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 edit

Wally Scharold edit

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

Recently restored after a prod deletion, it fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have serious coverage, and page plastered by "cn" comments. Although, looking at the article history, I think you mean "contested prod" rather than "restored after prod deletion". PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Mitsuoka edit

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Argentina. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with the SkateToday article already in the article in addition to [[2]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Seivo edit

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

WP:BEFORE yields nothing of use. Only film databases and user generated content. Printed coverage in foreign language is unlikely, as the subject seems to have played minor roles in not many major works. However, if they exist, one may list so. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Finland. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Causey edit

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

This is WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Texas. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could maybe redirect to Enron scandal, maybe a section like § Trials. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not mentioned there. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are mentioned twice in that section, once in the first paragraph (last name only) and again in the fourth. I do take the point that it's hard to spot on a casual read though, I think it's the only reason I was hesitant about it in the first place. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Carlstrom (whistleblower) edit

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

Only sources are a column and two citations of a deprecated source. WP:BEFORE only returns similar, unreliable, sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sweden, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked through the main Swedish news archive to try to find good sources to save this article, but only found a press release. //Julle (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing that makes him notable in reliable sources. Sjö (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor Chernozubov edit

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

No sources and I have been unable to find any. Also does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Russia. Curbon7 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ck references on his article in ru.wp. Curbon7 (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Meck edit

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

Article without relevance and without accredited and reliable references not properly sourced, I do not see its encyclopedic notoriety GiladSeg (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, California, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in poor shape, but this looks like a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1 to me: even in a high citation field, several papers with citation numbers in the thousands is solid. This is supported by an obituary [3] from a learned society, another [4] in an academic journal, and a special issue dedicated to the subject in the same journal [5]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for WP:PROF#C1 is strong, and separately the independent obituaries above make a case for WP:GNG notability. (The Duke Today obituary is also usable as an in-depth source but not independent enough for GNG.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, the case for #C1 is strong. Some of the web sources (I did my own search) are very strong, indicating peer recognition. Improve, of course, but AfD was a bit harsh.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per NPROF#1 without any doubt base on citations and h-index of 98 and possibly GNG. --hroest 12:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Ldm1954, @hroest This article is not seen as such, nor does it have an encyclopedic development. From my perspective, it seems more like a Curriculum Vitae that only focuses on highlighting the merits, awards and distinctions of Warren Meck, it does not indicate where he was born and what year he studied. Furthermore, the references are not so independent except for references from university institutions where you work and another one that is a blog, they are not independent sources. GiladSeg (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points, however this is WP:NOTCLEANUP. This discussion is to determine if the article subject is notable, and if so, then it should stay. You are welcome to improve the article, delete the fluff and the promotional content. Claims that are not supported by sources should be removed. --hroest 14:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Acampa edit

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

all mentions in the sources included in the article are in passing. Nothing available in the article or online about his life to help establishing notability (WP:SIGCOV) FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka edit

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this subject, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. I found only https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka this interview and nothing much. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP: I'm curious how someone who someone hasn't been active on WP suddenly pops ups after four years of silence to nominate this BLP for deletion and throwing around accusations that I'm a paid editor and causing a stir about my editing behavior too. BTW, this BLP isn't promotional like they're saying over at WP:COIN. Feels like some undercover agents got activated once I started calling out Pakistani UPEs. I feel like this should be WP:SK because I'm not buying the editor's intentions. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. You acted like you owned the page, which makes me think that you and Aanuarif have an unreported financial interest in promoting Waqar Zaka, Editors do not own articles and stop attacking other editors based on your assupusons, it will not save the article, as you defended in second nomation here There is ongoing discussion on COIN about this, Regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. So let it be reviewed by the community.

And the nature of your edits look you may have conflicts of interest, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Lkomdis (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to think about if I had a COI and was getting paid by Zaka as you claim, why would I remove all the PROMO stuff about him? Instead, I'm adding STUFF that might not make him happy. Anyone can check the page history to see if I'm the one who added the PROMO or the one who deleted it. And BTW, since you mentioned @Aanuarif, if you had bothered to check their tp, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Absolutely baffling. - how in the world does Zaka think he could pay me to scrub his PROMO from his own BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you stop editing after being caught slipping in WP:PROMO and WP:OR into the BLP? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, Discussion on COIN about this still open, so don't don't conclude the result of this nomination or COIN by yourself, let the community review the whole case, as you are in a list of ongoing COIN discussion and a potential candidate of COI, I will suggest, please don't make any further edit to Waqar Zaka, as you recently did. Lkomdis (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Music, Television, Cryptocurrency, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Saqib as the user responsible for 50+% of the article text, do you want to comment on the specific issue of notability? It does seem there's not much there other than interviews which are typically disregarded (or nearly so) in notability discussions. In terms of independent content I'm looking at the Samaa article about a trading contest, and the article about him being arrested for cannabis, but not much else.
Personally I think it will in most cases be uncivil to make COI/UPI/Sock allegations at talk pages (and none are made here). It seems very appropriate to make them at the COI noticeboard. Similarly, there's an instance of seeking guidance from an administrator about your editing, which seems to be good faith even if it might feel like an attack. The last diff ostensibly has nothing to do with @Lkomdis. If you are suggesting this meets speedy keep because it's brought for improper purposes, that could border on uncivil as well. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject absolutely fits the bill as a Creative professional. How so? Well, he was the force behind some seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. HERALD's states Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial. And this HERALD's piece states Its host and director was Waqar Zaka who has carved a name for himself in the genre. HERALD was a highly reputable and esteemed Pakistani publication. I'm confident others would concur + He's recently co-produced a film called Babylicious and lately, he has jumped into the cryptocurrency and is getting loads of press. Sure, some of it might be paid to make him look like a crypto genius. On one occasion, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appointed him as an expert (when he's not) in its advisory committee but it does suggest he's getting attention in this field too. Recently, he was accused of involvement in crypto fraud as well. So if you're not seeing much press coverage on him, you might wanna check out DAWN, The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News The Nation and so on - all those are legit RS and they've got plenty to say about him - both positive and negative. Additionally, there is abundant coverage of the subject in Urdu language sources but I feel it's not appropriate to consider them here as we're on English WP and thus should prioritize English language sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. It would seem odd if brief career summaries in newspaper articles, like the Herald article, demonstrated he is an important figure for WP:CREATIVE. The rest of the mentions in the Herald article are based on an interview. And press coverage about crypto or legal troubles doesn't go anywhere towards satisfying creative professionals (although it might show WP:GNG if he's assessed under another standard).
I haven't been through all the search results you pasted in but it seems like quite a bit is either self-promoting (something you acknowledge is a risk here) or based on legal troubles. Could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? I just don't know enough to vote but I've got an open mind. Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify that those Herald stories weren't provided to establish WP:GNG. They were just there to show Zaka was the brains behind those TV shows and the shows themselves got press coverage from RS so as per WP:CREATIVE, he's in the clear. Take Champions for example. It got so popular - even if for all the wrong reasons- that it got banned by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. And for Living on the Edge, he says India straight-up copied it for MTV Roadies. According to the Express Tribune (the local partner of The New York Times), this show had a solid eight-season run and was a major cash cow for the channel. According to the same Express Tribune, Zala has a cult following thanks to his TV shows. And then there's his film production Babylicious, which got a bunch of reviews as well. Meanwhile, If you check the links I provided previously, you'll see he's been in the press way more than our average Pakistani actor. Sure, some of it might be paid, but there's plenty of legit coverage too. I could pull out the top three examples if you want, but honestly, we don't even need to argue about WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE's got our back here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to trawl through your searches to figure out what you think is going to help this article pass ~~GNG~~ notability. So far I've seen a bunch of "this guy is a legend and we interviewed him" articles but based on that I'm not inclined to vote up or down. Oblivy (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're clearly missing my point. Who asked you to review based on WP:GNG? Also, I didn't provide any search results in my above comment. I suggest you read my comment again timestamped 09:46. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think merely being the presenter of a TV show counts as "creating or playing a major role in co-creating" a significant work. Otherwise we'd consider every actor starring in a TV show to be a "co-creator" and we wouldn't need NACTOR. And being one of several producers of a film isn't really sufficient either -- it's made pretty clear in the linked source that the major creative force was the director. I think you will need to establish GNG to have case for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, Like I said above, Waqar hosted those TV shows, so I reckon he fits WP:CREATIVE, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.. Anyway, I think I've made my points. I really don't have a strong opinion about this or any other BLP and I'm not looking to be defensive. If the community disagrees with my opinion, I'm cool with that too. Let's keep it moving. There's a ton of work to tackle. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Abuseridze edit

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

Shinadamina (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Georgia (country). Shinadamina (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Nomination: All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's clear no WP:BEFORE has been done on this one. Other language Wikipedia's have WP:GNG passing sources. There is lots of coverage of his election or non-election as president of Georgia rugby, plus there's coverage of his extensive career (3 World Cups, over 80 caps for a reasonable rugby nation and European career). WP:NOTCLEANUP in action here also. Just because the article is not sourced, doesn't mean it's a reason for deletion as it looks to be clear that sourcing exists, even in the most simple of searches. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Darby edit

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

Could not find evidence that the article passes WP:GNG J2m5 (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, Politics, and Australia. J2m5 (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omocat edit

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

Omocat is not independently notable of Omori (video game), and the majority of sourcing in this article is about the game and not Omocat beyond some passing mentions. WP:GNG failure. λ NegativeMP1 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. λ NegativeMP1 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 2, 3, and 4 are all about OMOCAT themself and not specifically OMORI. Additionally, OMOCAT has their own successful individual page on the Japanese Wikipedia.

OMOCAT fits the notability requirement in that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The articles and reviews about OMORI itself fit the requirement: "such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work". Because of this, it's significant to mention OMORI as it is their most well-known work. Their fashion line, independent of OMORI, has garnered attention in the U.S and Japan, hence their article in Japanese Wikipedia. Alexapar21 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Omori~~ Omori (video game). It is a common mistake to assume notability is inherited from something a developer created, however the developer has to have standalone notability, which this developer does not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am assuming that the intended redirect target would be Omori (video game) (which OMOCAT in all-caps redirects to) rather than the Omori disambiguation page. (I don't have any other opinion or comment beyond that at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Omori (video game) The coverage about Omocat mainly stems from her Omori work, her other ventures have received little coverage that is not PR. Jumpytoo Talk 05:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew O'Connor (writer) edit

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

I don't really think this person is notable enough. It has zero sources, and that it hasn't been really expanded that much. JuniperChill (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. JuniperChill (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. Nom is based purely on the current stage of the article and not on the notability of the subject. If a basic BEFORE had been done the Sydney Morning Herald linked in the Tuvalu (novel) page would have been seen demonstrating that the subject does not have zero sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: that is still only one source that goes towards establishing notability. A Google search I did found a bunch of references to 'Andrew O'Connor' but I suspect that none of them are this Andrew O'Connor. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did say about the notability in the first sentence. Maybe I forgot to say that my Google search mostly returns the actor. Also, Google seems to no longer return the number of results I have been getting (in the form of about 1,000,000 results (0.10 seconds)). We have many pages without sources but I think due to the new rules, any articles created today without sources will almost certainly result in an AFD, merge, redirect or drafts. JuniperChill (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are only finding hits for others then refine your search. This man wrote a book called Tuvalu so search for "Andrew O'Connor" Tuvalu and you may get better results, such as [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Simple really. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single EL source in article does not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, nothing found in BEFORE that has SIGCOV from independent sources. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does not meet SIGCOV and would fail WP:IS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Austlit lists 17 works about his works. Below are from some of the better known publications listed. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does meet SIGCOV and would pass WP:IS.duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce, Peter (23 September 2006), "Gaining in translation", The Age

Full length review of Tuvalu. (Peter Pierce is professor of Australian literature at James Cook University.)

Stubbings, Diane (19 August 2006), "All-absorbing look at search for an elusive dream", The Canberra Times

Full length review of Tuvalu.

Ley, James (19 August 2006), "The island in the mind", The Sydney Morning Herald

Full length review of Tuvalu.

Tucker, Genevieve (6 September 2006), "Fraught between two worlds", The Australian

Full length review of Tuvalu.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Article about O'Connor.

