately known; and every fact disclosed since the attempted assassination has confirmed that it was an attempted assassination. The FBI has now stated that he was "lying in wait" for Trump for nearly 12 hours. Let the people see the facts as they are publicly known... otherwise, the attempt to delete this article is just another censorship attempt. What else do you need... a conviction? Dw1215 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect As clear a case of WP:BLP1E as there is. The incident is notable, but that's about it. If a person in Uruguay, Botswana, Laos, or Fiji appeared in the vicinity of a leading politician, we wouldn't even consider having a separate article for them. The US are no different. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those citing WP:BLP1E should note that it is not monolithic: it presents John Hinckley Jr. as an exception in the context of the 1981 assassination attempt. That's an essentially identical situation to Routh's. ~ HAL333 21:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. Routh's situation is more akin to someone like Gregory Lee Leingang, who also had an "attempt" to assassinate Trump but did not get close enough to injure him. Leingang is briefly mentioned on Security incidents involving Donald Trump, and so Routh could be mentioned there, or at the main article about this incident. Natg 19 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar situation is Michael Steven Sandford (2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident), who also does not have a separate article. Natg 19 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless examples, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I could just as easily bring up Sara Jane Moore from the Attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in San Francisco or Squeaky Fromme from the Attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in Sacramento: neither of whom injured a president. Unlike you, I was citing Wikipedia policy, specifically condition 3 of WP:BLP1E. Routh's role was 1) substantial and 2) well-documented in RS. ~ HAL333 23:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 You understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your example of John Hinckley Jr., right? Though I agree with Natg that Hinckley isn't in the same category as Routh appears to be. As far as conditions are concerned, Routh's role may have been "substantial" in the context of the "apparent" attempted assassination, but there's an or there that you seem to be missing, and that's the event is not significant, and this one clearly is borderline right now given nothing happened (nobody was hurt or injured, and one Secret Service agent fired his weapon). Being well-documented in RS is not sufficient enough to justify a separate article. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man. Hinckley's not my example. It's WP:BLP1E's. And the "or" is irrelevant if Routh meets both points for condition 3, as he does. An assassination arrempt on the former POTUS is not "significant"? Come on. Notability is not dependent on fatality. ~ HAL333 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I would cite BLP1E for this. I believe this fits more under WP:NOPAGE. However, if we are to argue BLP1E, I don't believe this is incident is "significant" per point 3. Routh was not close enough to Trump to fire off a shot, nor was anyone injured in this incident. This incident is given more press coverage in light of the assassination attempt in July, but if this incident had happened in January or February, no one would think much of it. Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it didn't happen in January of February... ~ HAL333 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... but the event was not significant (criteria 3 of BLP1E). Routh apparently never even let off a shot. He was found in a bush with a gun and was promptly arrested. Hinckley, on the other hand, actually shot (and nearly killed) Reagan. C F A 💬 23:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The media certainly thinks Routh's actions were significant, if the extensive coverage is anything to go by. Wikipedia should follow the judgement of reliable sources, not insert its own judgement. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the word criteria is plural. The singular is criterion. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I suppose I should have treated the word media as plural myself. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many many many reliable covering Routh and diving into his life. He certainly passes WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — at least for now, per WP:RAPID.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 21:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting. It is a bad idea to give deluded shooters their own page. If you do, you may as well declare open season on every single elected official. (This is my first edit in years. Regrets if it looks crude. I really need to learn Wikipedia syntax.) --Mr-Encyclopedia-Man (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect and Draftify per Natg 19 and others. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RAPID. Bardadrac (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RAPID. Spilia4 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man is now part of history. A comparable situation is Squeaky Fromme who hoped to kill President Gerald Ford but did not manage to fire her gun. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Per above. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. A textbook example of why we have WP:RAPID. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 00:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wiki is truthful Tobenschain (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID, and there are now many notable sources discussing him specifically, and arguably his ukraine interviews made him notable enough even before this event. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting. Very clearly a violation of BLP1E, which is exemplified by basically all of the sources in the article being from yesterday and today. Claims he was notable prior, such as by Scaledish just above me, are not represented in the slightest. Further claims of individual notability just because of this incident are belied by the other examples in Security incidents involving Donald Trump, where there have been several assassination attempts on Trump over the past decade, with only the one prior to this being notable enough to have a separate article on the perpetrator. Please note that many of the accounts voting Keep above are both new and WP:SPAs who aren't even making policy reasons in their votes, so should be wholesale disregarded by the closer. Failure of the closer to do so will prompt me (and I'm sure many others) to immediately take this to Deletion Review, as what matters in AfDs is policy arguments, not numbers. Silver seren^C 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the closer should disregard any WP:RAPID arguments, as by the very nature of the policy page it is on, RAPID is about events, not people. So if this was an AfD for the Trump International Golf Club shooting, then it would be a policy argument, but this is not an event article, this is a BLP article. Furthermore, literally right above RAPID on the same policy page is WP:DELAY, which applies just as much, if not more so. Silver seren^C 02:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I am neither new nor an SPA. I have been editing for over 15 years and have made over 100,000 edits. As for WP:RAPID, that guideline language says It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer. 36 hours after the Secret Service fired the shots, the significance of the event and the accused is crystal clear to those who read the voluminous coverage in many reliable sources that have published independent coverage of this man today. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you acknowledge that there's a ton of SPAs and newly made accounts here making non-policy arguments? As for RAPID, you even note yourself that the event is significant, but we're not discussing the event here. We're discussing if the accused has independent notability from the event, which RAPID doesn't support and also has not been shown. Large amounts of coverage of the event doesn't inherently then mean the person involved deserves a separate article. Silver seren^C 03:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, we do not delete a new article because new editors support keeping the article, especially when experienced editors like me also support keeping the article. Major top tier news sources worldwide are not only reporting on the event, but are also publishing countless separate independent articles devoted to investigating the background of this person who has multiple felony convictions including for barricading himself with a machine gun about 20 years ago, and who was written up in the New York Times just last year for his incompetent efforts to recruit former Afghan soldiers to go fight against Russia in Ukraine. As well as being a Wikipedia editor and administrator, I am also a Wikipedia reader and user. In those last two roles, I resent the efforts of some Wikipedia editors to deny me the right to learn as much about this person as possible in a curated article in the world's greatest encyclopedia, instead forcing me and other readers to do online searches and evaluate source reliability on our own, and sort out the grains of wheat from the massive internet chaff. That is the very purpose of Wikipedia, and if folks want to delete articles about people like Squeaky Fromme and this individual, I will always oppose that vigorously. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Too many reliable sources. — Nameless^(?) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll nominate this to be kept. I've inspected the article and it has plenty of information for an own article, there are also plenty of reliable sources. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 07:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far too many editors playing investigator and connecting his name with old newspaper articles. Everything that actually should be included is mentioned on the article about the shooting. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, the connections to "old newspaper articles" is being made by the highest quality reliable sources now, not by Wikipedia editors doing their own original research. Are you reading the actual coverage? Cullen328 (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading what was in the article. Which at the time was original research that goes against NOTPRIMARY and BLP in some cases such as marriage records. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge. As it stands, the page feels like a more verbose version of the perpetrator section on the golf club page. I don't feel like that's needed context per WP:PAGEDECIDE. If people look up his name to get the attempt, we could easily redirect it to that section and lose minimal context, if any. HeptatonicScale (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON - the information contained in the article is simply too speculative - Wait and get information as it comes as to not violate WP:BLP with unfounded information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unexpectedinquisition (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's already a large and growing body of published articles about the guy. He meets notability requirements. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For everyone citing WP:BLP1E, that policy gives John Hinckley Jr as an example of someone who gets an article anyway. Routh is analogous to Hinckley. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but either Draftify or Keep as sadly, if Thomas Matthew Crooks, solely notable for another attempted assassination, could remain due to the general notability guideline, then we should probably stop beating a dead horse and acknowledge that in technicality, Routh is notable enough for an article. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not bound by "technically we have to" if it seems clear that an article is simply not valid for inclusion, especially if your thoughts behind "technically" is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1ENOT. Role in the particular recent event significant. Role well-documented. Event notable. Not a low-profile individual. Reliable sources do not even cover him only in the context of a single event. Possible to write a biography as evidenced by the content of the page. Content encyclopedic and educational. Facts due. Background and context encyclopedically meaningful. Too much information alien to the event and far removed from it to merge into the event article.—Alalch E. 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting essay, and this individual clearly meets the criteria discussed in it. Pretty obvious why some editors want this BLP binned. Yet, we have Thomas Matthew Crooks, who outside of an initial flurry of coverage, it's highly unlikely that we'll get additional details around what motivated him or his background. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep H's being specifically named worldwide, and the list keeps growing, not low-profile by any means.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant and likely lasting media coverage. Different than Thomas Matthew Crooks but has received similar levels of coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: likely to have a continued coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect Some people may be interested in the other activities of this person, but that is for the tabloids: the pertinent information for inclusion on Wikipedia is entirely about his involvement in an event. That event has an article that is well-developed enough it warrants a decent "suspect" section. Keep the name redirect for searchability. I would probably say the same about Thomas Matthew Crooks, FWIW, but it can also be said that Crooks got a shot on and then was killed, so significance as an individual is a bit bigger. Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really account for Wikipedia having an article for Squeaky Fromme, but I don't want to wander too far into other stuff, etc. We cover aspects of a subjects life that reliable sources deem notable enough to cover in depth, per WP:WEIGHT. If RS cover other aspects of Routh's history in depth, Wikipedia has a responsibility to cover that as well (with respect to policy). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing up Fromme having an article and, as you note: WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're talking about this article, not if a different one should exist or if justification for one transfers to another.

