Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople

WP:DSBOSS

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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 as 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|Businesspeople|~~~~}} 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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Businesspeople. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

This list is included in more general lists of business-related deletions and people for deletion.

Businesspeople

Manish Khera

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

May not be notable. Starfall2015 chat | about me 13:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan Akbas

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

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

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

Gail Jones (entrepreneur)

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

An orphan article. Most of the sources are small mentions like confirming she sat on boards and some dead links. Trivia like "Jones donated £100,000 to the Conservative Party in September 2019" doesn't add to notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and England. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to redirect to Lawrence Jones (businessman) or UKFast, with a preference for the latter, since that's where she gets her notability from. There's some sources, but they do not describe her outside of these contexts, and the'y certainly aren't GNG qualifying. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - UKFast no longer exists, merged with ANS in 2022. Inasmuch as that is her claim to notability, maybe just delete. Her husband Lawrence Nigel Jones is a convicted rapist serving 15 years in prison for multiple criminal offences. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes not sure if Gail Jones would want her article to be redirected to her criminal husband. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rupali Kalita

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

Heavily promotional and very resume-like Amigao (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Finance, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to show WP:ANYBIO, general notability guidelines and significant coverage and didn't found significant coverage in mentioned references. Fade258 (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom it is a promotional article. And cited references do not demonstrate notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG.CresiaBilli (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Safier

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

Contested disinfected BLAR; a before search shows only non-RSs and 'meet Courtney Stodden's husband'-style articles. Laun chba ller 16:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I invited the community to fix up the article at WP:CLEANUP a year ago, but nothing constructive could be done. Except for the wedding stories, none of the sources are about the subject matter. In fact, before the nominator removed most or the content, it was almost all about what collaborators had achieved elsewhere. BOTTO_(T•C) 16:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nissan

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

Letting aside for a moment the promotional tone and the evident COI of the author, there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject to be found except various press releases and marketing interviews. Broc (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Israel, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regular professional at work. Not encyclopedic. gidonb (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Naidu

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Vinod Sharma

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article under Wp:GNG, Wp:BIO or Wp:ACADEMIC.

While Sharma is associated with a Guinness World Record for the largest memory lesson (2018), there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Science, Medicine, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of these sources are WP:SIGCOV that I can see, they are short blurbs (even those that I could translate from Hindi). A world record by itself does not confer notability especially as these can be essentially purchased. Clearly doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear! @Hannes Röst, No, Guinness World Records titles cannot be purchased. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can, pretty much. They're a marketing gimmick from a novelty publisher. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How ? Any reference or Discussion available ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criticism is that you can make up some really niche record like "most 10W light bulbs lit at the same time" and pay for the items to be delivered and get the people from Guinness in to confirm the record and bam you have yourself a record. AFAIK the Guinness people dont care what the record is as long as it can be verifiable and can be broken by someone else and you pay a fee (see for example this recent record for most glass bottles trapped with a Slinky in 1 minute). --hroest 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own article about the Guinness Book explains, in polite terms, how it's a racket. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO according to sources. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the evaluations by the nominator and by hroest. This is an advertisement and should be removed as such. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Saywitz

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

Lack of notability/ TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator is clearly WP:PGAMING; they made exactly 10 edits and created this page less than five days after creating their account. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An all too common phenomenonTheLongTone (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. From all appearances, the subject is a run of the mill real estate agent. We are not LinkedIn nor a real estate podcast. The creator has only written this article and a few minor copy edits. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fasih Ur Rehman (entrepreneur)

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

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

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

Fabiano Zettel

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

I am a Portuguese Wikipedia editor and have identified a pattern of promotional content originating from the account Editor.23.l. Unfortunately, the Portuguese-speaking community has not reached a definitive conclusion on the matter. This page is an example of what was mentioned: all the sources used are press releases issued by marketing companies, such as Dino, which operates specifically in this field. For those who are fluent in Portuguese, it is relatively easy to notice the similarities between the content of the cited sources and many other articles available online. This is a typical case of spam. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Health and fitness, and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page deleted from the Portuguese Wikipedia. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 05:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Brusadelli

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

Non-notable businessperson that doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. Being president of Mondelez International can be simply mentioned in that article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV to be found. Broc (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment. WP:ATD not possible here, as I don't see a way of mentioning him in the Mondelez International page. He was the director of the local UK branch, and there is no list of directors on the page. ZimZalaBim how did you envision including him in the company's article? Broc (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't scrutinize the parent article; simply noting that if a list of execs is appropriate there, then that's where we could be mentioned. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate

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

Was raised at RSN slightly over 2 months ago, not much has changed since the article was previously deleted as Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed (AfD), which isn't too surprising considering it was only 4 months ago. Sources are promotional and of questionable independence, WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA applies. Might ping previous participants later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Medicine, and Nigeria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: *Clear throat* This person is a Fellow of West African College of Surgeons. I guess we should re-read NACADEMIC together. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans Thanks for pointing that out, It’s funny how I saw this article here, I even made a search on google and I found out the old deleted revision was garbage but this fresh article seams better, maybe @Alpha3031 might by Judging based on previous AFD discussion, I don’t know who was the creator by the way, I’ll only create articles that meets notability, atleast few points. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 21:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Reading Beans. I don't really think Chippla360 needed to ping me for this, but I suppose I should clarify that I did read both the article and the past discussions, where thes is mentioned but not fully discussed, in addition to doing a search for sources. And possibly something about NPROF. Ah, I'm sure I'll think of it later, but it might include something about at least three thousand fellows between 1983 and 2012.^[1] Might also have the word highly in there somewhere. Something to get to after the reread then? I'm sure Chippla and Dxneo have arguments in favour of the subject's notability, but we won't really know for sure until the sources are discussed here, no?

It's not like this is a forgone conclusion, Vanderwaalforces and Drmies both mentioned the fellowship in the past discussion, so they might be convinced given the evidence of it existing, or maybe not (who knows). I'll also ping the rest, Versace1608 , Bearian, Ibjaja055, and Gheus and ActivelyDisinterested from the RSN discussion, to see if they have any insights. There's also the American Academy of Aesthetic Medicine but I'm not sure they're even a reputable training company, much less their academic reputation, and I couldn't find much on them so I might leave it to someone more familiar with American medical associations to comment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the last discussion you’re talking about, VWF said the claims were hoax and to be honest, I only assumed good faith and didn’t verify the honest. I’ll do

some searches and I’ll be right back. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This list of fellows has his name on the Original Fellow List #5000. I don’t think there’s a debate here about the notability (there could be possible UPE, but that’s not a deletion criteria). This is my 2€ (I don't do cents), and I’ll be watching the discussion to see the trajectory it takes. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not great at saying things by implication, so since we seem to be past that I will just say that I didn't have doubts they're a fellow, but I looked things up and they seem to have awarded fellows in two ways since 1983, one of which being considerably more selective than the other, and I don't see any way to tell one type of fellow from the other. I suppose we might still be able to consider it highly selective, but I don't think it's a done deal so I don't want to preempt any discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also, it seems like I accidentally pinged everyone again when adjusting the formatting, so I apologise for that.Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I don’t know why this article was brought to AFD but potential editors have viewed this page serval times but didn’t think otherwise, before i decided to create this page, I found reliable sources, why some articles found on google seams to be published in a Fan point of view, I have used only reliable sources and there is no prove of the references used in this article been promotional, article passed through AFC, there are editorial bylines and subject clearly passes WP:GNG, meets WP: NACADEMIC.
I saw the Old AfD Discussion, deletion log Also Came across this on google (It was nothing to write home about) Maybe it’s the issues previous participants where pointing out on the AFD discussion, so I had to do my research. Also found WP:SIGCOV [1] [2] Aside other facts about this subject, It’s verifiable also through serval source that he is a fellow of West African College of Surgeons. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 20:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chippla360 I found the old deletion logs and it was nothing to write home about. How did you find the content of the deleted article and what makes you think Alpha3031 may be judging from the “deleted” content and not the content of this one? Judging from my participation of the previous AfD and if I remember the content of the article correctly, this your version is nothing much different from the deleted version. There are so many things that seem off with this recreation in its entirety, but I’d have to take my time and give a proper look later. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO, the nomination rationale shows that the nominator was judging based on previous deleted content. But let’s focus on the actual issue here which is to know if Aranmolate satisfies NPROF#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Vanderwaalforces @Alpha3031, have a look Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed, I don’t have much to say about the previous existence of this article, But I did my search for notable, tried to understand the flaws before I decided to create this article, sources I found was what lead me on to the "page title" I used which was more appropriate. Then I still made some research on google and I came across [3] after I created and submitted the draft to AFC, So I’m thinking If these might be the old content some AFD participants actually talked about on the old deletion log, In General I won’t choose to create an article if the subject doesn’t meet the requirements. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 07:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly. I have no doubt that you created the article because you believed him to be notable, and I have no issue with that. Even AFC/NPP reviews only require us to check that people are likely to survive a deletion discussion, not certain to to survive a deletion discussion, so please don't take this as me calling into question anybody's judgement. It's just that I think it's reasonable to have the discussion, when the sources are subject to caveats surrounding independence and reliability, and the assessment is more difficult as a result. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is probably my last comment here, @Alpha3031 your nomination is obviously based on passed events seeing the links you dropped, @Reading Beans can agree to that, I have to politely ask, you stated that the sources are promotional, I want to see the prove, You cant just say all the sources used aren’t good enough to prove notability because you didn’t state that the subject failed any notability criteria on your nomination comment, I’ve Assume good faith lastly, check the source and points I dropped on my keep vote, also see my comments here, Thank you. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 08:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think "you've obviously based your nomination on past events" really falls under the letter or spirit of assuming good faith, when I did state that I performed my own search for sources. I believe the link provided some relevant context, I don't particularly appreciate the accusation I've done no additional work because of it, but just to avoid all doubt, I have in fact read the sources currently cited in the article, and those that came up in my own search.
        This wasn't really a topic I had in mind in the first place when I opened my nomination so I do appreciate your stated willingness to drop it. As I've said, and I'm sorry if this discussion is distressing to you, I've brought it here because there was concerns raised about the sources, and I didn't particularly disagree with them, so I thought a discussion on the issue was reasonable. I really don't understand why this has turned into me making a judgement based on the previously deleted content. I do not have viewdeleted. I cannot see deleted content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's certainly more balanced and not the hagiography that we see sometimes out of the Nigerian pay-for-play media. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't even remember this one, but I was mentioned here. At a glance, I would say the article is fairly referenced in RS. The legal issues, accolades, work in surgery (very reliable source), plus he's been making headlines since 2020. Promo does not apply here. dxneo (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a primary source: it only proves he was the co-author of a published article. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Great! He's also a published author and still can't ignore all the headlines dating back to 2020. Ping me if you need me. dxneo (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Omigbodun, Ao (July 2012). "The membership certification of the west african college of surgeons and its relevance to the needs of the west african sub-region". Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. 2 (3): 83–87. ISSN 2276-6944.