Harish Kumar Gupta edit

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

Resume vanity BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Appears to be mainly sourced from a LinkedIn resume and government bio page (both fail WP:IS, WP:RS), with other refs being routine mill news and name mentions. Government service awards are routine, not meeting WP:ANYBIO. // Timothy :: talk 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Page reads as resume for job application. Things he did or delegated as correctional officer and none of it is a significant achievement and widely known to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:BIO and notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horia Iancu edit

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

Sportsperson did sportsthing. No indication of notability. Single reference is an interview, so fails WP:SIRS, and therefore fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. UtherSRG (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possible there are sources, considering he has played over 100 games for a fair sized club. If there are sources ping me. Abstain vote for now. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to say that someone with over 100 appearances for Steau Bucharest in recent times would have a lot of sources in Romanian at least, but then I realised this is for the "official" Steau Bucharest, or however you should describe the one that isn't in the top flight (not FCSB). So he has 43 second-division appearances since 2015 [12]. A pretty low contribution to the game of football. If this lower Steau Bucharest has retained the fan base (just as the official C.F. Os Belenenses did when they went down), then I estimate there would be decent coverage in Romanian sources. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Unknown Temptation: So there are two different clubs now? I am a little confused? Is the one Horia Iancu plays for operating as a B team? I am still confused here. Govvy (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much demonstrating notability for this player. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Gaitán edit

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

All citations are profiles. No news coverage can be found. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, and Argentina. Shinadamina (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure a proper WP:BEFORE has been done on this one. A simple search is bringing up WP:GNG passing sourcing, and foreign Wikipedias also have sourcing. Given his career with a number of caps and World Cup appearances as well as playing in Europe this isn't particularly surprising. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonçalo Foro edit

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

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Portugal. Shinadamina (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive career, albeit for a minor nation, however a simple search is bringing up coverage. I imagine there will highly likely be more offline or not easily accessible non-English language sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Having an extensive career is not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silviu Florea edit

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

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Romania. Shinadamina (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive career with 3 World Cups, a considerable number of caps and appearances in major competitions. A simple search is bringing up WP:GNG passing sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lotu Filipine edit

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

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Only one brief article exists [here https://www.looptonga.com/business/lotu-filipine-wins-500-cash-digicel-tonga-easter-promotion-91903], which is not enough. Shinadamina (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sports. Shinadamina (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article I linked to, is not even about his career and may not be him. Shinadamina (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Japan, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a sexual harassment incident when he was captain of the Tonga under-21 team [13]. There should be more on this, but it would require digging in NewzText, which I don't have access to. IdiotSavant (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep World Cup player and a simple search is bringing up WP:GNG passing coverage. There is likely more coverage offline also from the time of his career and locations of his playing career. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duarte Figueiredo edit

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

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Portugal. Shinadamina (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 Rugby World Cup squads#Portugal Coverage seems to be limited, but there may be some offline sourcing, but given he played only one game for a minor nation at the World Cup I doubt there will be too much. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caps (rapper) edit

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

No indication of notability. Looked for sources and found none (though that might be muddled by the simple name). —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch hits on social media, then goes off into nothingness. Very much not notable, no charted singles, no awards won, no coverage in RS, nothing found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Wikishovel (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only external links used as sources here and no sign of notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 16:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel W. Greear edit

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

The subject is a lawyer, currently serving as a judge in the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals - that is not a role that would make one inherently notable, so we are looking at WP:GNG. The only secondary sources in the article look like rehashed press releases, recording the fact that he was given the '2021 Legislative Staff Achievement Award' - not a notable award. The other sources appear to be primary; I don't see any better sources, WP:GNG is not met. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and West Virginia. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person appears to be marginally notable as a judge and former legislator and administrator. The sources cited are not the best possible, but they appear to be valid sources: the West Virginia Record is an online legal paper, and the facts that it's funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and has a strong bias toward "tort reform" doesn't affect factual statements about judicial personnel. West Virginia MetroNews is more-or-less an online newspaper. Releases from the Governor's office or official state websites are likewise valid sources for things like appointments or awards. The nominator's statement, "I don't see any better sources" is clearly based only on what's currently cited; I was able to find the subject and some of the facts relating to his career just by searching the word "Greear" on The Herald-Dispatch, and presumably more could be found at the Charleston Gazette-Mail. So this nomination did not comply with WP:BEFORE. P Aculeius (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did Google News searches on "Daniel W. Greear" and on "Daniel Greear". The first search yielded six hits, one of them literally a press release, the others either rehashed press releases or passing mentions. The second search yielded a lot more hits, most of them seemed to be about this person, but all of the ones I looked at again seemed to be rehashed press releases announcing his appointment to some position or other. I did not directly search the archives of the Herald-Dispatch or the Charleston Gazette-Mail because I've never heard of either of them. If new page reviewers were expected to be intimately familiar with the local press sources that might be available for any given subject, we would never get anything done - I don't appreciate the suggestion that my nomination did not comply with BEFORE, and unless you can point to any actual sources that give the subject significant depth of coverage (and are not rehashed press releases) it remains my view that GNG is likely not met. The point in the comment below about NPOL being satisfied may however make that point moot. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that new page reviewers reviewing biographies of local political figures ought to be aware of, or make themselves aware of, the local news sources that would tend to provide coverage of them, before asserting that no sources exist, and that the subjects therefore fail to be notable. A basic Google search simply isn't enough. The two papers I mentioned are the largest newspapers of record in West Virginia, so you would expect to find coverage there. I didn't even have to search "archives". I simply used the search window at the top of the paper, and typed in "Greear". There were more stories than the two I cited, but some of the others concerned the subject's candidacy in past elections, and others looked to be cumulative. There are probably more facts worthy of inclusion or citation in some of them, and as I said, other news sources that I didn't consult.

As for "actual sources", the news sources are "actual" and satisfactory for what they state. You can't disregard them on the grounds that they're "rehashed press releases", nor can you pick through the article, deleting things that you deem to have come from a "press release" by the state's official websites or the governor's office. A "press release" issued by a person about himself would not be a particularly reliable source for most information—although presumably for his name, age, place of birth, family members—but when the governor states that X has been appointed to Y, that's entitled to be treated as an authoritative source for those facts. Not that "X is one of the greatest Y's in the history of our state", although potentially for the fact that "Governor Z praised X as 'one of the greatest Y's in the history of our state'." But the source is perfectly good for the bare facts of the appointment. You don't get to exclude entire classes of material from citation or consideration for notability or verifiability simply because not everything in them constitutes a citeable fact. You must consider what it is they're being cited for, and whether they carry sufficient authority to verify that material. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, we routinely disregard sources that are clearly rehashed press releases when considering notability (as opposed to verifiability, for which they are generally fine). GNG clearly sets out that for a source to contribute towards notability, it must be (amongst other things) independent of the subject. A press release by a subject's employer or a body that they are affiliated with is not independent, and its having been rehashed by a local online newspaper that routinely reprints all press releases from that given body does not make it any more independent. If we

Look at it this way - with all the AGF in the world, when I look at that article and its history I cannot fail to suspect a COI, or more likely UPE. A brand new account has written it, an account that has made no edits to any other article, and which did not seem to go through any learning curve when it comes to formatting citations, adding wikiproject templates etc. The account also uploads a photograph of the subject, clearly posed for and submitted as their own work, so it is reasonable to conclude that the author knows the subject, either personally or professionally. Upon reading through the article, I find no organic coverage of the subject at all, just a bunch of press releases. UPE is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason to scrutinise an article, and I do not think that a discussion of whether or not the subject is actually notable is an unreasonable step to take as part of that process if a reviewer finds no decent sources about the subject. And FWIW, I reject your contention that a reviewer of any subject related to West Virginia needs to be personally familiar with West Viriginian news sources - we simply do not have the volunteer capacity for that, if we took that approach the NPP queue would become entirely unmanageable. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who created the article or why is relatively unimportant, if notability can be demonstrated through reliable sources. Even a press release is a good source for "X was appointed to Y position on Z date". And anything released by the governor's office or the state's official sites is entitled to full weight for its factual statements: "X is a member of Y", etc. Major newspapers of record are entitled to the presumption that their stories have been factually vetted, even if they might have borrowed their wording or structure from press releases—cause to groan about the state of modern journalism, if they did, but until shown to be inaccurate in some fashion, the stories can and should be regarded as accurate.

In this case, two news stories in a reliable, normal paper are both cited and linked to for key facts that go toward notability: the subject's having served as chief of staff for the House of Delegates, being appointed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals in 2021, being appointed to the position of Chief Judge through 2023, and having a term expiring in 2026. These are the most important facts in demonstrating notability. Other facts asserted in the article may be provable through other sources (The Blue Book at least will verify his service as a member of the legislature), but are not necessary to show that the subject is notable. Some of the sources, particularly those about awards, may indeed be "puff pieces", and the facts asserted not especially important (on the other hand, we can generally take the subject's word for things like his name, date of birth, what high school he attended, who his family members are, and for this sort of thing even "puff pieces" are fine).

But this is AfD: the question is whether the subject is notable, not whether all of the facts mentioned are important, or whether all of the sources cited are the best. Those can be dealt with through the normal editing process; deletion is not cleanup. And I stand by my position that in dealing with the notability of local subjects, such as state politicians, local sources should be searched for; you cannot rely on global searches such as a Google search for someone's name, and conclude that someone or something isn't notable because they don't have enough of a Google presence. You don't need to know all of the possible sources in advance; just have the ability to search for or find out what some of them are, and see whether any of them cover the subject in a way that supports notability. P Aculeius (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're getting the point I'm making. I'm not talking about whether press releases are reliable, I'm talking about whether they are independent. Press releases in and of themselves do not contribute towards notability for the purposes of GNG, even if they are rehashed in media outlets, because they are not independent of the subject. I'm not saying that they can't be used to establish straightforward facts, I'm talking strictly about whether they can be used to establish notability via WP:GNG - they can not be so used. Based on the sources currently in the article, I do not see a GNG pass because of their dearth of independent sources, and my search for better sources did not reveal any.

Having said all that, and as I conceded in my first response, the point in the !vote below about NPOL probably renders all this moot - his one-year membership of West Virginia House of Delegates probably gives a route to presumed notability, so a GNG pass is not required. I would be content for this to be closed as keep based on an NPOL pass, and for us to get on with the job of trimming the unsourced trivia and puffy editorialising introduced by the original author. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per WP:NPOL as he served in the West Virginia House of Delegates. Central and Adams (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Cheung death urban legends edit

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

Essentially a conspiracy fork (WP:POVFORK) that this person's suicide was either faked, a murder, due to a love triangle or due to demonic possession. Leslie Cheung#Death and legacy already covers what needs to be said on the subject. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hong Kong. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP-violating nonsense that simply has no use here. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though the subject has been dead for 21 years, I feel like it still meets the spirit of WP:BLP, even though it doesn't meet the letter. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Karr O'Connor edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for people. Should have been deleted at the previous AfD four years ago. As one of the article's own sources reveals, the article was written by O'Connor's colleagues and the AfD was influenced by off-wiki canvassing. – Teratix ₵ 16:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Disability, Computing, and Software. – Teratix ₵ 16:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the AfD I'm referring to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Karr O’Connor (with the fancy apostrophe). – Teratix ₵ 16:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of the arguments there about using WordPress a a source for their employee are valid at this point in time; they are primary and not useful other than for basic confirmation of certain biographical details (not proving notability). Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose the Word Press association could have some notability context, but I don't find any sourcing for this individual. What's used in the article now are non-RS or things associated with World Press. I can't find any mention of this person in what we'd consider RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pratt (sailor) edit

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Olympics, and Australia. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is plenty of sourcing available as Pratt's Olympic selection and career was discussed in media at the time. For example, see: "Pratt's the right choice". The Age. 1984-03-24. p. 36. Retrieved 2024-05-05. --Habst (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share other sources if you have them, that's the only link used in the article that's about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, I added it to the article because I found it. It was only the first one that showed up in my feed, I'll find another when I have a moment free. --Habst (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even in Gnewspapers, I can only see match reports, nothing at length about this person. Decline for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, I would check WP:Newspapers.com instead of Gnewspapers. I found some at length sources, I added a few to the article (it had no non-database sources at the start of this AfD). --Habst (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources I found on Trove: [14] & [15]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BeanieFan11 and Habst. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing now seems adequate. Ingratis (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - g searching is insufficient for Australian subjects, Trove and others are better. JarrahTree 00:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Rivera edit