It doesn't matter how many RSs decide to flavour the meal, if it's not information that establishes notability, then it shouldn't be considered here. While we (rightly) include that 'flavour' in BLPs, the notability has to be established first. When we take the flavour out, all we're left with is information that belongs at the event article. As I said, that article is decent enough you can have a longer "suspect" section including some background if you want. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per above. FloridaMan21 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeeporMerge: (I don't really care which one) - as long as the information is correct. This will be politicly important for the presidential election in the US, and that will be important for the world. As sad as that is. 90.186.87.94 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect: to Trump International Golf Club shooting. This article adequately covers the event, and there's a section about the suspect that can be expanded. We must keep in mind WP:BLPCRIME, which states that a living person accused of crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. There's no need for a separate article about Routh. DesiMoore (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet notability and contains additional relevant details that would be too much to add to the main article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 18:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge & Redirect: to Trump International Golf Club shooting. Two policies point against a stand alone page - WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Both policies point to the core policies of material about living persons - articles "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." --Enos733 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. An enough lot of RS coverage is coming out about Routh very recently and intially appears notable based on this, as with Crookes. Do not in principle oppose an AfD in a month or two's time once the dust has settled, but considering the further coverage during his trial and likely sentencing it seem unlikely to become unnotable. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given significant media coverage and meets WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think That having an article on this man will help our historical understanding of this election, two assassination attempts in one election cycle is unprecedented. He's also an oddball, the information online about him and his motives tell an interesting story that is unique. He probably has the largest digital footprint of any attempted or successful US presidential assassin. It does help that it's a very funny digital footprint. Spicygarbage (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1ENOT. Good amount of media coverage. 10 year test - remember that guy who tried to kill Trump while he was golfing? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Notable for a single WP:RECENT event and can be adequately covered in Trump International Golf Club shooting. We don't need to re-post every single detail of his life that happens to be in a news report this week. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I'm also not convinced Thomas Matthew Crooks should be a stand-alone article, versus just a decent-sized section in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. ZimZalaBim has some great points right above me. However, general notability guidelines are extremely selectively enforced. Would this be kept if it were, say, a person attempting to assassinate a foreign leader? I feel like this might belong better in the event article, just like Crooks, buuuuuuuut it's a major event, so I think it could be notable. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Not notable in his own right, and this should be dealt with within the broader article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly obvious keep, this guy is accused of attempting to assassinate a former US president while that president is running for re-election as a candidate for one of the two major American parties. If this doesn't qualify as 'notable' in the eyes of dozens of Wikipedia editors, then what does count? Should we (the people who believe that some insect species found on a single unpopulated island in the Philippines are notable in their own small way) just give it up already? Should we just get it over with and delete Wikipedia altogether? Maybe, if we could have a small concession, we could delete everything except the Earth page, and on that write the word 'harmless' and nothing else? Perhaps, if I could be greedy, I could convince you to allow us to write 'mostly harmless', though it does take up more space? Joe (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thomas Matthew Crooks has his own page, so should Ryan. Scuba 12:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / merge (Redacted) 124.169.141.129 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the WP:NOTBLP1E essay permits such articles on a low-profile individual notable for only a single event in which he had a substantial and well-documented role. He is an alleged attempted assassin of a former U.S. president who is currently running for a non-consecutive term in an election that has been described as an election that will determine the fate of democracy and therefore this individual will be a defining moment not just in the context of this assassination attempt but in this election. cookie monster 755 18:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is very infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Routh has a lot of good sources on him, he also has other sources of his past crimes which adds more notability Joey (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. We can always re-evaluate in 30 days. Rob (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1ENOT. Notable for more than just the shooting, having been profiled in NYT, Newsweek etc. for his activities in Ukraine. AmygdalicGloss (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting simply for reasons that have already been described, i think his Infobox could be very good there. StrongALPHa (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now, per WP:SUSPECT. For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Maintaining an article on Routh at this stage strongly implies that he is guilty of trying to kill Trump when such fact has not been established. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase in that policy is seriously consider. It's not a hard-and-fast dictum against documenting charges that are being pursued in a court of law, particularly if mentioning the charges is justified by the notability of the case. The editors have been careful to use words like allegedly and suspect, so the presumption of innocence is being respected. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given the extensive coverage of the charges against Routh, I would contend that he is a public figure now. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. See Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. TRCRF22 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. "High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program" - Routh gave interviews connected to his role as a recruiter for Ukrainian armed forces. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So... clearly not a low-profile individual. I would cite that essay precisely to argue that he is not a low-profile individual. —Alalch E. 22:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, he did tried to kill a former US president. That would be considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. rektz (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was news coverage of Routh even before the murder attempt. Perhaps he is independently notable as a skateboard advocate/rapist-chasing vigilante/war recruiter/local petty criminal. Bremps... 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petty crime or being a "local hero" does not make one notable. The "recruiter for Ukraine" may be indepedently notable, but that did not get much coverage until now, when journalists started looking deeper into his background. Routh was not a "known" figure for his recruitment efforts, and Ukrainian organizations disavow knowing him. Natg 19 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Our readers have a reasonable expectation of certain types of content. A biography of an attempted assassin — agglomerating information from a wide range of public sources — is exactly one such case. Miles over the GNG.... Carrite (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BLP1E is for the winner of a lottery or a gameshow, not a progatonist in a world-historical event. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP alleged attempted assassination of former US president and candidate merits wikipedia article. Shoehorning into golf assassination attempt cries out for removing history of the gentleman. Brucer42 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The discussion is in the news right now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't that something. TheBritinator (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine considering The Daily Wire "news". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A funny sort of news piece. The writer doesn't seem to have noticed that most editors are arguing to keep the article. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a bit of a journalistic oversight not to mention that there is a clear consensus to keep the page. Any crackpot can nominate the Earth page for deletion, it would only reflect badly on Wikipedia if we actually did it. Joe (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and good faith assumptions are nice and all, but "journalistic oversight" is stretching it. It's a sensationalist hitpiece at its core. Hell, the link to this discussion is a revision comparison to mobile Wikipedia rather than just a straight link to this page. There's little research involved here. I hope people who somehow see this article from the news post are aware of WP:POLL. RadiantTea (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article appears to be quite extensive and well sourced. Notability seems assured. TheBritinator (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to see how notability of the person and his actions are in question. The more info that comes out, the more apparent it becomes it is notable ++Arx Fortis (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Routh is now a notable public figure, with too much info on his background to fit onto the main article. User:Ageofultron (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Numerous would-be assassins, such as Squeaky Fromme and Raymond Lee Harvey, have their own articles despite never firing a shot. I don't see why Routh is any less notable. User:MrsKoma (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and ever-increasing significant RS coverage. We can re-evaluate a few months from now to determine whether or not this a case of WP:BLP1E. Sal2100 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too early for a sensible decision. 90.142.52.139 (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no matter the outcome, I feel like this discussion is invalid, since the article is under the Russo-Ukraniar war contentious topic, which is under an extended-confirmed restriction. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU Not really. It's more so categorized as a presidential assassination attempt. No one knows why he did it. Was it Ukraine? Probably not, I think he was just severely mentally unstable. Alexysun (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only very tangentially related to that topic. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would the article fall under that topic, though? I know we're told it applies "broadly", but just how broadly exactly? Routh's notability doesn't stem primarily from his involvement in the Russia–Ukraine conflict; it seems the connection is pretty tangential. I don't know what sort of precedent there is for how we categorise articles under contentious topics, though. GhostOfNoMan 02:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we did run a second deletion discussion with just extended confirmed users, the consensus would only be more lopsided in the direction of keep, given that when this page was initially nominated for deletion there weren't half as many RS on this guy as there are now. Joe (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Asgari

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

Disputed draftification. I would have returned to draft, but WP:DRAFTIFY dictates that cannot happen, so here we are. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER. References are passing mentions that they have made such and such a film 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Timtrent, Thank you for your review. I would like to highlight that Nima Asgari is a well-known documentary filmmaker in Iran, recognized for his significant contributions to environmental and wildlife documentaries. He has won several prestigious awards at international festivals, such as the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival in the USA and the Green Screen Film Festival in Germany. Additionally, he has served as a jury member at events like the Matsalu Nature Film Festival in Estonia. I have updated the article with reliable sources and references that showcase his notable achievements and contributions to the field.

I hope this additional information helps in reconsidering the decision regarding the article. Siavakhsh (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite the statement above, the additional references aren't at all useful. This is not a review. Reviews are different. This is a discussion leading to potential deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Giri

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems WP:TOOSOON. Or Redirect to List of Nepalese actors. nirmal (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Won't the inclusion in the list be challenged if he has no page himself? If the inclusion seems OK, I could support that outcome too, given the so-so coverage he received in Nepalese and the sourced list of films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meet WP:NACTOR according to the given refrences ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]. for more info

References

^ "फिल्ममा 'ट्वीस्ट' ल्याउने चरित्र मेरो छ : तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". Himalaya Times. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "अभिनेता तेज गिरी भन्छन्: 'उपहार'मा मेरो अभिनय सुधारिएको छ". nepalkhabar (in Nepali). 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources. User:Endrabcwizart, please remember to sign all discussion comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Iwu

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Acting non notable films isn't part of the guideline and statements of words including interviews, aren't part of WP:SIGCOV, hence my retainable for deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The page meets Wikipedia standard and if there be any need for improvement, then it can be stated or worked on rather than nominating for outright deletion. I appreciate the effort to keep our Wikipedia clean.
Dreamlightwriters (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : All I just see here are interviews mhen.--Gabriel (……?) 19:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you open the reference links? cause the articles here are not interviews. Kindly take time to open the links and go through the articles to verify your opinion on this. Thanks. Dreamlightwriters (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the links and they still can't change my thought on the reason why I suggested a delete. I will also advise as a new editor you have to avoid Wikipedia Sockpuppetry with the aim to save an article because it violates the policy. Gabriel (……?) 02:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources present does not meet the general notability criteria. The sources are laughable to say the least. Best, Reading of Beans 08:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please kindly go through the sources to verify your comment, just looking through the titles are not enough to make claims on it. Thanks. Dreamlightwriters (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just yet another article backed up by disappointing pieces from Vanguard. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more explicit about your comment and claim, thanks. Dreamlightwriters (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, I beg to disagree, not sure what you mean by acting non notable films, because from the filmography you should be able to tell notable films the subject acted in, some can be found on IMDb, she has acted alongside other veterans in the Nigerian film industries which you can see in the filmography. Also that the references added are interviews are false, kindly take time to open the links and read through them to verify your claim.

The subject, has been actively acting for 16 years, with notable movies, only veterans in the Nollywood industry would speak on an issue and it will be news, random actors don't have such privileges. Dreamlightwriters (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The page meets Wikipedia standard and if there be any need for improvement, then it can be stated or worked on rather than nominating for outright deletion. I appreciate the effort to keep our Wikipedia clean. Dreamlightwriters (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: [10], [11], [12],[13] and [14] are reliable that can illustrate notability criteria as such it pass GNG
102.91.72.40 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am voting to keep because i did not see reasons why the page should be deleted and the points raised here are not cogent enough to warrant a delete. Unfortunately, i had to go through articles created by those calling for delete and i did find worst pages that should not find its space here, some with one reference source and i wonder why same persons should be interested in having a more better page deleted than the ones they created. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.211.59.71 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While I'm suspicious of our new opinions offered by IP editors, they did supply some more sources and it would be helpful if the nominator or a participant reviewed. I'm not optimistic but you never know.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the five links. As a Nigerian, those links are reliable but they still didn't solve the issue why the nominator nominated the article per the reason. As stated "interviews, aren't part of WP:SIGCOV". And the content on the news were looking like close connection to the subject as seeing most of the journalist just talking of how she got started and not an event that happened which made her known to the public. Gabriel (……?) 02:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gabriel for taking time to go through the five links, in total there are eleven reliable links in the page and only one of them has to do with an interview. Not all notable persons especially in the entertainment industry has lots of scandals enough to put them always in the news, there are some who just get their works done and earn their flowers in the industry. There are many Actors and Actresses whose works still speaks but there are no significant coverage of them and that is why you still don't find them on Wikipedia, that still does not mean they are not notable, the industry still can not do without them or their inputs on issues that affects the industry. You can as well go through the remaining six links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamlightwriters (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine of Bosnia, Grand Princess of Hum

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

An article ostensibly about a princess but in reality entirely about her husband and brother. The dates and places of birth and death are pure poppycock: literally nothing is known about her. No historian ever has put together two sentences about her. WP:GNG failed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Royalty and nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but on grounds different from the nominated ones. Before the 18th Century, rarely was a woman ever named in sources without naming her male relatives. There’s only one source, and that is tantamount to original research, which is my biggest problem. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that her male relatives should not be mentioned. It is that the article should not be entirely about them. There is nothing to say about her. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaz Hussain Batalve

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

Article is not fit for main article space - too many problems with language, grammar, style, etc., but Draft:Ijaz Hussain Batalve already exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article is good enough and unique...grammar or language may be corrected...Article should be retained. Mottoo99 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the grammar and language first, in the draft article, then move it to mainspace? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bastun, as you said, a draft exist for this, so why not put in a history merger template before an AFD? Even if it goes through not, at least give it a try! Intrisit (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On which version? One contains at least one copyright violation (now removed)? Simpler to just have the draft to work on, then have that go through AFC? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I drafted it because I had concerns that it might not easily meet WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is still a famous and most respected personality of Asia adding his profile on Wikipedia is very much appropriate and knowledgeful for Wikipedians and otherwise. His contributions deserve to be appreciated by Wikipedia etc. Emmay33 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying there can't be an article. The problem is the language and grammar are currently too poor to publish. The article can be improved in draft space, then get moved to main article space. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - AfD template removed by IP editor 116.71.176.235, restored now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a notable lawyer and a law professor per some of the sources in the article. AFD is not a place for article cleanup but to delete articles falling below notability thresh hold. What this article needs is cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Piscili (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is not at issue. The subject is absolutely worthy of an article. Agreed, AfD is not a place for article cleanup. Draftspace is. This article is not currently fit for article mainspace though - a lot of what's there makes literally no sense - sorry to be harsh, but some is just gibberish. But the article can't be moved to draft space because there is already a draft article there, and nobody bothered going through WP:AFC, they just copied and pasted back to a mainspace article. If the article is kept, I will be removing a lot of the content that makes no sense, the unsourced, and the hagiographic and unencyclopedic. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Comeaux

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BucketSky10 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd agree that simply doing the job alone does not indicate significance, I'd contend that the area of impact and subject matter constitute significance. Comeaux oversees/implements the DEA's policies for over 16 million people throughout Texas. This is particularly significant considering the hot button topic of the opioid epidemic--especially so as fentanyl coming through Texas is a large focus of nationwide policy and debate. For notoriety, the Houston Chronicle (one of the largest newspapers in the nation) did a piece solely focused on him and CBS and NBC affiliates in Houston (KHOU and KPRC respectively) have also featured him for interviews. BucketSky10 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BucketSky10: Interviews don't count toward establishing notability. If you have sources, now is the time to post them here. WP:THREE is the formal standard for establishing. Post three WP:SECONDARY sources to prove its notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BucketSky10 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my three: 1, 2, 3 . I appreciate your time throughout this process. BucketSky10 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks at these references:

Ref 1 [15] This is all taken from an interview.