Sanjaya Rathnayake

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

This article fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:BLP criteria. There is no significant coverage beyond a single event, as cited in the article. The only other news coverage is this. The article also suffers from issues related to WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE. QEnigma (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising and Sri Lanka. QEnigma (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please hold on to the decision to delete it for five days? It is very important for me that it stays for just five days. After that, I will personally vote to have it deleted. I always comply with all policies, and even let others' decisions prevail in every talk page. All I'm asking for is to wait. It's not a violation of a policy, just a slight delay, since it will be deleted after five days anyway. Thanks. Pur 0 0 (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pur 0 0: Do you have a conflict of interest in relation to this article? Please note that COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia and in certain cases, may result in blocks being placed on the accounts involved. Also, please refer to WP:NOT and WP:SOAPBOX. QEnigma (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I take my words back. You may delete it. Pur 0 0 (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ibrahim Bazzi

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Terrorism, and Lebanon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Griffiths

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

Completely unsourced, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Griffith meets WP:GNG as there are eight reliable sources. Please note, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The nominator clearly omiited WP:BEFORE. Flibirigit (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree he meets GNG. These aren’t profiles or proof of WP:NOTABILITY, but standard athletic mentions. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has his own bio page at the Hockey Hall of Fame! The hall, and the British Columbia one as well, have bios of him and that is not notable? Ridiculous.18abruce (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Hunt

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

No evidence of notability, most of the sources cited don't even mention the subject, and BEFORE finds nothing better (although I should add that searching is a bit tricky, as there are plenty of Lawrence Hunts out there). Very insufficiently referenced, as well, esp. for a BLP, and involves quite a lot of COI editing, making it effectively just vanispamcruftisement. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a CV in prose form, not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fails GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't found significant coverage about the topic in mentioned references. Thus fails to pass significant coverage, general notability guidelines and biography. Fade258 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshya Chawla