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

This subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG; the only hits I found were for unrelated people. Article already had a removed PROD, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohaib Al-Malkawi edit

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

Does not meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Couldn't find any articles or independent information about him online. The article is mostly puffery. Probably a COI - draftifying might be an alternative, though I can't find any coverage about him at all. Clear friend a ^💬 02:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Jordan. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is full on a promotional article, and if no sources can be found it should be axed. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't want to write here since I wrote the article. Anyway, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that since he's an Arabic figure when you search for him in Arabic (صهيب ملكاوي), you will find many sources. From a promotional standpoint, I admit that the article contains some promotional words, which I have now deleted. In terms of notability, I see that he fulfills the first rule. He is seen as an important figure or widely cited by his peers or successors. This is an interview of his on YouTube that shows it, and here's another one. According to RanksArabia, a website that ranks according to the votes of the Arab public, Suhaib Al-Malkawi is ranked 30th among the best Arab media professionals, and 24th among the best broadcasters and program presenters on Al Jazeera. He is one of the most prominent broadcasters on a channel considered to be one of the largest channels in the Arab world. Clearfrienda mentioned that "Probably a COI" . This is a bad assumption. For some time now, I have been writing and contributing articles about important Arabic figures, poems, places... etc, here in the encyclopedia, there is a similarity with the family names. Malkawi99 (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Rutter edit

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

Article on a British man killed fighting in Syria. Seems completely non notable, was only reported in the news because he died. A sad event, but not one that makes him notable. No sustained coverage of him since this either, all sources seem to be directly after his death/repatriation in 2017. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, Military, Syria, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant Dubey edit

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the previous AfD, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. The two users who wanted this article kept was a sockpuppet and the page creator themselves. John Yunshire (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. John Yunshire (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad edit

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

After the cruft was removed, it seems there's nothing that supports WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No significant independent RS coverage that I could find. Only hits in WP:LIBRARY are his research papers and a quote in Men's Health about growth hormone therapy. His book is self-published and I couldn't find any reviews. That leaves us with WP:NPROF criteria. I think the research impact criterion is the only one that might apply, but I'm unfamiliar with the subject area so will leave that for others to evaluate. Jfire (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jfire, others, I do not see signs of significant academic impact here. I see on Google Scholar several papers with a moderate number of citations, but in a medium-to-higher citation field. (Even in a lower citation field, I'm generally looking for several papers with more citations than the highest cited one I see of his.) Awards listed in the article are all WP:MILL, as is membership on an editorial board. I was cursory in checking NAUTHOR and GNG, but did not quickly see a pass. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sadeghi-Nejad is one of the most notable experts in the field of pediatric endocrinology, globally, and his publications support that. A niche medical field does not have the same number of citations as more general research areas. In addition, the book Dreams of Persia is an important contribution to Persian-American culture and linguistic heritage. KatMaldon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — KatMaldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the discussion above and given his citation numbers, I'm not sure we're at notability. I don't find critical reviews of his books, so there wouldn't bee AUTHOR notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jemal Gokieli edit

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

For me, it doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. If someone could bring satisfactory sources, it would be a fair one. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Georgia (country). Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Conductor. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO #3 with an entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Georgia, which is itself sourced to the Encyclopedia of Georgia [ka]. Jfire (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Georgia, there is an entry in Musical encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. ed. G. V. Keldysh. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990. - p. 139 - ISBN 5-85270-033-9 (referenced in the Russian wikipedia article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Horner (actor) edit

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

Wining just the AVN award still doesn’t mean his notable. Subject still fails WP:GNG. Can’t find any news about him on Google. Maybe that was why no other references were made to the article than the current of which they are three but still doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rahm edit

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Made some Google research about him. I can’t find any sign of notability or reliable source talking about him. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, California, Georgia (U.S. state), and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for info under Johnny Rahm and his non-stage name Barry Rogers. Other than the one source cited here as #1, I could find no other sources. Most personal bio facts in this article can be sourced to that one article. I was not able to confirm his acting award, but due to the lack of other sources I do not think we have reached GNG. Lamona (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Garrity edit

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

I couldn't find enough to show he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Afghanistan, and Texas. Skynxnex (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: one of the sources is by, not about the subject. another source quotes, but is not about the subject. there simply isn't significant coverage. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable soldier/public servant. No SIGCOV of the subject, just brief mentions. Mooonswimmer 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single viable ref is a passing mention. Nothing else of significance. scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia edit

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP that makes few claims to notability other than her marriage to a notable politician. Recent coverage relates to her campaigning in the current Indian election, hardly demonstrating significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Royalty and nobility, India, and Madhya Pradesh. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has done notable work for the society. (https://www.travelandleisureasia.com/in/people/interview-with-tl-champion-community-empowerment-priyadarshini-raje-scindia/). Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Married to politician does not establish notability. The subject has not made significant, interesting, or unusual achievement enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks sources to prove the subject's notability beyond her marriage to a politician. Being mentioned in a newspaper, journal, or magazine doesn't always guarantee notability. She has made little independent notable achievements for an article. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At most, this page could be merged with that of her husband. — TheWikiholic (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Flynn (businessman) edit

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

Most news seems to be about his company Flynn Group and its restaurants/ acquisitions rather than him. He was briefly in the news regarding the California minimum wage issues and seems to be only known for that. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is substantial coverage out there about Flynn. The article just has to be expanded. Thriley (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, most of the articles are about his company or are primary with quotations. The Forbes article and QSR Magazine seem to be the best coverage, but they both contain lot's of quotations and based on primary info. Hkkingg (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2016/08/24/the-super-sizer-how-greg-flynn-became-americas-largest-restaurant-franchisee-with-1-9b-revenues/ shows ample coverage just about him. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-restaurateur-navigating-pandemic talks about him. Dream Focus 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article is OK, but Stanford is an interview. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. https://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/greg-flynn-owns-1245-restaurants-and-makes-2-billion-a/333187 Lot of detail about him. Dream Focus 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Entrepreneur article is almost entirely based on quotations, so it is the same as interview and considered unreliable. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty written about him, it not just quotes. And interviews are fine for confirming notability. A reliable source thought the person notable enough to write about and/or interview. Interviews are only not seen as reliable for content in an article because they are a primary source. Dream Focus 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share where you have seen that policy that states interviews are fine for notability? I saw someone making this same argument once before, but all participating editors/admins decided there was not such a policy. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Primary sources are excluded for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, so unless it verifies a claim in the additional criteria (ANYBIO, ENT, SPORTS, etc) I don't see how that would work. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are usable for content in an article though, for straightforward statements of fact, without undue weight, and with caution if basing longer passages on them. If we had to make a simple statement one way or another (as we loathe to do) PAG is basically the exact other way around. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Forbes articles looks OK. Stanford is an interview. Most other sources are about the company. Notability is not inherited. We should consider making a page for his company The Flynn Group. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company this individual founded, not the founder himself, is what is notable here. A review of the citations here only shows there are few that provide in-depth coverage of this individual. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 1 source is in-depth which is Forbes. The rest are interviews or passing mentions. I vote to delete. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above editors. Although there is some news coverage, they are not the right type of coverage. They are mostly interviews, quotations and primary. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Greg-Flynn-Owns-1-245-Restaurants-and-Makes-2-13900429.php SFGate gives significant coverage about him and his accomplishments. Dream Focus 18:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SFGate Article also contains many quotations and appears to be based on an interview. It is unfortunate that wiki policies do not count interviews towards notability, but we must follow the policies. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. I don't see anywhere against interviews being used to determine notability. Coverage is coverage. A reliable source thought they notable enough to cover, then that counts. Dream Focus 01:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, the sources are really obvious and are already in the article. I was planning on adding these really in depth and obvious indicators of notability to the article, but they were already there, leaving me perplexed.

These sources are entirely about his life. Yes, they're also going to talk about the company he founded that literally is named after him. The fact that he founded such a successful business is what makes him notable. And, yes, news articles about people are going to include quotes from them. That doesn't make them interview articles. An interview is an article that is entirely just question and response. None of these are that. The claims made by those above would be equivalent to saying Jeff Bezos isn't notable because any article about him is also going to discuss Amazon. It's nonsense. That's not how notability works. Silver seren^C 23:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough of the sources have in depth coverage of Greg Flynn. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Forbes might be OK, I guess, the first few paragraphs look fine, and given it's written by staff it's RS. QSR, I can't see any sign of independent thought. I'm skeptical it even counts as an RS tbh, WTWH seems to be a brand marketing company? Editorial process? Random Entrepreneur contributors are similarly not even RS, at least the Forbes article was written by bylined staff. Even if we pretend both are RS, what's independent isn't significant, and what's significant isn't independent, they're entirely unusable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Sinha edit

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

I initially tagged this for UPE for cleanup but after it was challenged by two SPAs, and at the request of one, I dug further into cleanup. The issue is that the references, other than this, are not reliable to show notability. Everything is mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, press releases, churnalism, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. I removed some WP:FAKEREFerences prior but kept everything else in tact so the AfD could be judged based on how it sits currently. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41

I think you are indulging in provocation to prove you’re correct. Please refer this case to senior editors and administrators for opinion. My knowledge about Wikipedia rules is limited. However this nomination for deletion seems fishy. Hope fellow editors will objectively contribute to sort this, whatever is right.

Request to refer to the Talk Page of Anurag Sinha to understand the case. His notability and credibility is vouched and acknowledged.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixing001, Don't worry this ADF discussion will surely closed by an Administrator of Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CNMall41

I would really like to contest your decision to provocatively send the article for deletion, while I was engaging in a meaningful conversation with you in the talk page. I will also request the inclusion of other editors and administrators to have a look at this case as I feel that this step may have been influenced due to reasons while this could have been avoided certainly for an actor who has a valid presence and calibre in the indian films industry.

Please have a look at the references right from 2008 till 2023 where these references are attributed from TOI, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Organisational bodies, Etimes, Recognised Production Houses and International Film Festivals, Directors and fellow actors from the industry of India.

While some citations may come from a list of as you call “Paid Media”, there is a plethora of other google search articles and references in the article where the subject is not in ‘Mentionary terms’, but actuality a major point of interest.

Articles by reputed journalists of India, like Mr Subhash K Jha, Mr Khalid Mohammad and other prominent journalists have done interviews and wrote articles on ‘Anurag Sinha’. His recent Best Actor Award in International Film Festivals is also merited by TOI and PTI, ANI News, The Week, Zee5 News etc.

While, you discredited the article and the subject 2 months earlier accusing of Paid Creation, why did you not send it for deletion then itself when proper cleaning of language and any inkling of promotional intent was also removed by myself.

I had only requested you remove the “paid template” and present any transactional proof made by the user/article subject for creating the page, to which there is still no evidence provided by you. You have stated the ‘creator of the page’ has been flagged, but that does not mean that all articles created by the creator are false and paid, when the merit of this particular artist/actor is recognised by a mass audience and people of his industry.

However, I again repeat that today seems out of hasty decision, you have altered the article by your edits which are not justified. This article is on my watchlist and some removals are uncalled and was not needed at all. While you also have wrongly exercised your rights to put templates and send the page for deletion. Why?

Also, for clarification of my interest in the article, I certainly am interested in the work of actors and indian film industry and will want to contribute positively towards it.

As a responsible Wikipedia editor, I again would address you to clean the page, if you find it dissatisfying. According to me, all current references are reliable third part sources that are not just mentioning, but are talking about the subject or acknowledging the achievements of the subject.

I trust this process and hopefully this matter will be justly resolved. I will also invite other editors and experienced editors to engage in its resolution.