Ref 2 [16] This is a passing mention.

Ref 3 [17] This is another interview style article.

The problem with these is that the conversation detail comes from Comeaux himself. There is no WP:SECONDARY sources, people talking to other people about Comeaux (secondary) in detail (in-depth) who don't know Comeaux(independence) that prove he is notable. All the currrent reference come from Comeaux himself. He is essentially non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Storer

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

Being mistakenly reported killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't make this sailor notable (unless he was supposedly killed by the Germans). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as WP:BIO1E, despite some coverage. Mztourist (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes non-notable person. Xegma(talk) 06:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect coverage passes GNG: The Oregon Daily Journal 2 3, The Oregonian 2, Herald and News ~~and also meets WP:ANYBIO with the Asiatic–Pacific Campaign Medal. 1~~ but also a case of WP:BIO1E. The Attack on Pearl Harbor could be an appropriate place for a redirect, but the subject does have enough WP:SIGCOV at Newspapers.com to justify a standalone article.

Filmforme (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A low-level decoration does not confer notability. Only the Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, or multiple second-level awards do that. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally millions of Americans were awarded the Asiatic–Pacific Campaign Medal. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. What about the Bronze Star? Filmforme (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a blanket campaign level medal, but still well below the ANYBIO line which is generally the highest military honor awarded by the subject's nation. Additionally, it appears he was not actually awarded the Bronze Star Medal but rather had bronze service stars on his campaign medal which denote how many specific operations or campaigns participated in within the overall Pacific campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. He was involved in two events: the attack on Pearl Harbor and the salvage effort (which I consider deserves its own article even though it has not got one). WP:BIO1E is a guideline that provides advice but does not trump WP:SUMMARY, which says that sections of long articles can be spun off into their own articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t play a notable role in either event, though. And it is still an event and the aftermath of the event. All we have is quick (1-2 paragraph) snippets in local newspapers (ie: "local man re-enlists") except for his mistakenly being reported dead for six days (which still garnered only local coverage). This was incredibly common at the time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An ordinary sailor, doing ordinary things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been updating the article, including more information I've found at Newspapers.com. There's no question the subject passes WP:GNG, but it is my observation that some may not agree of the reason why he was written about, and not that this isn't a notable topic according to WP:NEXIST.

Storer was not the only one who was considered lost in the attack and later found alive. But it should be noted that his family and home state of Oregon was not notified he survived for weeks, only after they had a funeral service involving Portland's Mayor. The ordeal of Storer initially being lost during a heavily covered historic event is what likely triggered the WP:SIGCOV from media once it turned out he had survived. In addition, he has a first hand account and unique perspective of his own experience, and his involvement with the salvage afterwards.

As for WP:BIO1E, this is a unique case and I agree with @Hawkeye7 that Attack on Pearl Harbor is a long article to consider a redirect. The subject meets WP:NBASIC, though a shorter article covering Storer and others in similar circumstances would be suitable too. WP:PSEUDO applies here and there is coverage on the subject unrelated to the attack: to their expertise as a diver searching for people that were believed to have drowned. 1 2 3 –Filmforme (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rather routine military career (that is rather briefly described here) and after the war doesn't seem to be much more notable. Reported as passing away Pearl Harbour, then surviving is more of a trivia item than a notable item for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of additional sourcing was added since this article's nomination. I'd appreciate editors reviewing the article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Buerge

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

Notable for only being the main bachelor of The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2, the target that the nominated page should be redirected to. (The Bachelor (American TV series) is an alternative, but I prefer just season-specific.) His activities outside the series don't measure up to make WP:BIO1E (if not WP:BLP1E) inapplicable. Furthermore, the second season of The Bachelor may not have been a major event as it is perceived or marketed to be, despite good or decent viewership. If the cited rules don't apply, how about WP:PAGEDECIDE instead? George Ho (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Missouri. George Ho (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment – In case of no further input, WP:BIODELETE should apply, whatever the outcome shall be. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, yep notable for one thing. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to where? Possibly The Bachelor wouldn't work here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2, where he was the main character of the season? —George Ho (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the nomination. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Being a manager/participant of a TV show/series doesn't show notability, hence redirect to The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2 per ATD. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimele Usuwa Abengowe

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

Firstly, the content on ref 1 which is a magazine can't be verified by any reliable source same as ref 5. Ref 2 and ref 5 are also the same link on the article current state. The only source here was this which just only talk about his death. Ref 7 which is a YouTube video showcasing a church service cant be use as a source neither any YouTube link can be use as a source. Ref 3 which just only mentioned his name as part of the medical list and not like he was talked about. Subject just totally fails WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 01:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 01:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a much respected citizen but WP:NOTMEMORIAL Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
thank you for your response. Please note that @Gabriel601 has been trolling my articles and marking them for deletion. There's an established case of "nominations in bad faith here". Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

welcome again for marking another article of mine for deletion. After the last episode, you should have recused yourself from my articles and leave other editors to go through and arrive at their own conclusions. Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't verify certain details about this person like the date of birth and death. My search for the various information yielded "result not found" and I was wondering about the origin of other information like the award, OFR. After all these, I can say that the article doesn't meet WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV. Also, Gabriel's source analysis is thorough and well-documented. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to being a recipient of one of Nigeria's highest national awards (WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) National Honour of Member of the Order of the Niger (OON) by President Olusegun Obasanjo on the 16th November, 2000 - now sourced to Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The link you provided still doesn’t have his name on it that the president honors him with the title of OON. I opened the link used the control+F to find and paste his name still zero not found. Subject still fails WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It has on page 605 as the third entry.... under the heading OFFICER OF THE ORDER OF THE NIGER (OON) Professor C. U. Abengowe ... Abia
  - https://archive.gazettes.africa/archive/ng/2000/ng-government-gazette-dated-2000-10-09-no-69.pdf Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    @Msrasnw, winning an award is a WP policy/guide that WP:SIGCOV may exist for an article. Oppositely, there isn't any coverage for this article, hence doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think there is significant coverage in Nigerian media for eg in an important newspaper Independent Nigeria ... we have Emejor, Chibuzor (2023) NGO Immortalises Prof Abengowe, Featured News, Independent Sep 4 [18]
    - and Vision Africa (2013) Professor Abengowe Chimele Usuwa: Pragmatic Icon In The Field Of Teaching And Guidance, Profiles, Vision Africa 08/04 [19] And here (https://archive.upf.org/united-nations/international-day-of-peace/2013/5312-conference-in-abuja-on-education-and-national-development) he is giving a keynote at a serious conference. And there is lots more. I think it is shame that too many Wikipedia editors are too willing to delete what are to my mind clearly notable people that can with a little effort be reasonably sourced. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
      Vision Africa is a non notable platform. Upf is a non notable platform. There is till nothing notable about this man as per Wikipedia notability. If he was that respected a lot of news papers would have carried his news death. But nothing rather than just one news that’s not even all about his death. Gabriel (……?) 13:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject satisfies notability guidelines as have been severally outlined above. Cfaso2000 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One source ain't enough to justify notability. Other editors needs to be aware ‘Cfaso2000’ was the article creator. Gabriel (……?) 11:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a disagreement over the quality of sourcing. A source assessment at this point would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilgar Ibrahimoglu

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

An article with no encyclopedic value and for PR purposes only. Redivy (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan. Redivy (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this the same Ilgar Ibrahimoglu who was the subject of coverage about his detention in Azerbaijan? [20] [21] [22] This might contribute to notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Ashabul Yamin

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

Clearly, the case of WP:BLP1E involves sources that are based on a single event, his death. If significant sources from before his death can be found, then the article can be kept. GrabUp - Talk 06:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Biography. GrabUp - Talk 06:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person. Xegma(talk) 13:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But the nominator indicated the afd for WP:BLP1E policy, I don’t think that this is applicable in this case, article subject isn’t a living person. However, the matter is WP:BIO1E.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 22:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Well with that logic, we should also consider deleting similar articles like Abu Sayed and Mir Mugdho, as they cover the same event. I suggest moving this article to draft space and revising it according to WP:NPOV guidelines.–bruno (talk page) 11:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of people who died in the July massacre. Yamin was not notable before his death in the 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement. Tanbiruzzaman is correct that the relevant guideline is WP:BIO1E. No doubt that's what GrabUp meant, people frequently confuse it with the similar WP:BLP1E. The reform movement is a highly significant event, but how important was Yamin's death in it? Hundreds died, was Yamin's death special, did it change the course of the movement? Nothing in the pseudo-biography suggests his death was pivotal. Perhaps in years to come, as secondary sources analyze the movement they will conclude that his role in it (dying) was large, but unless and until they do so, a separate article about him is inappropriate. The other biographies that Bruno pnm ars brought up deserve scrutiny, but at least make a credible claim that their deaths were in some way instrumental. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even less of a consensus now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swaroop Puranik

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. Awarded or recognised by the governor doesn't highly show any impact tones career and fails WP:ANYBIO. While we expect to see notable films he directed, there appears bit promotional and likely COI creation.

Citing unreliable sources (WP:REFBOMB for a non notable film, Journey of a Queen, shows no WP:SIGCOV for his major work, hence doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the promotional content from this article now its clear Dgtrox (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be resume and WP:PROMO based page. Fails notability. The entrepreneur and his achievements are not notable that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwan Attoof

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

Doesn't meet WP:ACTOR, as there were few or no sources showing notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Entertainment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwan is well known film actor/director in Kurdistan/Iraq, the article could be stay. I added serval new references. Kushared (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which references? Those aren't reliable per WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please assess new additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anikka Albrite

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Not opposed to a redirect to the AVM performer of the year but otherwise there is not enough independent reliably sourced information to build a proper article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Tiny amount of coverage [23], basically an interview and [24]. Just not enough coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year#2010s (seems indeed totally warranted): ATD suggested by the nominator (AVN, not AVM, btw). Absolutely opposed to deletion of this BLP. (I would also support a Keep) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Changing to Keep in light of the mainstream sources presented.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: consistently featured in the list of the top female stars of the industry, as reported by mainstream media outlets in the following years: 2013[25], 2014[26], 2015[27], 2016[28]. Also part of the first married couple to win AVN male and female performers of the year award simultaneously in 2015 [29]. Rim sim (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is a policy basis for the article. Can you link to actual sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links updated Rim sim (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject is the mainstay of an article[30] on the full-fledged animated Virtual reality scannings, a still nascent tech that can be used to make human avatars and keep them immortal in the virtual world. Rim sim (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New York Post is a tabloid and not a reliable source. So this is irrelevant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSPSS, NYP is reliable source for entertainment related news. Rim sim (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The fact she has won a lot of notable awards and reliable source to that shows notability.--Gabriel (……?) 18:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she's covered under the list of 'Screen Actors' of Czech-American ancestry with a biographical passage about her life in the book Encyclopedia of Bohemian and Czech-American Biography - Volume 2 [31]. She's also quoted in the book Bodies of Work: The Labour of Sex in the Digital Age[32], and is mentioned in the book The Pornography Industry: What Everyone Needs to Know[33]. The article needs some improvement and can be kept as the subject is notable enough. Rim sim (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the encyclopedia was published by a self-publishing house, the other two books were by major publishing houses. Rim sim (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moza Sultan Al Kaabi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, as almost all sources only mention her death in a car accident. And the page was created three days after her death. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack significant coverages about her works and yes maximum sources are about her death. Xegma(talk) 17:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is notable per WP:ONEEVENT - the first Emarati woman to become an orthopedic surgeon.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment made after relisting.) Before I assess the sources myself, I must point out that this is not how ONEEVENT works. First, ONEEVENT says that people notable for only one event are generally not notable. Second, ONEEVENT applies to people notable for a single event (which could also be notable), not to people notable for a single achievement. Being the first female Emirati orthopedic surgeon is a claim to notability; sources are still needed to show that she is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 13:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Ulman

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

Not yet ready for mainspace as it doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. May have been covered in his native language which I also checked, yet couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV also in English language. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Israel. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for several reasons:

(WP:NACTOR) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - At least in Israel it was defined as an innovative film in that the entire script is one long song, with almost all the dialogue written in rhymes and accompanied by musical instruments. ^[1]
WP:MUSICBIO Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. - (If I understand correctly), one of his songs won tenth place in one of the Hebrew song charts in 2016.^[2]
WP:MUSICBIO Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. - One of the leading rappers in Israel, certainly in the field of Poetry slam (he founded Poetry slam Israel).^[3]
WP:MUSICBIO Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. - Appeared and created the movie "This City"', appeared in "Plaot" (2013), "HaMora LeAnglit" (2019) and also appeared in the series "HaHanut SheYesh Ba Hakol" (2020-2021)^[4].