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable photographer. Sources consist of passing mentions, spammy advertorials, or self-published material. Not a single reliable source provides WP:SIGCOV on the subject. See also WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Noteworthy that two different SPAs have removed the COI template on this article. Yuvaank (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Photography, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable photographer, Citations consist in this article are enough to demonstrate notability of the subject. Meets WP:BASIC. [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8].CresiaBilli (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CresiaBilli: Can you fix your link by adding https:// before www.? Thanks Agletarang (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in-depth about he subject in reliable sources. The references provided by CresiaBilli demonstrate why WP:NEWSORGINDIA exists. Three of the four are churnalism (same topic, same photograph, and almost the same date). Clear press campaign to promote the subject which is also being attempted with Wikipedia based on the edit history. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The individual clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Wikipedia isn't a platform for showcasing personal career achievements or work portfolio like a resume WP:NOTCV. Charlie (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources over several years. A dedicated profile in the 2019 Bloomsbury book Young India: The Heroes of Today^[1] provides in-depth coverage, while feature articles in The Asian Age (2019), Times Now Hindi (2024)^[2], and DNA India (2025)^[3] focus on his career. HuffPost (2015)^[4], The Indian Express (2015, 2017)^[5]^[6], Vogue India (2022)^[7], and The Wire (2025)^[8] cover his notable projects and industry impact. The 2017 WeddingSutra award nomination further supports recognition. While Times Now Hindi and DNA India may raise churnalism concerns, their focus on Chawla’s career, combined with Yuva Bharat, Vogue India, and others, shows sustained, independent interest. I agree weak sources (e.g., TOI Mediawire) should be removed and am revising the article to remove resume-like language (e.g., CAT score) for neutrality. Cleanup, not deletion, is warranted.KKM2025 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Leroux

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

Non notable businessperson. Being president of FECCIA could be mentioned there, but that's a WP:SINGLEEVENT thing to be notable for. No longstanding coverage or anything to meet WP:GNG. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Brodeur

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

Fails WP:NBASIC. Unable to find coverage from reliable sources which is both independent and significant. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Internet, Arizona, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moloney

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

No sigcov after Googling, and the sources in the article aren't enough. Only the Sports Business Journal seems significant. The Reuters and MarketWatch articles don't mention him, the Bizjournals bio isn't a real article, and the rest are WP:PRIMARY or passing mentions. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable; only primary sources, and those merely say that he has had various jobs in the commercial world. I can't find any RS. Lamona (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BuySomeApples. Thank you for reviewing the article. If I could find more secondary and reliable sources on the internet, would it be possible to prevent the page from being deleted? Sergiomarcus (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sergiomarcus: of course! The purpose of a deletion nomination is to give people time to find sources and even improve the article if they can. Even if you can't find sources now, there's nothing stopping you from recreating the page if the topic becomes notable later. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chavez

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

Delete. This article was created by a paid editor (User:CJ for superset) and later defended by another paid editor (User:Lauren at L Strategies), who disclosed being compensated by Laurel Strategies to represent Tom Chavez (see disclosure).

The article fails WP:GNG — there is no significant, in-depth, independent coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. References such as TechCrunch and Business Insider are not independent coverage but rather pay-to-play or brief startup mentions that fail to demonstrate notability. There are no profiles, features, or critical discussions of the subject that meet Wikipedia’s standards.

This article has seen no neutral editorial participation and reads like a press release. The promotional tone and sourcing violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO, and the COI history undermines the integrity of the content. Cumulus-wizard-1850 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Computing, California, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a mess of paid-editor churnalism. Obvious WP:PROMO material. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the article was created as a draft and published to mainspace after review by an apparently neutral editor.

The "defence" complained of consists solely of removing the nom's PROD template—an acceptable action, CoI having been previously declared.

I have just outlined in depth in response to the nom's WP:COIN ticket on this article why "the COI history undermines the integrity of the content" is badly over-egging the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy. I raised the COI point only because all substantive text was written by the paid drafter, with only cosmetic tweaks since, and the PROD tag was removed by another COI editor. I wanted to deter a Delete discussion dominated solely by COI arguments so the wider community can decide.

Putting COI aside, the sourcing remains thin: one 2001 Los Angeles Times feature that profiles the Chavez family rather than Tom specifically, plus routine deal coverage in TechCrunch, Business Insider, a brief WSJ item, and several self-published or op-ed pieces. There is no in-depth, independent coverage of Chavez himself, so the article does not satisfy WP:GNG. — Cumulus-wizard-1850 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is designed to "deter a Delete discussion dominated solely by COI arguments", what would your attempt to ensure one look like? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I find that is a reliable source and independent and significantly about him is the SF Examiner article, and that is not enough for GNG. I see mentions, some nice articles about his parents, and reporting on companies that his companies funded. He is undoubtedly successful but the sourcing just isn't there. I will keep an eye on this in case someone finds better sources. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks everyone for weighing in here. As mentioned above by Pigsonthewing, the subject was deemed notable and published by a neutral editor, Megalibrarygirl, after review. This was published after the article was created as well, and I believe it would be considered in-depth coverage. Lastly, I'll point out that this nomination curiously appears to have come from a WP:SPA; as a disclosed COI editor myself, I hope we are all operating in good faith. Lauren at L Strategies (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Fastcompany article, and although it is long it is more anecdotal than informational, more informal than analytical. I'm confident it could be used to support certain facts, but it is low on detail. His entire career from 1998 to 2016 is covered in a single paragraph, one sentence per startup, with statements so vague I have no idea what their business really was. I also want to mention that sources 7, 8, & 9 are not independent, and better sources are needed for their content. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft to provide an opportunity for the issues raised by delete voters to be addressed. BD2412 T 03:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Gondoly

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

While reviewing, I did not find anything close to good reliable or significant coverage of the person (CEO of the company which does not have its own Wikipedia page). 50% or more of the sources are from the company Cinder painter (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.