Thanks Fixing001 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article must be uploaded back and edited with supervision. The article subject is legit. DSTR123 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that DSTR123 and Fixing001 might be the same individual, given that the DSTR123 account was created today following this nomination and has only posted this comment thus far. Grabup (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grabup:, They likely are. SPI filed here. I believe the image uploads are a pretty good trail of breadcrumbs. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on my checking, I've discovered that sources are only WP:NEWSORGINDIA and press releases, sponsored articles, and interview pieces can't establish notability at all. The individual clearly doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG due to a lack of comprehensive coverage on the subject. Grabup (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Keep’’’ - The article subject has a 16year career where he has recently won Best Actor Awards in his field at International Film Festivals in New Jersey and Toronto. The notability can’t be debated with the individual being working with premium indian production houses like Mukta Arts, Emmay Entertainment, Applause Entertainment, T Series etc in leading roles with directors and co-stars who are also having a sterling background.. like Subhash Ghai, Anil Kapoor, Nikkhil Advani, Shefali Shah, Purab Kohli etc. The article references are cited from the premier news agencies of indian media viz..Times of India, HT, Rediff, The Week, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Money Control, The Print etc. Mostly all the articles in India media are cited with references from the above agencies, if that’s the case, we may need to delete every article in Indian Films section.

This article must be added with citations available in the public domain and be made available. It’s a KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough information on public domain for the credibility of the actor. The article needs more citations. Not all artist must have a comprehensive coverage, consistent qualitative work over a sustained period with accreditation from international film festivals and other platforms must be taken in account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E5:1041:EA04:B517:90B9:EDEE:D31E (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions (one for which he was nominated for a FF award; another that received minor awards; which also contributes to prove the roles were significant); his role in P.O.W. – Bandi Yuddh Ke can also be considered significant. So, at least 3. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with other AfD's I have requested this, can you show me the specific references that show notability? Simply having "various significant roles in notable productions" does not grant notability, it only says they "may be considered notable." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The actor debuted in a leading role with one of the most renowned and controversial director of Indian Film Industry, Subhash Ghai where he was nominated for Best Actor at FilmFare Awards. He has a list of projects where he has worked in leading roles with premier directors like Nikkhil Advani Radhika Rao etc. He has exhibited credible performances in numerous productions, some of them being immensely popular and genuinely praised for acting performances, like the ones in Black & White (2008 Hindi film) Sanam Teri Kasam P.O.W. – Bandi Yuddh Ke Kaun Banegi Shikharwati Mannphodganj Ki Binny Shadow Assassins etc. The actor has demonstrated acting calibre at par with the likes of his co-actors like Anil Kapoor, Naseeruddin Shah Lara Dutta etc. There are references available on the public domain. For Shadow Assassins, he has won Best Actor Awards.

Here are just some of the articles that are published where the actor is talked and discussed in a positive prominent light and not merely in mentionary terms. This merely are a few articles from only one of the indian publications, Times of India, TOI Entertainment.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/kill-terrorism-not-the-terroristshubash/articleshow/2849557.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-in-black-and-white/articleshow/2917175.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/genres-dont-matter-says-anurag/articleshow/3184943.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/i-think-i-can-handle-the-curiosityanurag/articleshow/2864389.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/actor-anurag-sinha-to-marry-on-nov-19/articleshow/5156245.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-sinha-wins-best-actor-award-feature-for-shadow-assassins-at-alternative-film-festival-toronto-altff-2023/articleshow/104649337.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/subhash-ghai-feels-inspired/articleshow/3973118.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/star-plus-p-o-w-bandi-yuddh-ke-gets-3-new-faces/articleshow/56625506.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anil-is-jealous/articleshow/2787866.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/another-honour-for-subhash-ghai/articleshow/3900541.cms?_gl

Again, all this issue of notability was only brought by the editor who flagged the article, when was requested on the Talk page to remove the paid templates as there was no citation of proof for payment by the artist in discussion for a period of two months or so. I still am not clear why is it happening here, where the article on this actor in discussion can easily be expanded with reliable reference and citations that are available on the public domain.

My perspective - The India media is suffering with the malady of copying and publishing information from one source to another and is suffocating genuine talents and films with the issue of paid marketing and publicity. If Wikipedia doesn’t provide a platform like its own of credible acknowledgement to authentic artists/talents, soon must find it surfeit with articles on Arts & Entertainment , that are already influenced and published under bias and discreet funding from production houses. Why are we not calling out the ones overtly known ? As for this article, this feels like a pitiful hassling over an unjust removal of a credible and relevant indian talent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrepiece12 (talk • contribs)

Comment Times of India is totally not reliable when it comes to BLP. They are known for their paid editing and promotional material. See WP:TOI and WP:RSN archives. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I went through all the sources cited in the article. Can't find any that satisfy reliability + independence + significant coverage. Most of the sources are about the movies the subject played a role in, with trivial mentions of him interspersed. I doubt the notability of the movies too, These are sponsored stories [16][17]. This is an interview. So not WP:IS. Alternative Film Festival best actor is not a significant award or honor. The article is just deliberate and malicious refbombing. — hako9 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The article must be reassessed. The references are from the most read publication of India, TOI. Barring a few, the references are credible enough to abide by WP:NACTOR. The actor has worked as protagonists in films that have been notably popular. The present article is acceptably consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40d2:103a:b4e6:2d76:969:3718:41d3 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm not sure about determining consensus as I see editors I respect on both sides of this debate along with a lot of IPs and newcomers. Can we get an essential THREE that can be agreed upon instead of posting dozens of links to bad quality sources? Also editors are advised they need to sign all of their comments with their signatures.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkosana Makate edit

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

Product of WP:BLP1E. Yes, the subject has been making the news in the past few months but this is all just 15 minutes of fame. WP:ATD, a redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" would make sense. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Africa, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this case been in the news for years, not months. It has been extensively covered in WP:RS for that time. So the nomination description of it as “15 minutes of fame” is inaccurate. Makate may, or may not be notable in terms of WP:BLP1E but the case almost certainly is. Park3r (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Park3r, the case may be notable. However, I don't think Nkosana Makate is, the article is composed of this particular case only. Opening statement says "…is a South African who proposed the "Buzz" idea to Vodacom", no description nor WP:SIGCOV, and back to the nom, this is a clear BLP1E. Until relevant sources are brought to light, I think redirecting the article to Vodacom is the way to go. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure I understand the deletion rationale here. The case is definitely notable and as much as Nkosana Makate may not be notable but he definitely deserves a mention in the case because after all he is the central figure to the case. Also, seeing that most articles on Wikipedia are about Europe and U.S and there is a serious lack of African content (including content on languages) I think it would have been wise for you Dineo to be bold fix the issues on this article and go on to translate it to your mother tongue than tag it for speedy deletion. Wikimedia ZA is there to support African Wikimedian like yourself to increase African content and languages on Wikipedia. Please reach out to me on bobby.shabangu@wikimedia.org.za to talk more on how we can support you. Bobbyshabangu _talk 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bobbyshabangu, yes he may be the central figure but this is pure WP:BLP1E (meaning he's known for one event only) which is the deletion rationale here. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if there was something I could do to improve it. Nkosana Makate is already mentioned on Vodacom#Please Call Me. Note that your comment does not support your "keep" !vote in any way. dxneo (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. As I read the "Keep" vote, the editor is rejecting the deletion nomination without arguing the specific points of it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me". I find the nominator's argument that this is a WP:BLP1E situation convincing. Jfire (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vodacom as per nom, not enough here for a standalone page.-KH-1 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as suggested above seems fine. One small paragraph covering the individual should be enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Etemadi edit

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

Ebrahim Etemadi likely doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the mentioned sources might not be reliable enough. Waqar💬 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Music. Waqar💬 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Three of the citations presented (2 Farsi and 1 Enlglish) seem to be OK. The Persian version of this has 17 citations and I saw some Ok ones there, such as 1, 2. We can't just assume because something is in a foreign language, it is unreliable. He seems to be well known in his country.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 18:52, 7 May 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, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Unaegbu edit

AfDs for this article:

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

I came about this article during clean up and saw it's contains a bit vague and non verifiable content. Taking into cleaning up, I became tired at the line seeing almost if not all the sources lacks editorial guidelines, perhaps doesn't go with our policy and guidelines for reliable sources.

On the other hand, apart from the quality percentage of primary sources linking to book that were self published in the platforms such as Amazon, etc., the article generally doesn't meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV, and it contains a bit hoaxes that were made (those like references/acclaims which I have removed when cleaning part of the article). The article in general doesn't conform with Wikipedia's inclusion for authors, journalist too—since he edited a magazine and has written for some magazines per the article. Lacks verifiable source and seem looking like a advert/promotional/vaguely constructed source, and more.

The books he wrote doesn't meet our guidelines for books, so we may try redirecting or WP:PRESERVE albeit there is nothing to be preserved here. I also discovered the previous AFD that reads 'no consensus', and it seems there were no improvement or rather say; the previous AFD seeking for clean up which I've did to some part and found no substantial need for the inclusion of this article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I once looked at this article and realized that it was created when some of the links verifying some information were not yet dead links. It was created in 2010 or so. For such kind of articles, caution is required. I saw that he was mentioned by the Nigerian author, Chimamanda Adichie in the New Yorker Magazine and he was involved in creating the Occupy Nigeria protests online. There is also some newspaper articles (see Newswatch) on his writings, especially his poem on Lagos, said to be the longest metrical poem by a Nigerian. I think it needs serious clean up and I may help to find his recent activities. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Royalrumblebee, dead links doesn't mean anything. There is the Wayback machine for saving pages to archives. While you argue about being mentioned by notable Nigerian writers, it's not a criteria for notability. Almost all the references are links to his publications and things about him were written from a PR which is no shadowed to the eye. In any case, provide me with the links that credibly show this article meets notability. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok. I found some of his academic publications, including two in JSTOR. But I will look for articles about him, and really- I share your opinion about making sure articles meet notability to remain in this encyclopaedia. Note: see https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6285-4800 Royalrumblebee (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Royalrumblebee, that can't be a source. It's a database. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh ok @SafariScribe. I see The Punch as a reliable Nigerian newspaper and it talked about him as a celebrity in depth here (https://punchng.com/nigerian-entertainers-born-october-1/). I also see Daily Trust as another reliable Nigerian newspaper and it told the in-depth story of how he and other two writers (Gimba Kakanda and Richard Ali created the Occupy Nigeria group that online-remotely organized the protests in Nigeria in 2012 (https://dailytrust.com/the-occupants-of-nigerias-harmattan/). I also see Newswatch (Nigeria) as a reliable Nigerian newspaper made a full page review of his book and it states in its first line as well as in details later that "Jeff Unaegbu's This Lagos Na Wa has set a record as the longest poem written by a Nigerian! (https://web.archive.org/web/20120504135846/http://www.newswatchngr.com/editorial/prime/bob/10326094437.htm). Other reliable newspapers that mentioned him only in passing are the American magazine The New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/notes-on-grief);
  
  This Day here (https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/09/15/james-nwoye-adichie-1932-2020);
  
  Daily Post (Nigeria) here (https://dailypost.ng/2014/05/02/ekweremadu-donates-transformer-nsukka-community/);
  
  There are many more, but less reliable links that mentioned him in depth such as this (https://www.gistmania.com/talk/topic,61413.0.html). I have already inserted in the article his direct activities as a journalist reporting for Vanguard (Nigeria).
  
  My honest opinion is that inexperienced editors added a lot of unreliable links such as amazon over the reliable ones and so the article only needs serious clean up. I have seen articles in Wikipedia held by just one reference that is not as reliable as the ones I saw on this article. I have included the reliable links above already too. Thanks. Royalrumblebee (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Royalrumblebee, all these sources doesn't link or explained the article like one. For example, a source can say "John Doe is a Nigerian writer who was awarded an MFR by the president of the country. He hasbeen recognized in .....". Then another days "John Doe said he was awarded an MFR by president Doe. In a speech by the president, the world revognised many people and John Doe, standing at the outside asked who is the president." In both sources, the first one seems to he verifiable, significantly covered albeit requires multiple confirmation. It also was taking about John Doe,while the second was taking about an event he attended while giving much view on the president. The thing about John Doe was reported by him—so it's not verifiable. I believe this can help though not broadly covered. Thanks! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Reading Beans
https://punchng.com/nigerian-entertainers-born-october-1/		A reliable national daily in Nigeria	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://dailytrust.com/the-occupants-of-nigerias-harmattan/		A national daily that is has majority of readers from Northern Nigeria	This is an interview-like article talking about #OccupyNigeria and not necessarily about this subject	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120504135846/http://www.newswatchngr.com/editorial/prime/bob/10326094437.htm	?	The source is a major newspaper	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail; talks mainly about the book	? Unknown
https://www.gistmania.com/talk/topic,61413.0.html	This is an interview	Gistmania is a gossip blog without any editorial started		✘ 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}}.