There is more, but I think this is enough. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ We didn't see it coming: "This City" is a groundbreaking work in Israeli cinema
^ המצעד העברי של וואלה! תרבות לשנת תשע"ו - עשרת הגדולים
^ https://www.calcalist.co.il/style/article/sjtnoezru
^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6689252/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t1

That's fine, but you still need sources that talk about the person. We don't have these. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hardly any sources that talk about this person. This was all I could find [34]. Just not enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or possible redirect/merge to This City film which is the actual subject of the Jerusalem Post article that Oaktree b found. A BEFORE search found the same source, and a bunch of social media stuff, YouTube, Spotify, SoundCloud and other user-submitted content, a couple primary sources that don't confer notability, but nothing else. The sources above brought by the creator seem like churnalism and an unreliable source (IMDB.) I think he probably is quite talented, but that it is WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Maybe in a few more years... Netherzone (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a redirect to the film Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am afraid of this article being retrieved after redirecting, I agree with redirecting to This City (film) as there is nothing to merge. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Hebrew article seems well-sourced, and includes coverage from Walla, Haaretz, and Mako, all significant sources for Israeli topics + bonus of authority control for extra reference. Article may need to be expanded upon to prove its SIGCOV but it definitely exists if someone wants to add it, or it can be draftified and all content remaining merged. EytanMelech (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the Hebrew Wikipedia and all I could see are citations to a non notable award and few citations to his role in the film, This City (film). What independent sources are you talking about? It should be better if you would identify them and list them here. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EytanMelech, what content are you proposing to be merged and to which target? If you meant This City (film), I would also want to know any relevant information in the article that needs merging. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, including Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Kan, Calcalist Whizkin (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tappin

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the talkpage of this article there are lot of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS ^💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.

The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.

Apart from those, I also see WP:SIGCOV in this, a South China Morning Post article.

I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.

Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.

Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS ^💬 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/books-special-steve-tappin-tells-us-secret/article/845739 - book review
https://timesnewsgroup.com.au/geelongtimes/living/renowned-authors-to-share-secrets-on-personal-development/ - Book review
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-85788-513-2 - The Secrets of CEOs - Book Review
https://kimtasso.com/book-review-the-awareness-code-the-secrets-to-emotional-empowerment-for-incredible-leadership-by-wayne-linton-and-steve-tappin/ - Book Review (Even tough this is a blog, the original article is from February 2022 edition of Professional Marketing magazine, as stated
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/eduonline/2009-11/23/content_9103252.htm - Book Review, contains quotations, but about half the article is original journalist commentary

In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:

https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/vGunLo5swZ5apoTkVPeZcK/Steve-Tappin--The-author-spills-his-secrets.html - very indepth

Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of the newly discovered sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the book reviews above and ones I found seem good for him to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Some of the other stuff looks promising but I haven't evaluated that as much. I found some more sources on ProQuest.

hysterically, one of the sources accuses him of having his wikipedia entry edited. We have come full circle PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, PARAKANYAA, which one is that? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz It's from the Evening Standard (admittedly a British tabloid, so take with a grain of salt, but I think it's funny), 24 October 2012:

"STEVE Tappin -- an erstwhile headhunter and one-time author who now styles himself as a "CEO coach", was caught out three years ago by a City blog which wondered if he had sexed up his Wikipedia entry.

The collaboratively-edited online encyclopedia then stated that Tappin was a mentor to some of the top names in British business including Sir Terry Leahy and Andy Haste -- then bosses of Tesco and RSA, respectively -- only for the companies to quickly distance themselves from Tappin's claims. The entry was subsequently toned down." Then it goes on to say something about the book and his Twitter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. They are probably referring to the editor Fuzzsoth who commented here and on the article talk page and on several user talk pages. I see so many articles like this about "consultants", I'm surprised to see the support for this one but the consensus is, what it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject meets WP:NAUTHOR based on presented sources and meets WP:ENT as a host of past TV show on BBC.Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Neves (poker player)

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

Non-notable person, lacking WP:SIGCOV outside specialist poker websites. Does not appear to have won any notable, major tournaments. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Alon9393 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from some experienced editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep. Granted there's not much WP:SIGCOV, but two million-dollar cashes, including a win in a big WSOP event (8703 entrants = notable major tournament), are nothing to sneeze at. Otherwise, redirect to 2024 World Series of Poker. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has won a notable major tournament. PsychoticIncall (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

Academics and educators

Tom_Whalen

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tom Whalen

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

notability; apparent self-promotion LoveGermanLit (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Poetry, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see adequate sources here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Sharon Christman

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

Article is sourced to the subject's website and to her employer's website. No independent secondary sources are in the article. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find sources yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nonexistence of independent secondary sources noted in the nomination would not be a problem for some criteria of WP:PROF. But most criteria of PROF are not a good fit for academics in the performing arts (rather than the scholarship of art) and we don't have evidence that she passes any of those criteria. I think we are going to have to look for WP:ARTIST notability instead. Her faculty profile [35] (informative but not independent and therefore not contributory to GNG-notability) name-drops multiple reviewers of Christman's performances, says she "has sung leading roles too numerous to mention", and "has been a soloist many times at the Kennedy Center". Can we turn up in-depth published reviews of her performances?? Maybe User:Gerda Arendt (knowledgeable about sourcing for opera performers) might be interested in finding better sources for this one? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have started adding in coverage of her work. So far the best source is the 1991 in depth article from the Washington Post.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaffodilOcean (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ McLellan, Josepth (June 29, 1991). "HOME IS WHERE THE SOPRANO IS". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-09-20.

Keep: I was pinged. I didn't know her, but it looks like a woman who had influence in teaching, which I think we should welcome. Sources I found immediately are
- academic bio
- looking at her teaching
While not exactly independent, they list many items we might search for. Queen of the Night at The New York City Opera is a major achievement, described by the NYT as "A strong Performance". With the reviews added: notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this and this. Singers her name in bios. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets minimum requirements concerning notability. Well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfikar Hirji

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

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of an academic, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPROF. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show proper sourcing establishing that they surpass certain specific notability criteria -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability at all, such as his own self-published website and his own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer and his own writing metasourcing its own existence, rather than any third-party validation of his significance in sources independent of himself.
There are further WP:COPYRIGHT issues here, as every book in his "selected works" isn't just "title + ISBN", but contains an extended advertorial spiel copied and pasted verbatim from its promotional page on the website of its own publisher.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable academic as per WP:NPROF, I did some searching for more about this person and wasn't able to find anything to establish notability. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article wasn't written in an encyclopedic style. Hence, I will suggest the article is moved to draft to give room for improvement. Atibrarian (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no draftify. I don't see a pass of WP:PROF. I found a single one-paragraph review of a coauthored book [36] and two reviews of edited volume Approaches to the Qur'an. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Murray

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

Nonnotable pastor. Lacking significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 23:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found a primary source [37] and that's about it. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Eichhorn Young

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

Tagged for notability since 2013. Time to decide one way or another as a community if this meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little significant coverage. Seems to be a WP:MILL voice teacher with an unremarkable performing career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found a couple of interviews in minor publications, one of which is already referenced. Beyond that, I've searched on the key phrases in the article and I'm not coming up with anything. Per 4meter4, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Knitsey (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boma Obi

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source she was mentioned was this. Aside that nothing else. The rest are just school profile while some of the source like the 4th one has nothing to show about than a home page of the site. Gabriel (……?) 01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Education, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article calls her "a Fellow of the International Federation of Library Association (IFLA)". I cannot verify this and do not know what it means; maybe the IFLA/OCLC Early Career Development Fellowship? Honorary Fellows of IFLA [38] would be notable through WP:PROF#C3 but she is not listed there, so it must mean something different. The early career one would definitely not pass that criterion; it is a different meaning of fellowship. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biography has a lot of statements with no source to back them up. Which fails to meet WP:PROOF and could end up be a WP:NOR. Just checked the reference on ref 2 and it says 404 page not found. Gabriel (……?) 05:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, I can't even verify that she's a fellow of the claimed organisations. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPROF#3 and #6. Sources available cannot be used to satisfy GNG. Best, Reading of Beans 08:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a professor that doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Being a so-called Fellow of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions doesn't justify notability. The publications are very very poor, and can't be used to justify WP:NAUTHOR regardless. This list will tell you the lack of notability (former fellows). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. University librarian is a position that does not confer automatic notability, WP:PROF notability is not evident, and there are serious verifiability issues here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Faragher

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

No evidence of notability besides a few academic sources, doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG - *maybe* you can argue that the company is relevant? But he as a person doesn't seem to be Toffeenix (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of those odd instances where Wikidata and the article history include what look like several claims to notability that are completely unmentioned in our present article. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation and the 2023 recipient of their Harold Spencer-Jones Gold Medal for an outstanding contribution to navigation [39]. He is also the 2023 recipient of the Dennis Gabor Medal and Prize [40]. They are all personal honors rather than indirect through his company. That looks arguably like a pass of WP:PROF#C3 and a double pass of #C2, if we agree that those are national-level awards for scholarly contributions and a highest-level honorary membership in a major scholarly society. Are they? He also has what looks like a strong citation record [41] in a field whose citation patterns are unfamiliar to me, arguably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irzen Hawer