I’ve added multiple new references and included the achievement of completing 50 marathons. I believe this page offers valuable content and would appreciate its consideration for retention. MITDanceFloor (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Tye McKenzie

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

Biography of an artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. As always, artists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on significant coverage and analysis about their work in sources independent of themselves -- but the strongest notability claim attempted here is that she was exhibited at the local art gallery in her own hometown, which is not an instant notability pass in and of itself if there's no evidence of any wider more-than-local attention, and the article is referenced mainly to primary sources that aren't support for notability, such as her paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds and the exhibition catalogues self-published by the directly affiliated gallery.
The only third-party source shown here at all is a single article in the local media about the local art supply store she owned, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly vault her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she's got. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references from an article in a peer-reviewed historical journal, as well as more information about permanent collections and an award. I hope that helps to support notability in this case. Diving into newspapers will need to wait for a couple of weeks.

I'm curious about your references to more-than-local attention: this may make the case for notability more difficult for people working in more rural & remote areas, as references to success in bigger cities are less likely to be seen as local only. Maybe this is an issue that's been discussed before, but I feel like it's worth thinking about. Skjanes tbay (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The subject fails WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article relies on the catalog from the posthumous retrospective exhibition at local Thunder Bay Art Gallery. Other sources are local to Thunder Bay. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The discussion of her work in a peer reviewed historical journal (which I unfortunately cannot access) together with the award and some coverage in local newspapers is enough to keep this per GNG and WP:HEY - there is no requirement to be well known on a national or global level as long as there is independent coverage. --hroest 18:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ntung Ari

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

I initially draftified this article, but reverted myself once I realized it is more than 90 days old. Based on the sources cited, the subject is not notable: refs 1, 2, 4, 5 are just quotes from him (not independent), while the other three are not significant coverage. My web search didn't find anything better.

Additionally, the references consistently fail to support the content they are cited for, e.g. ref 1 [9] makes no mention of "Plateau", ref 2 [10] is not about his education at all, ref 3 [11] doesn't mention Plateau, the FRCN, or the NTA. If editors find sufficient sources to deem the subject notable, I ask that the article still be draftified until it is completely rewritten using only information supported by reliable sources. Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly notable as per WP:NBASIC, as being a director general of Industrial Training Fund (which had significant critical reception) and also satisfies organizational notability under WP:ORG and WP:NORG. The article now contains multiple independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG, which support the content they are cited for (the main reason for sending it to AFD by toadspike). If there were concerns about sourcing, a maintenance tag under WP:VERIFY would have been more appropriate than AfD. Still, it's valid to seek wider input. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Fails WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Popescu (author)

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

Seems like a pretty random guy, with no in-depth coverage, just some self-generated, promotional profiles. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not a vote (yet) but I don't think the article title is sufficient to differentiate this Andrei Popescu from possibly 1-2 other academics with the same name. I am having a hard time finding information about the crypto Popescu compared to the mathematician Popescu. Moritoriko (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the method would be to search in conjunction with his books. Geschichte (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In my searching I have found the textbook but it is pretty recent so nothing shows that it is notable (yet). Looking at his and other finance gscholar profiles he seems to be in the low-mid range for cites, primarily buoyed off two papers. As for business profiles everything I saw is connected to him or not good enough source wise. comment: the following is not part of my delete opinion but the author is currently under sock investigation as part of a multi-year promotional sock-farm. Moritoriko (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