The table above was prepared in response to Royalrumblebee. If we want to talk about book reviews, maybe, someone should write an article about the book itself. With the sources I see, the entry does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the source table, most appear to be non-RS. "Being born on October 1st" is about the best source, but that's not enough. I don't find anything further. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked closely at the sources, but I wanted to point out that WP:NAUTHOR allows people with multiple notable books (per WP:NBOOK) to have articles even without biographical coverage. In the sources listed here, I only see one contributing to NBOOK -- the Newswatch review of This Lagos Na Wa -- but I wanted to suggest that those interested in a "keep" should look for a second review of that and additional reviews of his other books. I think Achidie's mention of Biography of Nigeria's Foremost Professor of Statistics, Prof. James Nwoye Adichie in "Notes on Grief" is probably not enough to contribute to NBOOK for that specific book, but it might have reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that all written was his books where many are self pubs. WP:NAUTHOR also covers being covered per WP:GNG. Strongly, we know this article contains vagues of uncited words. Also trivial mentions doesn't meet notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar A. Ayaz edit

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. @AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Iftikhar Ayaz easily satisfies criteria #1 of WP:ANYBIO, having received honours from Queen Elizabeth II as both a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) and an Officer of the British Empire (OBE). On top of this, Ayaz satisfies WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, including this 2016 feature article published by AllAfrica.com, "Tanzanian Bestowed With Honours by Queen Elizabeth", which covers his entire life in considerable detail, from his early life and emigration from India to Tanzania; to his education in Tanzania and teacher training in Kenya; to his early career as a government education officer in Tanzania; his graduate studies in Britain; his return to Tanzania to found the Tanzanian Commonwealth Society; and his activism as a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. (Please log in to Wikipedia Library to read the full article on ProQuest.) The 2015 article in Rabwah Times, "Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad AYAZ awarded Knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II" covers additional detail about his work with the United Nations. Of course, in addition to all of this, as Honorary Consul for Tuvalu to the United Kingdom, he is frequently quoted on issues including climate change (such as in this 2007 article in Herald on Sunday in New Zealand "BRITAIN Plea to stop atolls sinking into Pacific", plus many others now cited in the article including the brief quotes in The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal Online. This article was in terrible shape when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been improved considerably (with room for further improvement and expansion), and overall it's quite a remarkable story of a life of a notable living person. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- specifically per Cielquiparle's analysis of criterion #1 of ANYBIO. Central and Adams (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that ANYBIO #1 does not establish notability. WP:ANYBIO states clearly that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." We still need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber edit

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 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, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable

Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ameer edit

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

This guy fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. A search seems to only one article with his name in it and it only covers him tangentially. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Cricket. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete samee converse 01:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several references using this search by focusing my search on Dawn.com, a leading English-language newspaper in Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources here seem to all be tangential coverage of him playing for his team. The first hit isn't even of Abdul Ameer but of a M. Abdul Ameer who seems to be unrelated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too poor to stay on Wikipedia, not much to salvage around here. Acartonadooopo (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Acartonadooopo, it's the English Wikipedia's rule that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. It doesn't matter whether the current version of the article is "too poor to stay on Wikipedia", because the question here at AFD is whether the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers Not sure I'm seeing enough in a search to suggest a WP:GNG pass, however there could well be offline coverage. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbyfan22 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources likely to exist in Pakistan; taking 100 first-class wickets is no mean feat. AA (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources likely to exist" is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, zero SIGCOV to be found and no evidence that anything exists offline. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing found or presented which meets SIGCOV. This is a BLP. Subject has received bare mentions from a single source. Everything else is unsupported assertion and a stats database. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found in article or in BEFORE which meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.

also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, which is clearly the applicable guideline. rspεεr (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR at this point for the roles in notable films she starred in. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's claim of appearing in numerous films lacks verifiable evidence, thus failing to meet WP:ARTISTS. The available coverage appears to be routine per WP:ROTM and lacks the depth required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Courier-Journal article wasn't routine, and by what sources we have, Hassan was in these films, noting that the sourcing of the related film articles was light (thus my 'Weak Keep'). I suspect however that her appearance in some of them was exaggerated to make it appear she was a lead when she wasn't. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, The Courier-Journal is great however unfortunately it's no where near enough to establish notability, Not sure if her roles have been major or minor but either way I cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films" and we know she was in several notable films (i.e., films with articles). If you're saying the subject fails NACTOR, are you saying these linked films should be reviewed in AfD? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But NACTOR states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films which I can't see reflected here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Partial filmography" in the article links to five notable films (currently adjudged by Wikipedia) and I suppose it's our opinion as to whether her roles were significant in them. It's part of why I say "Weak Keep" as I don't want to overjudge. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say whether she fails NACTOR #1 but personally I would say she does and despite the The Courier-Journal link imho she still fails #2 too, FWIW all of her roles could've been one-bit/minor roles so article linkage doesn't mean anything here, (and leading on to your last point nicely) There's just not enough info to determine whether she meets NACTOR #1 or not but either way I would obviously say she still fails #2, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In NACTOR, it says #1 or #2. The subject doesn't have to meet both criteria to pass it. I accept that we would need to judge whether the roles are significant but as it was difficult, source-wise, to drill down on these films, I don't want to rush to judgment, thus my "Weak Keep". I still say the key here is to look at the film articles and see if they should be kept. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the articles and their sources as well as looked online - The Gold Bracelet is just about notable with the rest not being notable so imho one notable film and one notable paper cite is still not enough irrespective of what role she played, I guess the article can be redirected to The Gold Bracelet if really desired,

You're more than welcome to search for these films for yourself and judge for yourself, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for welcoming me to do something I've already done. :) So, if only one film is notable, why do the others have articles? (can be taken as a rhetorical question) Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. If you've searched these articles before now then why the fuck are you here questioning their notability ?. Go nominate them if you think they're not notable.

Because get this Stefen - some articles go undetected and unnoticed, ever thought about that ?, I suspect not :). –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also for future reference go read WP:BLUDGEON. You've !voted keep so as such you don't need to reply to every single delete !vote regurgitating the same line again and again. –Davey2010^Talk 18:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, and it is eminently reasonable to challenge a position. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for you to be cross with me here. I have been professional and I expect the same in return. The fact that the articles exist show that they are currently presented as notable subjects, whether they deserve this determination or not. I may well prod the articles in question, but for the time-being, they cannot be dismissed. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but there nothing here to indicate a pass on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions edit

Academics and educators edit

Eugene Stanaland edit

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:NPOL as a local politician and WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG; none of the handful of reliable, secondary, independent sources in the article (or in WP:BEFORE search) pass the WP:SIGCOV test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. I have added more secondary sourcing to back up previous claims, as well as more general information. I believe it covers significant coverage with sources such as Radio World and various newspapers outside the local area. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purwati (internist) edit

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

Written with a promotional tune and does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, as the published research output is relatively modest, as is her academic career (Scopus H-index of 7; very few citations for 1st-author papers, total of 142). In terms of general notability, the coverage of her patent is not high by international standards, nor is there evidence of impact of the work (other than patent filing). FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Hello, I agree that the subject of this article has not yet gained international recognition. However, in Indonesia, he is regarded as a prominent stem cell expert who frequently garners attention from major, reputable Indonesian mass media.

He holds the distinction of being a MURI record holder for receiving the most Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the Stem Cell Field in 2022, a testament to his significant contributions. Despite the challenge of finding additional sources regarding the impact of his research, these achievements underscore his expertise and standing in the field.

He was partner of the COVID-19 Response Acceleration Task Force during Covid-19 pandemic to advancing research, particularly in investigating Drug and Stem Cell Combination Regimens in 2020. Furthermore, his expertise is actively leveraged by Universitas Airlangga and hospitals to enhance stem cell services.

In 2019, as stated in the article, she received national recognition, being listed as an 'Indonesian Young Scientist' by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education.

I remain guided by the notability criteria (Wikipedia:Notability). He is quite well-known in Indonesia despite not being internationally renowned. His notability has also been explained in the article through his career and achievements. Rahmatdenas (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

none of the sources looks reliable, with some being self-published, and the burden is on you to show that these sources are reliable, see [[WP:BURDEN]. As far as resources goes, this might all be a hoax as work around stem cells and COVID is highly cited, and I cannot see anything that suggests that.

PS: you mean "she" not "he" FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Dolmetsch edit

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

WP:NOTLINKEDIN. The subject of the article fails several of our notability policies: there is no evidence of WP:INDEPTH coverage – all references are to publications where he was co-author, or to unrelated press releases about drugs that don't even mention the subject's name, not speaking about confirming his role or achievements. There is no evidence of compliance with any criteria listed under WP:NACADEMIC either. The listed awards are minor awards, none has an article (note: NIH Director's Pioneer Award is not an award honouring its recipients but a research initiative).

Worst: there are many unverified claims in the article: the subject, who left Novartis in 2020, is claimed to have been "involved in early successes in gene therapy, including (...) Zolgensma (...) and Hemgenix". However, Novartis was not involved in Zolgensma development – the drug was developed by a US startup Avexis which received marketing authorisation for it just before the subject left Novartis, while remaining a separate company from Novartis; whereas Hemgenix is not a success yet, as it's barely a year on the market with very little uptake from payers outside the US. Claims that Dolmetch contributed to their "successes" appear unfounded and entirely unsourced WP:PUFFERY.

Nearly every sentence needs one or more of {{citation needed}}, {{fails verification}}, or {{secondary source needed}}.

All in all, with lack of independent coverage, I don't think this coporate staff member fulfils our criteria of encyclopaedia-level notability. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primarily through role in Novartis over many years rather than through academic posts. His research output is high; unusually, for a mid-career scientist, has had an interview published in a peer-reviewed journal (Nature Medicine). While there might be concerns about particular claims, these can be resolved by normal editing. Scopus H-factor of 49 suggest significant impact. Klbrain (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Role in Novartis over many years? What policy would this be based on? Because there are tens of thousands of corporations in the world, perhaps hundreds of thousands of C-level executives, and he wasn't even C-level, so we'd need a policy if this was to be a notability criteria. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, also a few book listings found [18], mentions he was profiled in the NY Times in 2014, and here [19]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NYT profile is an interview, but is here: [20]. Allan Nonymous, also this [21] hits us the trifecta for WP:GNG. (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly per WP:PROF#C1 and the multiple first-author quadruple-digit-citation papers in his Google Scholar profile. The additional evidence linked above by Oaktree is also suggestive (although not yet definitive) of possible notability through WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two citations precisely, from 1997 and 1998 (so citations span 25+ years). Barely a dozen first-author articles, the last one from 2018. 65 publications indexed by PubMed[22] – a mediocre result for a late-career researcher. Sorry. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a paper from 2001. Just FYI, the threshold for citations is generally around 100, this is beyond that by an order of magnitude. A claim that he fails WP:NACADEMIC is thus pretty weak. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first-author citation counts I'm seeing on Google Scholar are: 2426 (1998), 2394 (1997), 1112 (2001), 358 (2011), 233 (1994), 209 (2003), etc. And many many more citations if you include all his papers, not only the first-author ones. That is a strong record, over a wide range of years. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:PROF#C1 which he clearly passes with 20+ papers that have 100+ citations. There isnt much more that needs to be said. --hroest 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Meck edit