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald K. Hoeflin

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable pseudoscientist, does not meet WP:GNG. No WP:SUSTAINED WP:INDEPTH WP:DIVERSE coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Polygnotus (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Philosophy, and Georgia (U.S. state). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Polygnotus (talk)
Source	Comments
Morris, Scot. "The one-in-a-million I.Q. test". Omni magazine, April 1985, pp 128-132.	Not about Hoeflin. Also clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT because it says This test is "the result of almost two years of collaboration between Hoeflin and Omni.
Republic Magazine, November 1985, "Beyond Mensa," by Catherine Seipp	An inflight magazine
Carlson, Roger D. (1991). "The Mega Test". In Keyser, Daniel; Sweetland, Richard (eds.). Test Critiques. Vol. VIII. Kansas City (MO): Test Corporation of America. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2. ISSN 1553-9121. Although the approach that Hoeflin takes is interesting, inventive, intellectually stimulating, and internally consistent, it violates many good psychometric principles by overinterpreting the weak data of a self-selected sample.
"Mind Games: the hardest IQ test you'll ever love suffering through", Omni magazine, pp 90 ff, April 1990	Not about Hoeflin. Also clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT because it says This test is "the result of almost two years of collaboration between Hoeflin and Omni.
Prizes and Awards (American Philosophical Association	https://www.apaonline.org/page/jvi awarded for the best unpublished, article-length work in philosophy by a non-academically affiliated philosopher.
Proceedings, "News from the National Office". Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 62, No. 4. (Mar., 1989), pp. 691.
"Ronald K. Hoeflin". geni_family_tree. 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2024-08-14.	WP:USERGENERATED
Hoeflin, Ronald. "About the Author." Noesis, Issue #176 February 2005.	This is a "magazine"/newsletter published by megasociety so not WP:INDEPENDENT
"Encyclopedia of Categories [Volume 1-13]". USIA: United Sigma Intelligence Association. 2020-11-17. Retrieved 2021-05-09.	Written and published by Hoeflin
Aviv, Rachel (2006-08-02). "The Intelligencer". Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2007-02-11. Retrieved 2006-08-02. This article is primarily a biography of and interview with Dr Hoeflin
Knight, Sam (2009-04-10). "Is a high IQ a burden as much as a blessing?". Financial Times (London). Retrieved 2006-04-20. This article has a section which contains a biography of and interview with Dr Hoeflin	Made me feel sorry for him. But it certainly does not make him notable.
Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Pergamon. p. 301. ISBN 978-0-08-043796-5. norm tables that provide you with such extreme values are constructed on the basis of random extrapolation and smoothing but not on the basis of empirical data of representative samples.	Does not mention Hoeflin
Hoeflin, Ronald (July 1987). "About the Editor" (PDF). Noesis, the Journal of the Noetic Society. 16: 11. I have been a member of all six high-IQ societies listed in the Encyclopedia of Associations: Mensa, Intertel, the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, the Triple Nine Society, the Prometheus Society, and the Mega Society — but I currently belong to only three of these: Mensa, Triple Nine, and Prometheus. I am the founder of Prometheus and of the Noetic Society (formerly called the Titan Society). I consider myself the founder of the Mega Society, although some argue that Chris Harding has at least equal claim to that status. I am also a co-founder of the Triple Nine Society. Thus, I have been at least partly responsible for the establishment of four of the seven currently active high-IQ societies.	This is a "magazine"/newsletter published by megasociety so not WP:INDEPENDENT
Sager, Mike (November 1999). "The Smartest Man in America". Esquire. Retrieved 2011-01-07.	[42] Human-interest story. I feel sorry for him after reading this. But it does not make him notable.
Membership Committee (1999). "1998/99 Membership Committee Report". Prometheus Society. Archived from the original on 2006-07-17. Retrieved 2006-07-26. `{{cite journal}}`: Cite journal requires `\|journal=` (help)	Founded by Hoeflin
A Short (and Bloody) History of the High I.Q. Societies Archived 2013-09-22 at the Wayback Machine	Not about Hoeflin specifically but about the Societies. Not an RS.

Keep. I was prepared to be convinced by the source analysis, but the profiles in the Financial Times, the Village Voice and Esquire go well beyond human-interest stories to constitute WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources, and thus a clear pass of WP:GNG. Cleanup is obviously needed to clear out user-generated and other unreliable sources, but WP:DINC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very sad that neurodiverse people were and are often abused for human interest filler. Unfortunately he had no one to protect him. Luckily recently there is a bit of awareness growing that humans are not zoo animals. I am always confused that people think that GNG is as easy as 1-2-3. Who made that up? Polygnotus (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly are you suggesting abused or is abusing Hoeflin? And how is this a helpful comment in the context of a discussion based on P&Gs? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Dclemens1971: bios in FT, VV, and Esquire are more than enough for GNG. (also coverage [even if critical] in Test Critiques suggesting that his work was read) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs)
Keep but parts of the article don't feel like NPOV to me. Epa101 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lessard

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

As researcher not notable; books are not helping with notability either. No reliable sources. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG based on significant coverage in three news articles that are about him and his work, and three book reviews on his work in peer-reviewed academic journals. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Education. Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. For me, three reviews of coauthored books would be borderline for WP:AUTHOR, but the profiles of him in national media are enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with David Eppstein. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lily Tang Williams

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. Winning a U.S. House primary does not entitle someone to a Wikipedia page, and I don't see how she passes GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, China, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire#District 2. Candidates rarely, if ever, meet the notability conditions of WP:NPOL, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. If she wins in November, we can reassess. But for now, her bio should be merged into the article about the election. Bkissin (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator here, I would support a redirect to that page. This will be be her most high-profile run for office, clearly trumping her 2022 run for this district where she lost in the primary and her 2016 Colorado Senate bid where she took 3% of the vote. The 2024 page is the best redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, I forgot that she has lost multiple elections. I don't know where the best redirect target would be, but if you think it's best for 2024, I'll defer to you. Bkissin (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Bkissin, eight of the 10 references are for her winning the Republican nomination for the district, and not really about her specifically. reppop^talk 21:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There's quite a few sources about her immigration/escape from China, if that matters, such as:

Interview with John Stossel 6 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxMWs8RyLLI:

https://thepoliticswatcher.com/pages/articles/congress/2024/9/10/lily-tang-williams-republican-candidate-unique-perspective

https://bunewsservice.com/lily-tang-williams-living-the-american-dream/

https://www.heritage.org/asia/heritage-explains/lily-tang-williams-growing-communist-china

From UK (though the Daily Mail is marginal):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146007/lily-tang-williams-congressional-candidate-republican-biden-border.html

From Japan:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/01/5f210f5b6a3e-focus-asian-americans-voice-reasons-they-back-republicans-in-new-hampshire.html

And actually being in a debate with a sitting Senator as a Libertarian, which pretty much has never happened ("In a first, Libertarian candidate in Colorado’s U.S. Senate race qualifies for major debate"):

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/06/lily-tang-williams-libertarian-candidate-colorados-us-senate-debate/

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/what-lily-tang-williams-said-colorado-libertarian-u-s-senate/

https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/10/15/lily-tang-williams-us-senate/

Colorado Public Radio:

https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/childhood-in-china-shapes-libertarian-senate-candidates-vision-for-colorado-country/

I'm not sure if Fox News is considered a credible source, but there's more about her & China:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/survivor-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-scary-history-repeat-college-campuses

https://www.foxnews.com/media/chinese-immigrant-running-congress-fears-marxism-followed-us-witnessing-youth-indoctrination

https://nypost.com/2024/05/15/us-news/survivor-of-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-history-repeat-on-college-campuses/

More about China and the gun control debate with David Hogg:

https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-gun-control-activist-david-hogg-torched-ccp-survivor-go-china-see-gun-control-works/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.125.13 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"thepoliticswatcher.com" is a random site that does not help to establish notability. Same for bunewsservice which is a college newspaper. The Heritage Foundation is not a news outlet and I shouldn't have to explain why that one doesn't count. Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source, while Fox News, Western Journal, and the New York Post are considered "generally unreliable." Getting invited to a debate is interesting but certainly not proof that she deserves a Wikipedia page. Sometimes third-party candidates get invited to a debate, it's not that rare. The Kyodo News and Reason sources are decent, but I stand by my judgment that she's not notable. Rising somewhat above the level of a random congressional candidate is not enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are college newspapers not considered valid supporting sources? Heritage Foundation may not be a news outlet but its not deprecated and a highly influential conservative think tank. "Generally" unreliable sources need to be analyzed in totality not in part, so if there are 3 "generally" unreliable sources, a rational determination needs to be made as to whether the small part of them that is reliable is strong enough to create notability. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an academic journal reference where she appears: "Academic Marxism in the Crosshairs: What is at Stake in the U.S.?" in Class, Race and Corporate Power, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2024). https://www.jstor.org/stable/48771892 216.147.125.142 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the exact same reasoning as SineBot above. Plenty of independent coverage Wickster12345 (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject looks notable and has enough news coverage as indicated above.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say she "looks notable" BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

means it is notable. Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm asking you *why* you think she's notable BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they meant for the same reasons as noted by SineBot, as they also said: “…has enough news coverage as indicated above”.

Do you, BottleOfChocolateMilk, have any response to what SineBot had to say, as they are the one whose argument seems to inspiring the majority of “Keep” votes Wickster12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...yes? I directly replied to their message right after they posted it. Also, that message was not posted by SineBot, it was posted by an IP user. SineBot is the bot that automatically adds a signature to people who don't sign their comments. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes the most sense to me. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is probably the best option, as she has recieved significant media coverage over numerous years and as a more minor side note, she is a major contender for a swing seat in 2024. NathanBru (talk)

Being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically make someone notable; see WP:NPOL. Also, calling NH-02 a "swing district" is a stretch. Every major election forecaster has it rated as Likely or Safe D. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But like a previously stated, that was a minor detail. She has recieved significant media coverage and does represent a district that very well could swing her way in 2024. Also, I know we’re not supposed to compare certain cases to each other, but there have been numerous other instances of less notable people in 2024 with Wikipedia articles. NathanBru (talk)

Keep because she has recieved substantial media coverage from major news outlets for both her 2022 and 2024 runs and has appeared in a documentary (The Great Awakening). 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed above. She has received substantial media coverage for her 2022 and 2024 congressional campaigns and for her 2016 U.S. Senate campaign as a Libertarian, has appeared in documentaries, and has been interviewed by national media organizations like Fox News and Newsmax. There's also precedent for people equally and even less significant than Lily Tang Williams having a Wikipedia article. George Hansel is a former small town mayor who unsuccessfully ran for Congress once and now hosts a regional talk show (the station that hosts Hansel's show is so small that it doesn't even broadcast to me, and I live in New Hampshire only an hour away from Keene); Hansel is arguably no more significant than any other local politician, yet considering his article has existed for nearly 3 years without issue, there seems to be no question that he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Lily Tang Williams is much more significant than Hansel and I would argue that she just as deserving of a Wikipedia article, if not more so, than him. Eureka640 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then ignore the Hansel argument. The fact still remains that she has been the subject of much media coverage over the past decade for her Libertarian activism and congressional candidacies, including interviews on major national news stations. Eureka640 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:GNG is met through the sheer number of sources (per above). Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reminder that deletion discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE and are also dependent on the quality and reliability of sources, not just the sheer number of sources. Bkissin (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that she's been covered in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, WMUR-TV (ABC), The Denver Post, the Concord Monitor, the Union Leader, New Hampshire Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, and an academic journal (noted above). All of those are considered "quality" and "reliable" per Wikipedia's criteria. 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that those are WP:ROUTINE election coverage. reppop^talk 23:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_and_is_not_routine_coverage

"Editors should be careful in defining what is referred to as "routine" coverage, especially when determining notability."

...

""routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability."

""routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline."

Politics

"Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

"Additionally, bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. The primary guideline discussing notability of people is Wikipedia:Notability (people)." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYi, it was missed that she has been in Fox News on multiple occasions, another extremely notable source. NathanBru (talk)

Keep as WP:GNG is satisfied with the significant media coverage over the years of the subject's political/electoral history. - Amigao (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source evaluation table would be really helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be relisted. There was enough discussion. Nine keeps and three redirects. There are plenty of legit sources listed. None of the actual content itself has been disputed.

Even if there wasn't a clear enough consensus in your mind:

"When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus

"relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions

Making an evaluation table is just tedious work. If you think it would be helpful to have the table, you should create it yourself. 216.147.123.209 (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Asilvering Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George V. Grigore

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced article about a Romanian actor, journalist, writer and university lecturer. I have added three references, but all are mentions of his name only. According to the article in the Romanian Wikipedia (also unreferenced), he has written 29 articles, but I can't find reviews of them. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NJOURNALIST, etc. Tacyarg (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Film, Theatre, and Romania. Tacyarg (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Morgan

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

WP:BLP with no secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions. Book is notable and notability is not inherited. scope_creep^Talk 21:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, not yet notable under WP:NAUTHOR (only one book) or WP:NPROF (too early career, doesn't meet any of the criteria). -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Asilvering: I don't think WP:NAUTHOR says anything about more than one book being required? – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  When an author only has one book, and all the coverage is about the book and not biographical coverage of the author, it's the book that's notable, not the author. If you want to argue that she's a notable author for having written the "significant or well-known work", Sins of the Shovel... well, I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good argument. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not exactly my argument. It's an explicit SNG (WP:NAUTHOR, emphasis added: [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work). Whether you frame it an article on the author or an article on the book, the content is the same, making it rather inconsequential which one is the 'notable' entity. – Joe (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, United States of America, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book, which is at Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a stub on the notable book, as alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe: There is no article on the book. Are you proposing that we move this article to being about it? – Joe (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, essentially. Per WP:BLP1E, it would be better in this circumstance to cover the notable material in an article on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't object to his outcome; I think the content would be basically the same. My preference is still for keeping this title, though, since it doesn't really matter either way and a) that it is what the original author of this article chose and b) it's quite likely the subject will write more books. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe, there is one, not sure how I missed it the first time either: Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, thanks. It was created from the content of this article, which the creator of the article on the book then blanked and redirected there. Which was... unorthodox. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is notable (amply demonstrated by the sources cited in the article), then so is the author per WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether we cover them separately, together under the author's name, or together under the book's title is inconsequential. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 10 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR has wide consensus and has been stable for years. It reads:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if [... t]he person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).