María José Estupiñán Sánchez

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable other than the WP:SINGLEEVENT of their death being covered news outlets at the time. No WP:SIGCOV prior to that indicating any inherent notability. The facts in the article are sourced, but only because of details of her life being reported in the stories about her death. The death itself has been covered in many sources, but I am unable to determine if all of these different citations are truly WP:SIGCOV or just outlets retelling basically the same story (syndicated, chasing clicks, etc?). I don't think our notability guidelines suggest that every killing that happens to make the papers the next day are notable. This only happened a few weeks ago so hard to establish any long-term impact. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Duran) ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename Encyclopedic in the same way as Valeria Márquez. Encyclopedic as an emerging influencer, entrepreneur. The same sources on the latter's page (Valeria Márquez) were written after her death. María José Estupiñán Sànchez presents, as visible, a much broader entrepreneurial history than Marquez. A case of femicide that turned out to be very covered by the media in an international way, an emerging character like others before her who are present here on the platform. Submitting a deletion request for the article after a few hours of its creation is disrespectful to say the least.-MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:OTHERSTUFF is important to remember, I'd suggest that Valeria Márquez (influencer)'s death received broader notice due to it being live-streamed and coverage. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is no excuse to judge her more encyclopedic than Estupiñán. As you can see, María José's career is much more documented and longer than Marquez's and I don't think the fact that she died live makes her more encyclopedic than the other. María José's death was also partly caught on camera, but this reasoning and justification make no sense. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly having a hard time following your arguement, but please remember this isn't a comparative exercise. Either the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez meets our notability guilelines or it doesn't. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And let me tell you that it follows all the rules. And also the reason why you asked for the deletion of the page makes no sense nor the justification you gave about being killed live. These are not valid reasons nor should they be taken into consideration. Marquez's being killed live does not detract from being killed, partially filmed by Estupiñán's cameras. That makes no sense and is not a justification. I believe that one is encyclopedic regardless of the way one is killed, and the fact that one girl was killed live is not a justification to diminish the encyclopedicity of the other, nor to justify that of the first. Instead of resorting to these page deletions, which somehow diminish the work of those who deal with these things, just insert a notice of "source needed" or look for these extra sources, avoiding resorting to these drastic and (at least on this page) very inappropriate and meaningless methods. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person appears to have had no coverage before the death... Not that I can find. There is lots of discussion around the death itself, that might be an article. The person appears non-notable before passing away. Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same. Maybe change the title to "death of María José Estupiñán Sànchez" as the author of the deletion process did with Valeria Márquez who is in the same situation as her. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim: I would suggest a title change as for Valeria Márquez's page, so "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez".
María José Estupiñán Sànchez → Killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez. I quote your statement: Person is only notable as a result of their death and WP:BLP1E applies and so this also applies to this page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for this title change instead of unnecessary deletion of the page:

Valeria Márquez was a social media influencer, and entrepreneur. She collaborated with brands. I think you are wrong in stating that she is more encyclopedic because she died live.
María José Estupiñán Sànchez was a social media influencer at the same way, and entrepreneur. Unlike Marquez, he owned 3 businesses, not just 1. She also collaborated with brands as Marquez. Her death was partially filmed, since you apparently base your beliefs partly on this. The moment of death does not determine its encyclopedicity, but indeed Estupiñán's page is much more compact and with more information than Marquez's. Given the situation, a title change is fairer, as is being done with Marquez herself who is in the same situation as her, even if for her there was no talk of elimination, but of title change, which here was not even taken into consideration before asking for deletion, in fact not caring about the contributions of those who created the page in question, or this one. So I am for title change and not elimination. If you delete this, then you also delete that of Marquez, because they are in the same situation.

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the situation of the page and the unwillingness to cooperate from those who asked for the deletion of the page, I ask for a WP:3O, so that it is visible to everyone that the page Valeria Márquez has nothing more than this one, and that the deletion is incorrect, and it would be fairer to change the title to "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez". Let's see what the difference between these two influences would be. Both entrepreneurs (she from three businesses, Marquez 1, both influencers, both content creators, both with ties to brands and promotions, both models and emerging artists. The only difference is that one died online in front of so many people, the other is partially dead in front of so many people, you can't see the exact moment. Thanks. - MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting here (seeking a third opinion) is inappropriate. This is an ongoing WP:AFD discussion that follows a particular process. I suggest you read through that page to get a better understanding. Further, this particular discussion is about the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez; discussion of other articles belong elsewhere. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Your motivation for deleting the article and the fact that you don't understand that there is no difference with the article on Marquez and the fact that you evidently don't care about contributing adequately are useless, inappropriate and futile reasons. The request for elimination itself is useless, it makes no sense to have proposed it when the article on Marquez is here. The fact that we have asked for a meaningless deletion when there is an IDENTICAL page is shameful. Unfortunately, I am forced to talk about Marquez because it is the only way to make people understand the uselessness of this discussion. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you submitted the request for elimination without considering anyone else and without thinking of less drastic solutions. This says a lot about respect for others. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to WP:AGF, and don't tread into WP:NPA. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before asking for deletion, it is checked. And the request is useless as long as there are articles like Marquez's. So yes, it is not a legitimate nor correct elimination. Name change is correct and your reasons are very unfollowable and arguable. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, ~~nine~~ (now) ten of your comments here have compared this article to the one about Marquez. Comments at AfD should address the article under discussion, not compare it to other articles. All that matters here is whether the Sanchez article meets our notability criteria. Whether the article is similar to Marquez's article is irrelevant. Perhaps the Marquez article should be deleted too. Continuing to harp on the Marquez article just weakens your case, as it may suggest to people evaluating this discussion that the article does not satisfy notability, and arguments based on analogy with other articles are all that you can come up with.