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

Article without relevance and without accredited and reliable references not properly sourced, I do not see its encyclopedic notoriety GiladSeg (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, California, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in poor shape, but this looks like a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1 to me: even in a high citation field, several papers with citation numbers in the thousands is solid. This is supported by an obituary [23] from a learned society, another [24] in an academic journal, and a special issue dedicated to the subject in the same journal [25]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for WP:PROF#C1 is strong, and separately the independent obituaries above make a case for WP:GNG notability. (The Duke Today obituary is also usable as an in-depth source but not independent enough for GNG.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, the case for #C1 is strong. Some of the web sources (I did my own search) are very strong, indicating peer recognition. Improve, of course, but AfD was a bit harsh.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per NPROF#1 without any doubt base on citations and h-index of 98 and possibly GNG. --hroest 12:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Ldm1954, @hroest This article is not seen as such, nor does it have an encyclopedic development. From my perspective, it seems more like a Curriculum Vitae that only focuses on highlighting the merits, awards and distinctions of Warren Meck, it does not indicate where he was born and what year he studied. Furthermore, the references are not so independent except for references from university institutions where you work and another one that is a blog, they are not independent sources. GiladSeg (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points, however this is WP:NOTCLEANUP. This discussion is to determine if the article subject is notable, and if so, then it should stay. You are welcome to improve the article, delete the fluff and the promotional content. Claims that are not supported by sources should be removed. --hroest 14:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Malik edit

AfDs for this article:

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

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yussuf Aleem edit

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

Recently prodded, deprodded with a note about "inherited notability" that I did not understand. I did not find the kind of citation record that suggests WP:NPROF, nor reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and GNG looks unlikely here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally prodded the article as the references did not, in my eyes, meet the level to establish sufficient notability, nor did anything I could find about him. I have already enquired on their talk page, but will ping @Tanhasahu here in case they want to explain why they believe the article to be notable. Golem08 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. The de-PRODding editor's edit summary was "Somehow notability is inherited", which is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED, which stands for the exact opposite proposition: that notability is not inherited. TJRC (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability, under WP:PROF or any of the other notability guidelines. As others have noted, notability is never "inherited" and the de-prodder clearly applied completely incorrect reasoning here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet NPROF, low citation count on GScholar, no countervailing factors to suggest this is a keep. Oblivy (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew W. McKeon edit

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, top cited work appears to only have 20 citations in scholar, and no reviews on any published books. Psychastes (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NPROF. Appears that the article's original author created a number of articles for various philosophy professors at Michigan State University of questionable notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Connecticut, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My off-wiki experience evaluating philosophers is that it's kind of strange. They often don't have many journal citations, nor books with many reviews, but the other philosophers in the same subdiscipline still have a strong idea who the important ones are, and I don't know how to guess that from the public record. In the case of McKeon, we definitely have nothing in the citation record nor the article that would suggest notability. Searching for reviews of his book The Concept of Logical Consequence is confusing because of Etchemendy's very notable and well cited book with the same title. I found only one review, by Núñez Puertas in Apuntes Filosóficos [26], far from enough even to justify an article on the book instead of its author. He does appear to have another book, Arguments and Reason-Giving, for which I found no reviews at all. In the absence of access to whatever information the philosophers use to evaluate their own, I think we have to go on what we can see for ourselves, and that's not very much. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find anything that supports WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR, with no reviews found on JSTOR. I simply cannot find any strong arguments in support of notability. --hroest 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Rauscher edit

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

Fails WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Longhornsg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Michigan. Longhornsg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable citations in GS for philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. His book Naturalism and Realism in Kant's Ethics is the subject of multiple in-depth reviews in reliable sources.[27][28][29] I already noted this three years ago when declining a PROD so it really should have been checked before nominating. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yudelman edit

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

This appears to be a WP:BLP1E for an otherwise non-notable postdoctoral researcher. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a slam-dunk case for deletion for that reason. 47.186.144.163 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Canada, Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the dictionary example of BLP1E. Alansohn (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NPROF looks unlikely at best, leaving only the incident at the demonstration, which is indeed a BLP1E. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear BLP1E, no other notability requirement met. FortunateSons (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is known for his research in ancient and modern political theory as well as the early modern origins of liberalism. 142.181.101.184 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a reputable scholar. 142.181.101.184 (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- There is nothing in the article that supports his reputation or his scholarship. There is no c.v., no dissertation topic, the briefest assertion that his PhD is from Boston College, but no year, nor information about the location or possession of a BA, MA or any other academic degree. There is nothing to say how long he's been at ASU, but suggestions that he is a one term, travelling adjunct at a number of different schools. We have no way of knowing anything about him - ASU appears to have eliminated his biography, and he has eliminated his LinkedIn biography. We equally do not know what his 'research in ancient and modern political theory' is, nor what is intended by the 'early modern origins of liberalism'. The absence of all of this would tend to negate your claim of reputable scholarship.

174.18.73.211 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GS citations are negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

~~That would make him more notable. Are you arguing for a keep? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC).~~[reply]

Incubate in draftspace, as it seems coverage is picking up, so we should see if more SIGCOV arises. BhamBoi (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of him and his work or of the incident at the protest? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good points about the scope of coverage. I find it hard to believe that someone who had articles written about them in such mainstream media as USA Today, The Hill, CNN, AP, NBC, etc. wouldn't be notable, though. But this does seem to be a case of BLP1E, and policy prevails. BhamBoi (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep - This is not the case for delete per BLP1E, as BLP1E states clearly that it does allows for single events to be included: "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented."

this single event ties in to a larger story of the mass protests at this university that also ties to a much larger event of the mass protests across the world that tie to an even much larger story of the Hamas/Israel war.

Firing of a prof's for attacking students at the Uni he teaches is in, it self is a fairly notable event. It should be tied to larger event pages up the chain.

also this single event has been picked up in multiple countries by national news coverage and has evolved to the firing of the individual in question. 2604:3D08:7779:5700:78E0:EB35:6507:8B71 (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally in those cases, the article should be about the incident rather than the person. However I'm still skeptical that this incident is itself sufficiently notable for a standalone article, rather than (perhaps) a mention in Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States or a similar article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This incident its self now has pretty broad coverage, could it be altered so the main subject is about the incident rather than the person? What would be an example I could follow to do this and what would be the best name for the article? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I see you’ve been adding references to the article, note can be found under "described by source" on his Wikidata item. BhamBoi (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I suspect it's still an incident of only passing notability. I think it might be better left to a mention in Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States unless it receives enduring coverage. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florian G. Kaiser edit

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

89.5% of this article's content was written by FgkaiseR5131, who has seemingly admitted to being the subject of this article. I will skip reporting this to WP:COIN since this user has stopped editing after Liz warned them of the COI policy on their talk page in December 2023. Google and Google Scholar searches do not return significant external coverage and all three of the article's references not written by Kaiser only discuss the Campbell paradigm, rather than supporting the idea that Kaiser has been significantly impactful in this area of social psychology. While this subject could be considered prominent with an h-index of 59, there is no external coverage to support this and the other notability criteria for academics do not apply (e.g., prestigious awards, fellowships, professorships, etc.). BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does this subject meet C8 of WP:NPROF from spending a year as the editor of the Journal of Environmental Psychology? This is not my field, so I can't tell whether this is a "major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." Qflib (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

correction: Co-editor... Qflib (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the interpretation of "subject area," as it is the top environmental psychology journal, but it is not within the top 50 of Scopus' 2023 rankings of psychology journals. Given that subject-specific notability is therefore borderline amid a lack of third-party coverage, I would also be fine with moving this to draftspace. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Trachtenberg edit

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

This does not appear to be a notable person. The article lists he is a history professor and that he appeared before a Congressional committee (the cited source for the latter is about a completely different person and does not mention him at all, so I am not sure this is correct). He is not a public figure, not well known, nor an especially prominent scholar. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not loving that this nomination is the first edit of a brand new account, because that definitely doesn't smack of being an incredibly unusual first edit by anyone actually new to this platform - as opposed to, say, the correction of a minor typo. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has the nominator done a WP:BEFORE search? Because that would also be remarkable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One way or another, I'm going to oppose based on the in-depth coverage of this scholar's views since as least as far back as 2018, providing a clear WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG case (outside of WP:NACADEMIC). Indeed, the man appears to have been getting in notable scuffles with power and driving people up the wall for absolutely years. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes it is my first post. I am in this field (well history) and saw a link to the page. Perhaps we can focus the discussion on the merits of arguments rather than number of edits.

In terms of academic influence, look at Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0t_itmQAAAAJ&hl=e

A standard metric is an h index equal to number of years since Phd: his is 4 (see cited by tab)!! He only has 115 cites which would not get tenure at an R1 research university.

Now for the points you raise. How does getting into scuffles with power make someone notable? The article you link to simply debunks his work. And the other article is a single mention in Al-Jeezera. Several dozen scholars get far more media attention on this.

If there are more notable aspects related to this entry, please do add them. But I am not seeing them. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's academic credentials are only the main concern if WP:NACADEMIC is the metric by which we are measuring it. If the metric is WP:GNG, all forms of WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage in RS contribute. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I guess you mean he is a public figure? I do a Google news source and omitting academic or local mentions I do not see much. In Google news I see two mentions in ten years to major media (your article and a la times one). How is this sustained coverage? SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for WP:PROF#C5 (named chair) is a little unclear because he received the chair as an associate professor and was only promoted to full professor very recently [30]. Nevertheless he has a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR through many published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The central measure of notability in academics is citations, and the totals I mentioned are in no way notable. Why is a book review notable (and how many are you referring to?). His books are almost exclusively read by academics so I think think that is the criteria the subject should be judged by. Notable historians and social scientists have hundreds of thousands of votes per book. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should be "cites" not "votes" in .y last sentence. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation counts have some use in STEM fields whose practitioners generally published articles in journals and cite each others' papers. They work much less well in the humanities, where the major publications are books and the sign of recognition of a book is not its citations but its reviews. Some books are well cited despite that, but it is not usually a good indicator for notability. More, reviews fit much better into Wikipedia's notability ecosystem than citation. A review is an independent, reliably-published source with in-depth coverage of the subject's contributions. We now have 13 of these sources in the article. WP:GNG requires only two. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the reviews referenced on the page are academic book reviews. A book is itself considered notable for 2-3 reviews in reliable sources. Here we that and more (academic ones) for three books - so that's three notable works. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a purely practical perspective, an entire "scholarly views" section could almost certainly be built out just based on these book reviews alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Oh yeah! Totally missed the sheer volume of reviews there on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on David Eppstein's note about the timing of the named chair and full professor: in my experience (at least in the humanities; his might be the same or different) sometimes people get a major award or an offer from a university that would be a step up, and the counter-offer from the university to keep someone who was just recognized as a star is promotion, but this has to go through university systems incuding external review and might take a year or more, so the one thing a university can do is offer a named chair immediately to show their dedication while waiting for the system to play out. I know of a case of a composer at a good college, but not primarily known for music, who won one of the highest prizes for composition while she was an assistant professor, who was promoted over the course of three years to full professor, but was given a named chair immediately as a sort of "we'll keep our word" gesture to retain her. In any case, it still signals notability for WP cases. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. (I have also seen cases where the timing was the opposite: it was actually faster to hire someone, despite that process usually being slow at high levels, than to grind through the bureaucracy needed to approve the named chair.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tenured to a named chair and significant reviews passing WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 20:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the reviews added, this is a pretty clear WP:NAUTHOR pass regardless of whether or not the chair he holds qualifies for WP:NPROF#5. Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Book reviews are not a central metric for academic books. If you do not like citations, then you would either look at reviews in important outlets or more so book prizes (at most two of the reviews listed could possibly be considered important outlets). All that as an aside, five or fewer reviews per book would not even stand out in the subject's own department. At a minimum mid-double digits would be considered notable. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally are. These aren't reviews written by a bookworm on Goodreads, these are academic reviews in published journals. The article currently lists 13 across 3 books. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WP:PROF#C5 -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the nomination statement that the source about the congressional hearings "does not mention him at all" is false. It mentions him twice. The mention is in the subscriber-only part, not the free-to-the-public part of the source, but that should be irrelevant. Unfortunately both mentions are brief and in passing, so I don't think that source counts for much. It didn't source what it was used for here (a description of a political position taken by the subject) and for that reason I removed it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Delano edit