The subject of this article has written a significant work, Sins of the Shovel: Looting, Murder, and the Evolution of American Archaeology, which has been the subject of at least six independent reviews in periodicals (cited in the article). Hence, they meet WP:NAUTHOR.

I alluded to the logic behind this above: if we can write an article on a book, we can write an article on its author – even if the content is just John Smith is the author of Notable Book, a [remainder based on significant coverage of the book]. Whether to call this article "John Smith" or "Notable Book" barely affects the content and is a question of article titling and framing rather than notability or deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be strange outcome. I don't know what has changed in the 6 months-odd interim where I wasn't doing Afd. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a common outcome for academics, at least. A common objection to WP:NPROF is that it lets us have articles on people for whom there could be little or no biographical sources available. Which is true, but following the logic above it just means that the notable entity is John Smith's work not John Smith. But actually calling the article that would be dumb, so we don't do it. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that this long-established consensus followed in hundred of AfDs isn't written down anywhere, then, and that the notability guideline for authors explicitly contradicts it. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, no specific AFD comes to mind right now but after closing hundreds (thousands?) of these discussions over the past 4 1/2 years, I'm sure that this has happened. There are authors, like Harper Lee, who, throughout most of her life, was notable for writing only onw book but it was a highly notable one. Also, many AFDs are sparsely attended and if there is a strong consensus that the book is notable and the reviews are prestigious, then it's likely that the article will be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Harper Lee is a good index case. I've used that exact example before when explaining to AfC submitters what kind of coverage one might need to be notable on a single book. (Though, obviously, she's rather extremely notable, so it's not exactly fair. Someone half as famous as Harper Lee is still going to pass any kind of AfD with flying colours.) This is an early career archaeologist with a well-reviewed book. They're very much not in the same league. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are the relevant standards. For example, Harper Lee has been covered enough to not be a low-profile individual, and her relationship with the book is well-documented and substantial, even though she was for a long time covered only in the context of the one book. Also, the To Kill A Mockingbird is such a significant book that it is worthwhile covering both author and book. None of the reasons to cover Harper Lee apply here, at least so far as I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the point of disagreement comes down to the interpretation of significant or well-known work in WP:NAUTHOR. Some seem to (reasonably) interpret that as meaning a work of literary significance, as with Harper Lee. For me, it is closer to the "significant" of WP:SIGCOV – just something that has been the subject of detailed coverage in independent reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to do so, but I think if you looked back through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive 2 you would find many. – Joe (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to watch that delsort list pretty closely (as does David Eppstein, who below calls the redirect to book "our standard outcome") and I can't recall any, which is why I'm asking. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book, our standard outcome for authors of only one book but one that is arguably notable. And while we're at it refocus the article on the book to say something about the book based on its published reviews instead of merely being a rehash of the author's back cover blurb, sourced only to that blurb. As for the argument above over whether authoring one book should be enough for the author to also be notable: see WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @David Eppstein: I knew the secret sauce was there somewhere. This settles it. scope_creep^Talk 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a book an 'event'? – Joe (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the suggestion that a book is notable but not the author bizarre outside of the exceptional cases that scope creep describes (e.g., ghostwriting cases), but I can't see that here; Morgan is happy to appear on scholarly podcasts, blog about careers, write for popular magazines, etc. She's also listed in various places for her contribution to particular digs etc., so she's hardly unknown. And remember that this is a particularly widely reviewed book. Not many academics or first-time authors can boast a lengthy review in the New York Times. WP:AUTHOR does not say (as pointed out) that multiple books are required, and WP:1E doesn't apply, as no one is claiming that Morgan is notable for her role in some event (e.g., for an archeologist, a particular discovery); the claim is that she's notable for her creative output. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the above discussion of the 'unorthodox' creation of the book article, we literally cannot delete this article. If the consensus is to go with the (bizarre, in my view) 'book not author' approach, a history merge would be necessary. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. A book can be notable but that does not, in fact, imply its author is notabble for a page. For that we would need multiple reliable independent secondary sources, with significant coverage in each, of the author. That has not been shown to exist and I don't see it in searches, so redirect will serve the reader best. Searching on the author will then take the reader to their notable work, which includes some author biography. (Not much at present). Note that a redirect preserves page history, which should allay Josh Milburn's concerns above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keeping the article or Redirecting this page title to the article on their book.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sins of the Shovel, with nothing preventing a future WP:SPINOUT. I find myself in this column because this stub article—as it stands now—reads like a résumé. I could find nary a personal detail in the sources, which without exception pertain to the book and not the author. What is lacking here today is inherent notability of the author apart from the book. In the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Anson (closed as keep), if not for the subject having died and obituaries written about him, the article otherwise had the same rationale as here for redirection (I'm not even sure that "... played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work ..." applies to Anson the author specifically, or to others who were more directly involved in the backstory of The Amityville Horror, such as George Lutz (redirect) or William Weber ... but I digress). StonyBrook _babble 17:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Edwards (scientist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable academic whose credentials do not verify, and for whom most of the claims in the text are uncited. Even if there were sources he would not pass notability. Somehow the original nomination has got mangled so I am doing a second nomination. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely shocking that some ignorant (and perhaps ill intentioned) person is trying to delete the article about Canada's foremost expert on nuclear energy issues - who has worked for over 50 years to raise awareness of the risks of nuclear energy and nuclear waste. He is the most recognized activist on these issues in Canada and is in demand around the world as a speaker by groups fighting nuclear pollution. I'd be happy to provide many sources, but I'm completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing and would prefer to provide sources/background to an administrator. When the commenter above says "most of the claims in the text are uncited," he seems to be holding this article to a higher standard that hundreds of articles I've encountered (as a Wikipedia reader). When he says, "Even if there were sources he would not pass notability," he is revealing his profound ignorance about Dr. Edwards, his world-wide reputation and his life's work. What concerns me even more, though, is that there could be malicious intent here, trying to suppress the profile of a noted activist on a controversial topic. PLEASE - administrators, immediately look into what is going on here and put a stop to it if it is indeed malicious. Hundreds of Canadian activists are watching this closely and frankly, Wikipedia's credibility is on the line. PaceVerde (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic should definitely not be deleted. Dr. Edwards is an expert in nuclear energy issues and has a worldwide reputation. He is an excellent speaker, is extremely knowledgeable and is in demand around the world for his expertise. He is a prominent Canadian who should be represented in Wikipedia. I agree with the previous post, that Wikipedia should be sure that there isn't a nefarious person trying to shut down the discussion about nuclear energy. 45.78.126.149 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)— 45.78.126.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Content copied over from earlier nomination: 'Hello, I am concerned about the designation of Gordon Edwards' article as an article for "deletion". I viewed of list of multiple recent edits to his article, which appear to be done by a possible 'bot'. Would an administrator please check whether this is the case or not? Many thanks, Nancy Covington MD' 08:09, September 2, 2024‎— Preceding unsigned comment added by Covingni (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 September 2024‎ (UTC) — Covingni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (this remark was copied here by User:Ldm1954, not Covingni. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Content copied from talk page of earlier nomination: "I have followed Dr. Edwards for years and find his information on nuclear to be very helpful. The article on Dr. Edwards is factual. This article should remain on Wikipedia. It is concerning that someone, who appears to be pro-nuclear, has asked for the article on Dr. Edwards to be deleted, as it is perhaps bothersome to them in all its accuracy? Wanda Laurin (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)" — Wanda Laurin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Science. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the closer: This "2nd nomination" was created because User:@Daffydavid: tagged the article for deletion, but (presumably) mistakenly started the discussion at the article's talk page. User:@Covingni:'s keep !vote (which was copied here already by Ldm1954) was the first edit to the "1st nomination" page. which is why there is a "2nd nomination." Daffydavid's rationale for placing the deletion tag was as follows: The only reference attached that appears to be valid indicates the person to be unqualified. Daffydavid (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC) and I would interpret this as a delete !vote for the purposes of this "2nd" nomination. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found reliable sources about Edwards pretty quickly. I've added two to the article. I think this is more an issue of poor article quality and poor sourcing. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, but there are still serious issues which it appears led to the original AfD by @Daffydavid. For instance, source [1] is used to verify that he is both President & co-founder of CCNR, but in fact it only states that he is President. While your sourcing is better, there are still too many unsourced claims and it remains very weak on SIGCOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you perform WP:BEFORE as requested in the AfD documentation? I did this myself and quickly found a number of reliable sources, though I haven't added all of them. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very strange response to having your sources be challenged. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very strange response to my asking someone who nommed an article for deletion if they followed the steps required in the process. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me it does not matter if someone is pro- or anti- nuclear, QANON or a judge. The bar is the same and is in WP:N. That several WP:Single-purpose accounts make rude comments about Daffydavid or me is not going to change anything. As always, this is a discussion and proof of notability by reputable secondary sources is unconditionally required. This is of course at a higher level for living people. Just having a few mentions is not now and never has been enough. Maybe you can find enough, to date this page fails WP:PROVEIT by a long, long way.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that matters to me either. But you didn't respond to my question above RE: WP:BEFORE. Did you perform it as per the steps in the AfD documentation? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask that of @Daffydavid since he made the nomination, albeit with a technical glitch as @GhostOfDanGurney indicates above (a best guess) -- but I do support the nomination. @Daffydavid clearly tried to improve it then gave up, I see no indication of ill-will on his part. I of course did the routine Google check, not finding enough for Wikipedia:Notability of a BLP. You can find the SIGCOV to prove me wrong, I never claim to be infallible. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strange...in Wikipedia:Notability I find a whole subsection entitled: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." It points out that: "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." For this subject, there are ample sources that come up on a simple Google search including articles, quotes in mainstream media, guest appearances on major Canadian television and radio networks, etc. I am working on identifying the best ones to add and will do so as soon as possible. Please note Dr. Edwards is not a university professor and doesn't claim to be. He is an independent expert. PaceVerde (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Biographical articles about living or recently deceased people have a higher standard for meeting Notability and verification policies. Simple attestations of sources existing is not enough. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PaceVerde - what you posted is accurate, but a few of us have already searched for Reliable Sources and come up a bit short. You're welcome to perform your own search and add sources to the article or to this discussion, but without satisfying minimal requirements the article will likely be deleted. You're invited to collaborate and improve the article to establish his notability according to our WP:BIO guidelines.Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some of these sources you found, I don't see any and talking on a TV show isn't notable... Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming you performed WP:BEFORE. That was all I wanted to know. I admit to never having heard of Edwards until I saw this AfD, so my own searches are limited in scope. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources.~~ I made a SA table for the sources presently in the article:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/12/06/lake-huron-canada-radioactive-nuclear-waste/2622110001/			Uses quotes from the subject, but the story is not at all about the subject, but rather the Canadian government potentially choosing a site on Lake Huron to store nuclear waste	✘ No
https://www.chroniclejournal.com/life/nuclear-waste-questions-continue-to-multiple/article_eb4d17e6-dd38-11ed-9cee-3f55993ebfab.html	Guest column written by a fellow anti-nuclear activist	The Chronicle-Journal is owned by Continental Newspapers	Has secondary context in amongst the story of the subject going on a speaking tour regarding the Canadian government's nuclear waste site decision	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110706201716/http://sun4.vaniercollege.qc.ca/math/2faculty.htm	A faculty listing by an employer	self-posted by the employer	Simply lists the subject's name as a faculty member.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