I would also agree with ZimZalaBim that your comments here are unnecessarily hostile and personalized. Discuss the article under discussion, and do not speculate on the motives of other editors. Everyone here is trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if they disagree with you. CodeTalker (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question justifies the presence of one article on another without providing adequate explanations and without having consulted anyone. The same person has no interest in improving the article and the same person treats me as IGNORANT by continuing to report rules and apparent laws, this is a very inappropriate behavior. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I talk so much about Marquez, it is because the user in question justified the presence of her article by talking about the way she died. This is not a motivation and the guidelines establish it, and the same person has always been pointed out by other users that his ways are not right or correct. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't know how to argue without citing rules says a lot. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this explains a lot of how you react - this isn't about arguing, but about properly applying our WP:POLICIES. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which you are evidently not able to follow given the inappropriate, useless request for deletion when you yourself justified the presence of Marquez's article as having been killed live, which is irrelevant. I think I will pursue the request for a name change, given the inability to guarantee adequate explanations. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: this is clearly a BLP1E case. The subject has no notability apart from her murder. The murder itself has some coverage and may warrant an article, although only about 1/3 of the current article is about the murder so it would require some restructuring. Almost all of the sources are in Spanish which I am not qualified to evaluate, so I won't offer a firm opinion on whether an article about the murder is warranted. (Also two of the five English sources are unreliable.) CodeTalker (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of articles on Wikipedia that mainly talk about murder cases but have a section on the subject's biography, although it is not the main focus. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker: I added some other English sources that I think are reliable and good. Obviously I didn't add all the sources, but internet is literally full of news regarding Estupiñán Sànchez. I added the statement by Human Rights Watch and news-related as I think are reliable and important for the article. Personally I think her notoriety cames from this. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Creating Killing of María José Estupiñán per COMMONNAME, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So I suppose it's Keep but to rename the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Killing of María José Estupiñán, as it is the (horrific) event that is notable and got widespread media coverage as well as global condemnation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So I suppose it's Keep but to rename the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please don't move articles while they're at AfD. Also, it's time to hear from some new voices, please. Maria, please don't WP:BLUDGEON this discussion any further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who renamed the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, this article is a clear case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. @MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, I think we need to apply the Wikipedia: Avoid other stuff exists argument in this case. All the coverage seems to point to the subject's untimely death, and there's very little to establish notability prior to that event.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for this reason, like many other pages, it must be renamed under another title as happened to other pages, which had nothing of notoriety apart from death. Making comparisons is necessary, because this reasoning is not very correct: articles that arouse notoriety due to the death of a subject are many. And this is one of those cases. The biography of the subject may not have been treated before death, which is very common usually even for articles present here, but this does not diminish its value, when the person dies and his death generates notoriety. It's a normal thing. And it is normal and right that I cite other examples on this encyclopedia that are accepted and maintained in pages under titles such as "killing of...", because otherwise it would make no sense to discuss or even carry out this deletion procedure. Other users have reported the need to keep the page but change the title. Which is much more correct and respectful than an elimination that does not make much sense. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"All the coverage seems to point to the subject's untimely death, and there's very little to establish notability prior to that event." I take this statement of yours into consideration. Very often notoriety is brought after death, although the person before it was not known exponentially. This does not change its encyclopedicity, if the tragic event for which the subject passed away is the reason for such encyclopedicity, and the same event generated a wave of protests in a state, generating indignation, international coverage from the most authoritative newspapers. Encyclopedicity is not dictated by what one necessarily does in life, but also by other factors, and among others, the Estupiñán Sànchez case, by death. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to write this article today but I saw it written. This article is very similar to Killing of Valeria Márquez, which has been mentioned by users on social media and even the media. Human Right Wiki (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Shapiro (music agent)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, should be merged and redirected to The Devil Wears Prada (band). guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Daniel Williams has also been nominated for merging. guninvalid (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alaska, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect at the moment: I think I agree with the OP on this one. I feel as though this one may fall under WP:BIO1E? My reasoning being upon inspecting the references, many cover the 2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash in which he was tragically involved (19 of the 22 references). This is only upon initial inspection however and I would be interested to see others' points of view on this. For now I concur with OP and think a redirect with coverage on a relevant page would probably suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a merge/redirect to the page of the band Count the Stars would be most appropriate. My reasoning for this rather than the OP's suggestion is that there is no definitive evidence Shapiro had any link to TDWP other than the crash. As Shapiro was a founding member of Count the Stars, this to me makes sense as the most appropriate choice for merge/redirection. 11WB (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find any relation between him and the band other than him dying in the same event as Daniel Williams, who was a former member of said band. 2600:1004:B347:4AE1:3C78:5FC1:1294:B927 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point if correct. A brief scroll of Google seems to back this up. It appears Dave Shapiro was a music agent/executive, but not of TDWP. In my post above for this reason, I only stated to redirect to a relevant page and not specifically to the article for TDWP. This may have been an oversight by the OP, however I think the point to redirect elsewhere stands on its own regardless. 11wallisb (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending this to be a reply to guninvalid’s comment because he said that Dave Shapiro should be merged with T.D.W.P. 2600:1004:B33F:699D:C81D:4C36:8E3F:4FB5 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they will be able to see these messages! 11WB (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While we have a rough consensus to Merge/Redirect, we have two different target articles suggested and we have to get that down to ONE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know almost nothing about Shapiro so I am fine with @11wallisb's suggestion of redirecting to Count the Stars. Parts of this bio can be merged into both articles anyway, but since there can only be one redirect, I'm okay with that being Count the Stars. guninvalid (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The only reason my redirect article differed is because Shapiro has no searchable link to TDWP (other than the crash). 11WB (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazakat Ahmad Ali Shah