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

No sign of notability. Only source is an IMDB entry. Search returns no coverage. Fails WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obituaries for people with the same name, but nothing found otherwise for this film person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Bill Delano created this about himself. Aside from it being his autobiography, there is no substantive content. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, California, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per — Maile . Self-promotional article of a non-notable filmmaker (here are his personal websites: 1, 2). No SIGCOV at all of him or any of his work. Surprised this article has been up for 17 years. Mooonswimmer 18:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass any element of WP:NPROF, either. Qflib (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as autobiography. Better Nuncio (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Wp:GNG and simple WP:42 FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern edit

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan Aliyev edit

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

NO GNG. Created for advertising and PR purposes. The article is submitted for deletion as there are grounds for its deletion.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's (Correspondentman) right to edit on Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been indefinitely restricted by administrators. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Azerbaijan. Skynxnex (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 and G11. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad edit

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

After the cruft was removed, it seems there's nothing that supports WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No significant independent RS coverage that I could find. Only hits in WP:LIBRARY are his research papers and a quote in Men's Health about growth hormone therapy. His book is self-published and I couldn't find any reviews. That leaves us with WP:NPROF criteria. I think the research impact criterion is the only one that might apply, but I'm unfamiliar with the subject area so will leave that for others to evaluate. Jfire (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jfire, others, I do not see signs of significant academic impact here. I see on Google Scholar several papers with a moderate number of citations, but in a medium-to-higher citation field. (Even in a lower citation field, I'm generally looking for several papers with more citations than the highest cited one I see of his.) Awards listed in the article are all WP:MILL, as is membership on an editorial board. I was cursory in checking NAUTHOR and GNG, but did not quickly see a pass. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sadeghi-Nejad is one of the most notable experts in the field of pediatric endocrinology, globally, and his publications support that. A niche medical field does not have the same number of citations as more general research areas. In addition, the book Dreams of Persia is an important contribution to Persian-American culture and linguistic heritage. KatMaldon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — KatMaldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the discussion above and given his citation numbers, I'm not sure we're at notability. I don't find critical reviews of his books, so there wouldn't bee AUTHOR notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward T. Jackson edit

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

Non-notable academic, without a lasting claim to relevance for the general public. Sadads (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly meets WP:NPROF criterion 3 as an elected member of the Royal Society of Arts.Central and Adams (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FRSA definitely does not pass #C3. It is (currently at least) the sort of fellowship given to paid subscribers as a way of letting them express that they are interested in the arts. It is not the sort of fellowship given only to people with significant academic accomplishments. See the description of what it means at Royal Society of Arts § Fellowship. This has come up repeatedly before but unfortunately I do not know of a good link where that past wisdom has been collected. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's a senior research fellow at a Canadian University [31], I'm not sure if that passes PROF notability. Carleton is a mid-level Canadian university in Ottawa. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was hoping the Citizenship medal would get some coverage, but I can only find his name in a list of winners. I don't see notability due to a lack of sourcing. If the chair position in my question above makes him notable, I'll revisit my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep': Passed WP:PPROF, check This , clearly passes PROF notability. _Usimite (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)'[reply]
No, it doesn't. That just says that some research group hired him to be a researcher ("senior research fellow"). The word "fellow" is overloaded in academia, and again, this is not the sort of highest-level honorary membership in an academic society that would pass #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no evidence that he passes any of the criteria in WP:NPROF, including the material in the writeup given by Usimite. The criteria are very specific, and people have to be demonstratively notable in one or more of them. His award from the Canadian Evaluation Society is not big enough, as the relevant chapter has only ~450 members which is too small -- and it is a local not a national award. While he has contributed importantly to the University, it looks routine (WP:MILL) to me. The only possible pass is the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship which is notable enough to have a page. However, it is pretty low in the order for Canada, see Canadian honours order of wearing so I don't view it as passing the wider WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the article was full of puffery also. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to Criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC, he has been 'appointed administrative post at a major academic institution' CA CV, along with criterion 5 according to which he has been 'Chair of Carleton Centre for Community Innovation' here. Authored in Daily FT, Huffpost, Winnipeg Free Press which has some indication towards criterion 7 within WP:NACADEMIC. Ifiwereanywhereelse (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are not fully quoting C6 which states "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone". Also C5 is for academic (endowed) chairs, not (administrative) chair of a center. Lastly in C7 the text is specific, "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area", and your three links (which don't appear to be in the page) are his articles, which is different from others quoting him as an academic expert. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NPROF. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman edit

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, History, Sports, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as NACADEMIC. I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references. His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar. It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Sorin Biris edit

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

Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a GoogleScholar profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with h-index 66 and i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced. Turgidson (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified. Kannarpady, the WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal. [32][33] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations — a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's keep the discussion focused on the article and not the nominator; there's enough to unpack w/o looking at motives. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with this article, but the editor's intent in removing it is questionable. Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- the citation counts (in a high citation discipline) and one independent coverage of notability seem barely enough to keep the article. Yes, it has too many dependent sources and isn't our best article (though it is salvagable). The high citations of articles where he is last author (institution director) take away a tiny bit from his notability as a researcher but puts it exactly in notability as a director/leader in higher education research. I could, however, be persuaded to go to either a full keep or weak delete with more evidence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Kannarpady who created this article seems to work for this person: https://ualr.edu/nanotechnology/about-us/researchers-and-staff/dr-ganesh-kannarpady/

Seems like personal beef. I would delete this article SleeplessSeatle (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see some highly cited papers, even in a higher citation field, but middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper doesn't convince me of so much. There are a couple of highly cited papers where Biris is last author, but one has been retracted for research misconduct. I did some work on trimming this down into shape (as did Turgidson), and it is no longer in WP:TNT territory, but the mess leaves me unconvinced of NPROF. There is definitely room for disagreement on this one, and I can also see policy-based arguments for keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really wish you had carefully read the following pages before you made change to the article :

[^[1]]

^[2] Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ How can Alexandru Biris be so successful at University of Arkansas at Little Rock? In just 5 years Mr. Biris published in more than 240 journals, presented at numerous international conferences, and been granted more than 33 U.S. patents. - Quora|https://www.quora.com/How-can-Alexandru-Biris-be-so-successful-at-University-of-Arkansas-at-Little-Rock-In-just-5-years-Mr-Biris-published-in-more-than-240-journals-presented-at-numerous-international-conferences-and-been-granted-more
^ Reused figures lead to two chemistry retractions, one correction|[1]

We cannot use the Quora source for anything concerning a living person, as it is user generated content. The retractionwatch source is already used in the article. Neither has much to do with notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His h-factor is decent, but as others have said he is typically in the middle of the author list. This means he presumably contributed, but did not lead (last author) or do most of the work (first author). It is a fairly high citation field, so other proofs of notability matter. I see no awards, and h-factors alone should not be everything. Hence to me it is a definitive Delete. If someone can find awards I might reconsider.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Melo e Castro edit

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

Orphan article with no evidence of notability. Lecturer does not meet WP:PROF and an h-Index of 4 means the research output had little impact. Tried to find book reviews to see if the subject could meet WP:NAUTHOR but I was only able to find this one and I don't think it's enough to qualify for notability. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV as well. Contributor892z (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors. Contributor892z (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for Literature. Contributor892z (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. There is a misunderstanding here, on at least two counts. Firstly, the attainments of the subject are not as a Lecturer or in a British context, but rather in the field of Indo-Portuguese (and Portuguese) translations, and in the Lusophone world. Secondly, since the article is of niche and specialised interest (from a friend not many might understand or appreciate), it has not been updated for long. Melo e Castro's recent attainments have been overlooked in this listing. Have made some updates, please note. Fredericknoronha (talk)

@Fredericknoronha: looks like you have an undisclosed WP:COI as you mentioned you are a friend of the subject. Is that correct? Contributor892z (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not have the citations for WP:PROF nor the reviews of his books needed for WP:AUTHOR, and nothing in the article even hints at any other possible notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a possible notability claim beyond WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO, which he doesn't appear to meet. I'm sympathetic to the idea that he is notable as a translator in a particular niche, ie Lusophone works in Goa. But I'm not seeing any secondary coverage of him from that angle. I agree with David Eppstein that there is no prof/author notability claim here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, Would you care to list your three "solid" references? Regards. X (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Account has made thousands of edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia though. Doesn't seem like a problem Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the problem because you only started in Afd on the 2 May 2024 and you've never written any large articles of consequence to discover the problem. The reason its a problem is because the English Wikipedia has a much higher standard of notability requirements that most of other wikipedias and that includes the Hebrew Wikipedia. The reason for that is the paid-editing hassle that began in 2008 and ran for many years before it was fixed, that eventually led to much improvement in the BLP notability criteria, to a much higher standard than other Wikipedias. So that is reason for it. So for that editor to turn up, who hasn't edited any length on Wikipedia and doesn't know criteria is a real problem. While anybody can turn up and !vote, the statistical chance of somebody from the Hebrew wikipedia, coming to en Wikipedia, selecting this article and then coming to the Afd, minutes after I posted it, is almost zero. It does not happen. It indicates canvassing, orchestration, which is illegal on Wikipedia. It indicates that the group is working against Wikipedia, breaking the Terms of Use, and its is unfair and downright crass. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politics, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from WP:CITEKILL. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel Hila Livne (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A known activist and the article has enough references. Danny-w (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has nearly 50k edits on Hebrew wikipedia, and stated that they translate a lot of articles, quite likely just on their watchlist Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason described above. Having 50k editor on another Wikipedia doesn't for squant in Afd. The editor took this stance in a previous Afd when the same spurious argument was made, a quantitive rather than qualitive argument. Numbers of reference do not count and haven't counted for more than decade, unless its WP:THREE. Its an argument to avoid in Afd, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. scope_creep^Talk 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be fine on WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this. X (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zero^talk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zero^talk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.

Ref 1 [34] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
Ref 2 [35] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
Ref 4 [36] This is another interview. Not independent.
Ref 5 [37] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
Ref 6 [38] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
Ref 7 [39] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
Ref 8 [40] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
Ref 9 [41] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [42] Another press-release Non-RS.
Ref 11 [43] An interview. Not independent.
Ref 12 [44] Business interview. It is not independent.
Ref 13 [45] Another interview. Not independent.
Ref 14 404
Ref 15 [46] A radio interview. Not independent.
Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:

Ref 32 [47] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [48] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [49] - in Israel21c

Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Ref 17 [50] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18 [51] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Ref 19 Non-rs
Ref 20 Non-rs
Ref 21 Unable to view it
Ref 22 [52] Its a passing mention.
Ref 23 Non-rs
Ref 24 [53] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
Ref 25 [54] Essentially a passing mention.
Ref 27 [55] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
Ref 28 [56] Doesn't mention him.
Ref 29 [57] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
Ref 31 [58] A small profile. Not significant.
Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 34 Non-rs
Ref 35 [59] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 36 [60] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creep^Talk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.

Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy. X (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis for my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards. X (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Desertarun (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start: [61] [62] [63] . Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made a quantitive versus a qualitive argument in this comment and the last comment. Wikipedia strives for quality at every level and for some reason, you decided to support this article even when 4 other AFC editors in good standing decided it was junk. You have rationalised somehow that those other editors didn't make a proper WP:BEFORE review, before declining which is both disengengous and a failure of WP:AGF. Your essentially stating they have a lower standard of reviewing at AFC than yourself, yet you can't identify here what is good source amongst all these low quality sources and offer 3 paid for PR sources as though they valid, the best there is. It is an extremly poor argument for a supposed NPP reviewer in good standing, that fails WP:AGF in disparaging four good editors, one of which is myself who has written close to 750 articles (you have written 17 small article) and has almost twice the number of edits as you. Current consensus regarding WP:THREE, which changed last summer at a WP:RFA and is now considered best practice, is three WP:SECONDARY reference. Even though you happen to provide three reference for other editors to examine, which are extremely poor. I don't have confidence in you as an NPP reviewer. Lets looks at these references:

[64] This has video shot by the Shine company, where Dror does an another interview. It is classic PR where he WP:PUFF's himself up. That is not independent.
[65] The images come from Leaplearner which is Dror's company. It is PR and is not independent, failing the criteria.
[66] The images here have been provided by Dror. Its states it clearly. It is more PR and is not independent. His business partner states: "Hussein tells ISRAEL21c. “People like us have a responsibility to do something big." That is not idependent either. Its is a busines PR article. Its may be non-profit but it still not independent. scope_creep^Talk 17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far no indepth, secondary, independent coverage has been offerered. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many many elements in your post, include IMO mischaracterizations, ad hominem approaches and many which I consider to be out of bounds regarding Wikipedia behavior. It's not my MO to pursue such things. I'm not going to engage further on that and am content to let others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One quick exxtra note, having images supplied by or credited to the person in the image is common, not something that deprecates the published piece that it is used in. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels as odd as this AfD, to be honest. From a business point of view, I'd be a clear delete - I agree with scope_creep's analysis of the WP:THREE sources presented by North8000. It does seem like he could be a notable protestor, but the best-looking links I can see are either Youtube videos or interviews, not significant coverage. And there looks like some paywalled articles I can't access which might be significant coverage. I wouldn't have accepted this at AfC, it needs a complete re-write, it reads like it's written close to the subject, it's badly source-bombed, but it's not clearly not notable. I'm really not sure how to !vote here on notability grounds but notability isn't clear from the time I've spent parsing it, but if you made me make a decision about this one I'd draftify it. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From where did you get the idea that interviews are not significant coverage? How many non-notable people are regularly sought for interviews? Moreover, what someone says about themself in a interview is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Zero^talk 07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't significant coverage for WP:BLP's. Interviews can't prove notability for BLP's and that has been consensus for more than a decade. They are WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't know where you get this idea that is both misleading and disengenous that WP:ABOUTSELF seems to trump WP:BLP and WP:BIO. It is a complete of misreading of policy and completely out of date. I've done 1000's of Afd and I've never read anybody making a statement like that. Never seen it mention once. More so, concering your comment above, We live in the age of internet and youtube where folk with millions of followers get interviewed on the most banal things and that is seen by quanities of people that even in the golden age of mainstream press in the 1940-60's, could never compare. It is a false argument. There is no analysis here to show Dror has lasting notable, by secondary sources, the standard way of measurement of notability for people. It's Dror showing up at the camera and talking, for every reference. Its all surface and no depth. scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all applications of WP:ABOUTSELF are to primary sources, so that's not a valid argument. (Anyway, that is about the reliability of the content of the interview, which is different from the reliability of the interview itself.) As for interviews, it is not the mere fact of an interview that proves notability but the independence of the venue and the reason for the interview. If a journalist goes to an event and interviews whoever happens to be there, that obviously does not indicate notability. Nor does an interview sponsored by the interviewee. But if a journalist specifically seeks out a particular person to interview for publication, that is an obvious case of notability indicated by an independent reliable source. The independent reliable source in this case is the journalist and their news outlet. Notability is also indicated if the journalist's report emphasises the notability. So it is incorrect to just dismiss interviews out of hand; instead they have to be examined for their circumstances. I don't see any such examination here. For example, dismissing this as non-independent as you did is wrong unless Judy Maltz works for Ami Dror. By the way, your signature is ugly and visually annoying. Zero^talk 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying the newspaper and the journalist in this case are somehow exceptional and should be reliable in this instance, even though time and history has shown that argument to be be wholly false, in any number of ways, i.e. subject to human vagaries of corruption, incomeptence and all the other problems that beset humanity, human bias and political favour. There is no basis argument for that on Wikipedia. This is another curious and unusual fringe argument that I've not seen. For me, its never been the channel nor the venue that is important but the source that provides the information and whether another source reflects that information, making it uniquely idependent of the first, that is important in WP:V. That is whole reason for WP:SECONDARY sources. The argument has been reinforced at every level in my whole Wikipedia existance, right back to 2005. Its has no validity. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only time I seen that argument is in talk pages when its been used to support using some information like the date of birth taken from a twitter message or linkedin profile, not for a mainstream BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a logic error in confusing the reliability of an interview article (which means the interview is correctly reported) with the reliability of the interview content (which means the person being interviewed told the truth). There is no contradiction in a reliable interview article quoting the interviewee telling lies. The notability tick is placed if the interview article is reliable. Articles by journalists in respectable newspapers are one of the sources most commonly accepted as reliable in WP. In this example, as Haaretz has always been considered reliable, this is assumed to be a reliable report. Whether the things that Dror told the journalist are reliable is irrelevant for notability and thus irrelevant for AfD. (I would be happy to cite Haaretz in our article with attribution to Dror, but that's another argument.) Incidentally, I was already an admin when you joined WP so you won't get anywhere with the longevity argument. Zero^talk 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete nonsense. Yes, its true that newspapers are generally a good source, I use them all the time, but that covenant only holds when when there has been research by the journalist to construct the article not to turn up and ask a few questions of the interviewee and convey it verbatim. To say such a statement makes me question your competence. It is a not question of reliablity anyway. I never questioned that aspect in all the comments above. The problem is independence. There is not a single piece of information here that doesn't come directly from Dror. Thereis no filter. There is no analysis or verification from any other source as far as I can see. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you have no idea how much background research was done by the journalist for that article, and you brought no evidence for its unreliability. You just asserted it. Zero^talk 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be attempting to put words in my mouth, for the second time. I never made any mention of reliability in any argument. The problem is there is no corroborating evidence to show this individual is notable, nothing. Its all comes from him talking. All of it. Its a question of independence, not reliability. Interviews don't add up to squat. I can't make any progress with you. I suspect your involved somehow with your Freudian slip above, saying "our" article. Your views are diametrically opposed to the majority of folk who write content of Wikipedia and expect to work inside consensus. I'll not make any other comments to you, from this point forward. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing articles about people for GNG, I always discount interviews as non-secondary sources as required by GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid the context creep which might be starting, here was the context of me mentioning those three sources. "IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist.....For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:" So it was nothing more than that, it was not explanation of my own overall opinion on "whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist" North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my opinion on an answer to that question is a strong "yes". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I see WP:THREE invoked I always assume it's because the three sources presented clearly pass GNG, which I do not believe was the case (they all just sort of quoted him.) As I noted I'm not really sure where to fall on this, but if there are three that stood out which clearly pass GNG, I'd be happy to switch my !vote to a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, I did not bring up that essay, nor say that my assessment was based just on those three. It is based on going through a few thousand articles during NPP reviews and taking about 100 to AFD. GNG sourcing in this article is far stronger than a typical kept bio article; conversely criteria and application advocated by someone here would have about 3/4 of Wikipedia's bio articles deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't do a WP:BEFORE on it. Your joking? scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your insulting comment is doubly out of line. WP:BEFORE refers to person doing the AFD which is you. Secondly, I never said that anything that you could derive that statement from, even if it was applicable to me (which it isn't). You need to ease up on things regarding other editors here, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with that statement on 3/4ths of bios being deleted based on these "stricter" standards. The sourcing for this particular article just isn't that great. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look pretty WP:GNG solid to me:

Ref 3 [67] - Haaretz
Ref 32 [68] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [69] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [70] - in Israel21c

--Omer Toledano (talk) Omer Toledano (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all interviews with the subject, they don't pass the secondary prong of WP:GNG, and only Ref 3 is different from the one North8000 presented. They're also all business interviews, which can be solicited by subjects for marketing purposes (not insinuating this is the case, and WP:NCORP doesn't apply because it's a biography, but similar precautions need to be taken here). If he passes WP:GNG, it's likely because he's been covered independently as a protestor. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omert33, Ref 3 (Haaretz) is mostly an interview with 2 short paragraphs of texts followed up by primary elements, it's just him talking about himself and his activities. Ref 32 (Shine News) is also more of the same. Ref 33 (Calcalist), is even a more prevalent interview, from the starting paragraph. Ref 30 (Israel21c) is also like the rest here. X (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The "3/4" was just my off the cuff guess. On your last point, I never said that the GNG sourcing on this article was great, just stronger than average. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added references (notability):

Ref 14 (current) [71] - The Times of Israel
Ref 36 (current) [72] - TechCrunch

-- Omer Toledano (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are passing mentions and Techcrunch is trash. Nobody uses it except UPE editors. Both of the again are not independent, more evidence to show that it all comes from Dror. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gonna keep this short since we're at the 7-day deadline, but I find myself agreeing with scope_creep's source analysis more than anyone else's. The sources presented by Omert33 are passing mentions or not independent. Interviews usually are not independent from the subject, and they lack the kind of analysis and critical assessment we usually find in WP:RS. A final thank you to the closer who decided to reopen this to let me !vote. To the nominator, consider a renomination with a source assessment table if you choose to renominate this. Pilaz (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee edit

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

I'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Martial arts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story and I'm amazed he hasn't been featured in NPR or something... I don't see anything we'd use, no news coverage, nothing, for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than mentions of his degrees and being a professor, I cannot find anything to convince GNG.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent sigcov appears in the Fayetteville Observer (more, book review) and Miami Herald (cont., later). His Google Scholar may suggest an NPROF pass too but I don't know the field well enough. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the multiple sources with SIGCOV provided by Hameltion are enough for a GNG pass. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per GNG and per WP:NPROF#1 based on his GS profile, he seems to be highly cited for his field in ethics/philosophy. Also there is enough evidence for a GNG pass.--hroest 07:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 we also have a case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of his books [73] [74] [75] [76]. Each case is borderline but I think together they're enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable. The subject overwhelmingly cites himself, never seen this before. See my comment below. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Easily searchable on google and has a myriad of academic articles. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that this article was previously AFD'd under another name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am considering this article strongly in favour of deletion. In 2022, the article was deleted (AFD#1 Robert W. McGee) and recreated under Robert McGee. The AFD#1 Robert W. McGee is a very interesting read where the subject joined in, seemingly WP:BLUDGEONING in order to justify his article. In terms of martial arts, he has accomplishments to be proud of but nothing to show WP notability, his martial arts championships are in senior age (limited participant divisions). Unverified claims such as "1020 medals" looks like Self promotion/vanity page. I also have a huge problem almost all the citations in the article. Citations such as "AT 72, ROBERT W. MCGEE IS JUST GETTING STARTED" published by Union Institute & University where the subject earned his PHD is absolutely non-independent and unreliable. As another user mentioned, (and I verified) if you look up the work of the subject called “The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice” the majority of the citations in this work are self-citations from the subject other work. Another of his work “Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews”, we noticed self-citation rate of around 80%. Most of the sources are from his own works/self-published. It’s quite concerning. Heavy self-citation technically makes citations WP:PROF#C1 unusable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that reduces the case for #C1 notability, but your rant about how all of the other stuff he did is uninteresting does nothing to address the case for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the multiple published reviews by other people of his books. Let me spell that out: we have multiple in-depth sources about his work, independent of that work and reliably published. That also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe article would need an entire rewrite if we base the notability off this criteria (WP:AUTHOR), as barely one sentence mentions his authorship. As for the reviews you mentioned, as you said, I find them borderline and not very compelling. I may be wrong, but I'm not at all convinced of the subject's notability as an author based on WP:AUTHOR, but I would be happy to change my vote if more info is brought forward to strengthen the case for WP:AUTHOR. Edit: I noticed your "Delete" vote on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee. I still see evident self promotion as you mentioned and I still don't see great coverage to meet GNG. I am wondering what made you change your mind? Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I didn't find the books and their reviews during the previous AfD. So now I have new evidence for notability that I didn't have earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions edit

Isaac Malitz (via WP:PROD on 7 May 2024)
Wilhelm Josef Oomens (via WP:PROD on 4 May 2024)
~~Caroline Fohlin (via WP:PROD on 3 May 2024)~~
~~Yussuf Aleem (via WP:PROD on 1 May 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

[1] How can Alexandru Biris be so successful at University of Arkansas at Little Rock? In just 5 years Mr. Biris published in more than 240 journals, presented at numerous international conferences, and been granted more than 33 U.S. patents. - Quora|https://www.quora.com/How-can-Alexandru-Biris-be-so-successful-at-University-of-Arkansas-at-Little-Rock-In-just-5-years-Mr-Biris-published-in-more-than-240-journals-presented-at-numerous-international-conferences-and-been-granted-more

[2] Reused figures lead to two chemistry retractions, one correction|[1]

[1]

[2]