As this shows, the subject does not come close to meeting GNG. Using google, I found a couple of directories of articles he has written for The Hill Times and National Observer, as well as more articles similar to the one by Detroit Free Press in which he is quoted in his role as a scientist who advocates against nuclear power, but like Detroit Free Press, is not about the subject. ~~― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)~~ - !vote struck ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. I found a fair number of opinion pieces by him, but instead we need independent works about him, and I didn't find those. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~self-struck. See new !vote below - as a mathematician, does not meet WP:PROF. As an anti-nuclear campaigner, I thought he might meet WP:GNG, but like David Eppstein, I am coming up short of any independent coverage that covers him. Not sure if there is off wiki canvassing here for keep voters, but ultimately it is the sources that matter, and we don't have anything that meets GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 7:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - You are perhaps not very familiar with the Canadian media? Dr. Edwards is a Canadian and is known across the country as an independent expert on the nuclear industry. That is why his opinion pieces are published in prominent national publications like The Hill Times and the National Observer. That is why he was featured as one of the main guests/experts on not one, but two episodes of the national award-winning TV program The Nature of Things, hosted on our national Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) network by Dr. David Suzuki (perhaps you've heard of him?). One is The Friendly Atom, 1998 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpVgYrfSIAM, the other My Nuclear Neighbour, 2010 (looking for online link). On APTN News (Aboriginal Peoples television network) in 2019, a journalist introduced him as "probably the nuclear industry's most prominent critic in Canada" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW1CpAOr9HI (10min45). I do thank you for flagging the fact that his bio does not do justice to him. I am working to update and fill it out and will post new content and sources in the coming week or two. His short bio is also on the site of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Does that qualify as a source 'about' him? https://thebulletin.org/biography/gordon-edwards/ He has also provided invited testimony to legislative committees and expert sworn testimony (e.g. to the US Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, although mostly in Canada) about two dozen times. These date back to the 1970s and 1980s so the earlier examples do not have online sources (as far as I know). I believe I can footnote them without an online link, according to wikipedia guidelines? talk — Preceding undated by PaceVerde added 19:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Repeat vote.— PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (you can only cast one "vote", I'm striking this duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Non-notable as a scholar. Not an expert on the yak. Keep as a notable activist with significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the SIGCOV? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you will find listed and hyperlinked 29 interviews with Gordon Edwards as an expert commentator on the subject of the Fukushima accident. https://www.ccnr.org/index_fuk.html That's just on one topic. You may not be familiar with Canadian media, but these interviews are on Canada-AM, CTV and CBC News - it doesn't get any higher profile than that in Canadian national news coverage.

On this page https://www.ccnr.org/index_A-V.html you will find well over 100 links to video and audio files including Gordon Edwards' in-person presentations as a guest speaker, media interviews - again, in Canada's top national media, webinars, and a presentation at the United Nations (side event to the 17th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKmZmIF6ms - where Dr. Edwards was one of two invited non-Indigenous speakers on a panel with 5 First Nations Chiefs and Grand Chiefs.

Please, for us novices, explain "significant coverage"? PaceVerde (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for us novices, explain "significant coverage"? Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability. A key section here is the one headeded General notability guideline which explains 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.
Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very helpful. So it sounds like someone being repeatedly interviewed in major media for their expertise/commentary would be significant evidence of their notability. PaceVerde (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent. It is the subject talking, and talking about himself is a primary source too. But the reason for the interview might be indicative of notability. If he approaches an organisation and offers talking points, maybe not - because that is again not independent - but if a major news network approaches him for comment, then the question is: why did they approach him? In particular, if he has been written about as an expert, they might approach him for that reason. But then, the source we need that demonstrates notability is the independent person who has written about him and his expertise. It was this kind of source I could not find. But if there are such sources, then I would change my view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that last statement makes little sense - if the person was approached repeatedly by the media for comment, then clearly the media had a reason to do so, especially on national television (they don't just pick names from a hat). The existence of the hundred plus media interviews and documentaries with the person is in itself proof of notability. PaceVerde (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what I was saying is that often, as you say, someone is picked for interview based on established expertise. But not always, in fact. But assuming he was picked for his expertise, what we need to see here is the basis for that establishment of expertise. Why did they think he was an expert? What has been written about him? Where is he discussed? When they picked him as an expert, what was their basis for thinking he was an expert? That is what we need to see. Do you have those sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (note: searching works better on "gordon edwards nuclear" - that eliminates others with the same name. "Scientist" doesn't narrow it down to him.) He doesn't meet NPROF; there are few articles in G-Scholar and they are hardly cited. I don't think we can consider him as an author - he wrote some (many?) opinion pieces but I don't see proof that he became a kind of "opinion celebrity". The most that I can find is the student newspaper The Gateway, which has a handful of paragraphs about a talk that he gave. That doesn't really count as being "about" him. I can change my mind if some folks find other sources. Lamona (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources I cited above? (In my reply to Ghost of Dan Gurney.) The 29 interviews on national television about the Fukushima accident alone? And over 100 video and audio files of media interviews, public speaking engagements, press conferences, panel discussions and webinars in which he is a featured speaker and commentator? Please look at those, I have provided the web pages above where you will find all these links. Clearly he is a 'go-to' commentator on nuclear energy, or as you put it, an "opinion celebrity". PaceVerde (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an additional source 'about' Dr. Edwards: https://raven-research.org/dr-gordon-edwards-in-nb-to-talk-about-nuclear-energy/ This is on the website of a university-based research project, based at the University of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick. The project was funded for 5 years by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), a research granting agency of Canada's federal government. PaceVerde (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I note that the week is up today and this is due for closing. I have voted delete and remain unconvinced sources will be found, but I note the active attempts by new user PaceVerde to understand Wikipedia notability and to demonstrate notability. As the learning curve is steep, perhaps we can give this another week to see if they are able to find any suitable secondary sources. They are clearly familiar with the subject, and if anyone can find what is needed, it will be them, but they will need to understand what is required first. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much appreciated. Yes, additional time is needed to confirm sources, understand the policies and make the changes. I also note that there is no consensus in this discussion. I hope there will be when edits have been completed. PaceVerde (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The no consensus close was disruptive editing by an account created today. I have reverted it. We will need an experienced closer for this AfD owing to the high level of disruptive activity. It would be a pity if we had to request page protection for it as it would prevent you from taking part, so I would make a plea to other SPAs to leave this alone and let the process work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can someone more experienced than I evaluate the sources PaceVerde has provided here in their various comments? They seem to be mostly interviews, which I think are probably considered primary. But if that many organizations are interviewing him about Nuclear Energy then it's hard to see how he is non-notable in that field. It's a bit too complex for me. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with a possible alternative to deletion being redirection to Anti-nuclear movement in Canada. (Note that the organization Edwards heads does not have its own article). I see a start towards GNG (or perhaps WP:NPROF C7), but it surely looks short of WP:SIGCOV. Disclosing that this article came back to my attention (after earlier seeing on delsort) as a result of the disruptive close by SPA. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A comment before this closes -- I am undertaking a source analysis and have also found some promising new sources myself, which I will post in full in the next few hours, if any closers can wait a bit. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've undertaken an expanded source assessment below addressing the newer sources linked in the article and this discussion, as well as some I found myself.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Canada might put its most dangerous nuclear wastes on shores of Lake Huron			three quotes from Edwards but the sole content about him is "Gordon Edwards, president of the nonprofit Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, based in Montreal"	✘ No
Nuclear waste questions continue to multiple	? This may be a press release from Environment North, who are hosting one of his lectures for their annual meeting		Full article is coverage of Edwards' lecture tour and background	? Unknown
CEGEP Vanier College, Mathematics Department Faculty list			This is excellent as verification of his role but since it's just his name on a list, definitly not sigcov	✘ No
1974 Nuclear Debate : G Edwards vs E Teller (TV 48m)			An interview with Edwards can't be coverage of Edwards, though it sure suggests cultural prominence	✘ No
How I Became a Nuclear Skeptic	literally by Edwards	?		✘ No
Expert weighs in on nuclear power		Student newspapers are I believe considered reliable for events on campus	533 words solely focused on Edwards' background and talk	✔ Yes
The Friendly Atom			appears to just interview Edwards (though I didn't watch the full documentary to see if it also has secondary discussion about him)	✘ No
Nuclear Courtship			Primarily interview with Edwards, but does have a few minutes about him as introduction, including recapping the debate with Teller evaluated above (which is framed as a historically notable event)	✘ No
Dr. Gordon Edwards in NB to talk about nuclear energy	? Not sure if the host of the event can count as independent for coverage of the event	Not convinced a research org's blog really counts		✘ No
There is more than one Dr. Gordon Edwards		? Appears to be a letter to the editor	A very fun piece from a different, pro-nuclear Gordon Edwards, seemingly annoyed by prior coverage of this article's Edwards	? Unknown
Nuclear watchdog's views to be heard at forums			248 words solely focused on Edwards' upcoming talks and his background, e.g., "The forums are to feature retired mathematics professor and media personality Gordon Edwards, who is currently president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. The 82-year-old Edwards obtained his PhD from Queen's University in the 1970s. He has been speaking about the potential perils of the nuclear industry for several decades."	✔ Yes
Two small communities are competing to receive Canada’s inventory of nuclear waste			Edwards gets three quotes as an expert here, but the coverage is not of him	✘ No
Nuclear coalition head warns of SEU			849 words solely focused on recapping a presentation by Edwards at a recent public meeting	✔ Yes
The people versus nuclear power: public participation in the energy debate ]interview with Gordon Edwards, chairman, Canadian coalition for nuclear responsibility], in the scholarly journal Perception, vol 2, 1979			? I can't access the full article, but by its title appears to be non-sigcov since it's an interview... though my gosh, having a featured interview in a printed scholarly journal is much rarer than getting a soundbite in a news article, and seems like a sign people are taking note of him. Likely also some biographical coverage as introduction here.	? Unknown
Nukes, climate change are both threats, say activists			two quotes from Edwards but not really sigcov of him	✘ No
Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change (book)			? Edwards is quoted for the epigraph of ch 3 on Nuclear Waste, and he and his ideas get about three paragraphs of discussion in that paragraph, plus one more in ch 4 on Nuclear Proliferation. But in the scale of a whole book that's not so much (ie no chapter just on him) and much of the focus is on his ideas rather than background.	? Unknown
Burying nuclear waste, exposing nuclear authority: Canada's nuclear waste disposal concept and expert -lay discourse, 2008 dissertation			? Cites Edwards 14 different times with small bits of discussion. The citations are all about him rather than about nuclear power, but each is just a sentence or two.	? Unknown
Profoundly Misunderstood: Nuclear Energy in Ontario, 1940s – 1980s, 2024 dissertation			? Three sentences in a whole dissertation probably isn't enough for sigcov, but it did seem promising to find it there. The full discussion of Edwards is "The CCNR, the largest anti-nuclear organization in Canada, was chaired by Dr. Gordon Edwards, who participated as an expert witness and prominent participant in the Royal Commission. Edwards oversaw every opposition submission to the Royal Commission, which will be discussed below. When cross-examined by AECL lawyers toward the end of the process, Edwards admitted every anti-nuclear submission was neither information nor public information but propaganda 'in the non-pejorative sense.'"	? Unknown
Math teacher aims to solve nuclear puzzle; Introducing . . . Gordon Edwards, Montreal Gazette 1989			510 words solely focused on profiling him as "a leading anti-nuclear activist in Montreal"	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I am personally persuaded of a keep here. There is a lot of borderline coverage, which starts to add up when it is considered as a body of forty years of expert quotations and mentions; I am particularly tantalized by how many dissertations make nods to him (more than just the ones I evaluate above). But the clincher for me is the 1989 profile of him in the Montreal Gazette as a notable resident; in conjunction with the coverage of some of his lectures and events (such as "Nuclear watchdog's views to be heard at forums"), I see GNG for him as an activist. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this extensive work. Not sure if it would belong in your table, but he is also co-author of the following:

Mathematical Sciences in Canada

Issue 38 of Background study - Science Council of Canada

Issue 37 of Background study, Science Council of Canada

Volume 37 of Science council of Canada : Background study

Authors Klaus P. Beltzner, Gordon D. Edwards, Albert John Coleman

Edition illustrated

Publisher Science Council of Canada, 1976

ISBN 0660003880, 9780660003887

Length 339 pages

Subjects Education › General

Mathematics / General

PDF found here on University of Ottawa website. https://www.uottawa.ca/research-innovation/sites/g/files/bhrskd326/files/2022-08/background_study_no._37_-_mathematical_sciences_in_canada.pdf

Could be relevant to the comment above suggesting WP:NPROF. It includes his detailed bio (as of 1975). Also if one is considering his notability as an academic (college professor), he earned a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship (1961) - is that considered a "highly prestigious academic award or honor" (national or international)? According to WP:NPROF, that alone qualifies as notable. PaceVerde (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that Edwards is co-author of will be relevant to the deletion discussion, for the same reason that interviews are not relevant: Wikipedia articles are based on what other people say about him. If there are any reviews of his publications, however, those would be relevant. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm honoring an informal request to relist this discussion. Just an aside, positing conspiracy theories or speculating on some "nefarious person" serves to undermine the speaker's position and are, by and large, ignored by experienced editors who would be reviewing this AFD discussion. Focus on Wikipedia's standards of notability and whether reliable sources providing SIGCOV exist, either in the article or brought into this discussion. Right now though, a majority of participants are arguing for Deletion so those editors wanting to Keep this article would be wise to spend their time looking for better sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment that "a majority of participants are arguing for Deletion," I count 8 keeps in this discussion. Three of them are near the top in a reply and two comments copied from an earlier nomination. Those individuals seemed not familiar with the convention of stating "Keep" at the start of one's comment, but they are clearly for keeping. At the moment I see 4 deletes and one weak delete. I am aware this is not a vote as per guidelines. PaceVerde (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I mean, we have confirmation of the Nuclear Responsibility group and he's written articles [43], but nothing about this person. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found several new sources in ProQuest, included in my source table above: I would describe several of them as being about him, especially the profile in the Montreal Gazette. Does your assessment include those? I only ask because I’m concerned I didn’t make my finds clear enough. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an Entymologist (bug scientist) with some coverage [44], but it doesn't appear to be this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm persuaded enough by LEvalyn's expanded SA table to strike my delete !vote, but will stop short of changing my !vote to keep as I cannot verify the sources on ProQuest myself. Am now neutral. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have struck my delete above having reviewed the source analysis by LEvalyn above. I think it is still marginal, but I think the range of these sources is sufficient to take this over the line. My specific comments are as follows (I am just going to treat the sources as numbered from 1-19 in the table rather than duplicate the table, and I will not mention sources where we both agree they don't add to notability):

Source 2: I agree with you that this looks like it is off a press release so not independent.

Source 6: Edwards came to the student campus and this is the student newspaper report of it. The article is long, but what i actually says about Edwards as background is just “Dr Gordon Edwards, an expert on nuclear energy and the President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility,” which is pretty much off his website. I don’t think this is significant coverage about Edwards

Sources 11&13: Local press, articles as you describe them A lot of people will take these asis. I tend to be a little sceptical, but the range of local press across more than one locality is worth noting.

Source 16: This open access book does not appear to be independent. It says: "Gordon Edwards, quoted at the start of this chapter and whose work substantially informed this chapter, is President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility." (page 23)

Source 17: PhD thesis. I couldn’t find the coverage as I was only getting a preview. This may be a good one. Where it talks about Edwards, is this information from which a page could be written? The thesis does not have to be about him, but to be significant coverage, it must discuss Edwards, so that we have something the article could be written from. This is a definite maybe.

Source 18: MA dissertation. We usually only use PhDs, although, to be honest, I have some issues with that, as our standards are much lower when it comes to other things - but I won’t sidetrack onto that. You already had it as questionable, and it remains so.

Source 19: Agree. This one counts.

So all in all, there is one that I clearly agree on, one source that may also be very good. We need multiple sources to pass GNG, but my feeling is that given one clear one, and the range of the others, I don't think there is a clear case for deleting this article. Note, however, that the title is wrong. He is a mathematician, not a scientist (as per the amusing source among others). He is notable for heading up his campaign, and not for being a scientist. A page move would be in order after the AfD closes to a title that corrects that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in in such detail; you’ve given this AfD a lot of careful and generous attention. I think your enumerated concerns are fair except for the book, which really looks independent to me. Saying that Edward’s’ work substantially informed a chapter strikes me as scholar-speak for “Edwards is influential and I read a lot of his writing” not “I personally know or ever spoke to Edwards”. Edwards is not thanked in the acknowledgments nor is he quoted from anything but public sources so I would be surprised to learn he was involved with the book. (But, the source may still not be solid for GNG since he’s proportionately a small part of the book…)

I agree that “scientist” is wrong. I think “anti-nuclear activist” would be most accurate to how the sources refer to him, even during the period that he was also a math teacher. But I’m neutral on what the new title should be. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(activist) should suffice as disambiguation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not swayed by the sources in the last table above; marginal sources one and all. If we had at least ONE decent story in a RS about this guy I might be ok with a weak keep, I'm just not seeing enough coverage to show notability. Still a !delete from me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He comes up in newspaper articles in the 70s and 80s [45], [46], [47], bu they're just him speaking about xyz subject in the field, attending a conference or talking about it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note in the new SA, the article "Nuclear waste questions continue to multiple" is not a press release, it is a guest column in a newspaper, The Chronicle-Journal (Thunder Bay, Ontario), author identified as a climatologist with Lakehead University who is also vice-president on the board of directors of Environment North, a charitable organization. The fact it is published in a daily newspaper with a significant circulation and owned by a known newspaper publisher makes it independent. That would now make 4 independent, reliable sources about Edwards in the SA. [User:PaceVerde|PaceVerde]] (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I will be getting to edits and additions of sources soon. There's a lot of work in double-checking and formatting correctly the source information, especially for 1970s to 1990s sources. PaceVerde (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LEvalyn's work up above is persuasive enough for me, showing four reliable sources which cover him in enough detail. Others considered reliable but not necessarily with significant detail can be used for verification of facts. If kept, I'd recommend a move to note him as an activist, as that seems to be really what he's most known for. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 03:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. J. Dahlstrom

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

Not notable writer, doesn't pass WP ANYbio and other guidelines. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR due to the awards. Also worth saying is that the nominator of this discussion only had 11 edits before nominating this article, all of them made on a single day in 2022. Badbluebus (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimele Usuwa Abengowe

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

Firstly, the content on ref 1 which is a magazine can't be verified by any reliable source same as ref 5. Ref 2 and ref 5 are also the same link on the article current state. The only source here was this which just only talk about his death. Ref 7 which is a YouTube video showcasing a church service cant be use as a source neither any YouTube link can be use as a source. Ref 3 which just only mentioned his name as part of the medical list and not like he was talked about. Subject just totally fails WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 01:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 01:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a much respected citizen but WP:NOTMEMORIAL Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
thank you for your response. Please note that @Gabriel601 has been trolling my articles and marking them for deletion. There's an established case of "nominations in bad faith here". Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

welcome again for marking another article of mine for deletion. After the last episode, you should have recused yourself from my articles and leave other editors to go through and arrive at their own conclusions. Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't verify certain details about this person like the date of birth and death. My search for the various information yielded "result not found" and I was wondering about the origin of other information like the award, OFR. After all these, I can say that the article doesn't meet WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV. Also, Gabriel's source analysis is thorough and well-documented. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to being a recipient of one of Nigeria's highest national awards (WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) National Honour of Member of the Order of the Niger (OON) by President Olusegun Obasanjo on the 16th November, 2000 - now sourced to Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The link you provided still doesn’t have his name on it that the president honors him with the title of OON. I opened the link used the control+F to find and paste his name still zero not found. Subject still fails WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It has on page 605 as the third entry.... under the heading OFFICER OF THE ORDER OF THE NIGER (OON) Professor C. U. Abengowe ... Abia
  - https://archive.gazettes.africa/archive/ng/2000/ng-government-gazette-dated-2000-10-09-no-69.pdf Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    @Msrasnw, winning an award is a WP policy/guide that WP:SIGCOV may exist for an article. Oppositely, there isn't any coverage for this article, hence doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think there is significant coverage in Nigerian media for eg in an important newspaper Independent Nigeria ... we have Emejor, Chibuzor (2023) NGO Immortalises Prof Abengowe, Featured News, Independent Sep 4 [48]
    - and Vision Africa (2013) Professor Abengowe Chimele Usuwa: Pragmatic Icon In The Field Of Teaching And Guidance, Profiles, Vision Africa 08/04 [49] And here (https://archive.upf.org/united-nations/international-day-of-peace/2013/5312-conference-in-abuja-on-education-and-national-development) he is giving a keynote at a serious conference. And there is lots more. I think it is shame that too many Wikipedia editors are too willing to delete what are to my mind clearly notable people that can with a little effort be reasonably sourced. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
      Vision Africa is a non notable platform. Upf is a non notable platform. There is till nothing notable about this man as per Wikipedia notability. If he was that respected a lot of news papers would have carried his news death. But nothing rather than just one news that’s not even all about his death. Gabriel (……?) 13:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject satisfies notability guidelines as have been severally outlined above. Cfaso2000 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One source ain't enough to justify notability. Other editors needs to be aware ‘Cfaso2000’ was the article creator. Gabriel (……?) 11:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a disagreement over the quality of sourcing. A source assessment at this point would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christiane Wolf

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

She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Health and fitness, Buddhism, and Germany. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is produced that her publications have received enough attention. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I think this article is produced to create attention. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Two of the references are podcasts by notable people (Dan Harris and Sharon Salzberg), there is a book review in Spirituality & Health and some coverage in a Taos News article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnev66 (talk • contribs) Nnev66 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC) (belatedly signing)[reply]

I’m with the Weak keep. She’s appeared on podcasts, was noted on the official VA website, and in other sources. I would not call this really substantial, though, more of a bare bones coverage. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Filled to the brim with primary sources and not enough independent sources to sustain a biography; the single book review is not enough. Appearing on podcasts is not a criterion for notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rezaul Kabir

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for Academicians WP:NACADEMICS. WP:NOTRESUME Charlie (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, and Management. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides summary information to a large audience (i.e., students, academics, scholars, journalists, policy makers) who are interested in academic work on several business related subjects / topics. The content of the article is credible as it includes references to published / verifiable / reliable sources. RRLV (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete at this stage, notability is not established although he has a decent amount of citations over the course of his career so one could argue for criterium one https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=c_EQTfoAAAAJ&hl=en

JamesKH76 (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acceptable citations in a high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see enough WP:RS PaulPachad (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1, which is independent from GNG and not based on in-depth independent sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

~~Moriba Jah (via WP:PROD on 20 September 2024)~~
Durg Vijay Singh (via WP:PROD on 17 September 2024)
~~John Smith (Cambridge, 1766) (via WP:PROD on 14 September 2024)~~

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

^ Template:Cite web

[1] "फिल्ममा 'ट्वीस्ट' ल्याउने चरित्र मेरो छ : तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[2] "तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[3] "तेज गिरी". Himalaya Times. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[4] "अभिनेता तेज गिरी भन्छन्: 'उपहार'मा मेरो अभिनय सुधारिएको छ". nepalkhabar (in Nepali). 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[5] We didn't see it coming: "This City" is a groundbreaking work in Israeli cinema

[6] המצעד העברי של וואלה! תרבות לשנת תשע"ו - עשרת הגדולים

[7] ttps://www.calcalist.co.il/style/article/sjtnoezru

[8] ttps://www.imdb.com/name/nm6689252/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t1

[:0-9] McLellan, Josepth (June 29, 1991). "HOME IS WHERE THE SOPRANO IS". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-09-20.

[18] Template:Cite web

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]