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

WP:BLP1E. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Travel and tourism, and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may appears to be notable only with the connection to the 2025 Pahalgam attack. As per criteria 2 support to Merge at the 2025 Pahalgam attack. Fade258 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott D. Alldridge

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

Doing a Google search turned up more primary and sponsored sources, but it doesn't seem like there's sigcov for him or his companies and books. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Technology, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – [I've added two more citations to the page. I believe that with a bit more research, we can find additional reliable sources. Overall, the article looks good to me it's concise, non-promotional, and the information is supported by citations.] Black890 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As @Lamona: pointed out the Deadlines seems like a copy of the MSN press release, so not aa new source. The podcast link and press release about his MBA also don't count as SIGCOV. There isn't a single reliable source on the page. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The MSN article and the Deadlines are the same article under two different bylines and the MSN byline links to this page of someone who claims to be a travel writer. I suspect a company-prepared press release. I am going to declare those two unreliable on this basis. The TechyNews gives no "about" and nothing to use to evaluate its reliability, and it seems to be a "kitchen sink" web site. The Healthcare IT news is the sound file of an interview (not independent). His book is listed on Amazon as "Publisher: Self Publisher". Lamona (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Green (entrepreneur)

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

No sigcov in the article or after a Google search. It doesn't seem like this guy or his blockchain company meet GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG as subject has received substantial coverage specifically in Korean and Chinese language multiple reliable media sources, TV programs, etc. Those newspapers coverage goes well beyond routine business appointments. Also his role as CEO of io.net also adds to the notability. He also worked on top positions for big firms (Disney, Oaktree Capital, Merrill Lynch) and the not all sources were added.--Mozzcircuit (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited from being CEO of a company or being an executive at other companies. If there are reliable sources like newspapers, it would help to share them here. I couldn't find them by searching and they aren't in the article, so no one here can assess them. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG thanks to multiple independent reliable sources available and added. The Subject is CEO of a notable tech company with substantial media coverage.--Slarticlos (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you share some of these sources or add them to the article to help improve it? BuySomeApples (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the GNG. I've gone through all the sources in the article and summarized my results in the table below. Toadspike [Talk] 23:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[12]	Obviously promotional tone			✘ No
[13]	Interview			✘ No
[14]		Written by an "independent contributor publishing via our business blogging program"		✘ No
[15]	Seems to be based entirely on a company press release.			✘ No
[16]		No byline	~ One paragraph on Green, probably not sigcov.	? Unknown
[17]			No information on Green beyond the fact that he was appointed.	✘ No
[18]	An opinion piece written by Green himself.		Doesn't contain any info about Green.	✘ No
[19]			Just some quotes from Green, no indep. sigcov.	✘ No
[20]			Less than a sentence is about Green.	✘ No
[21]	Clearly a recycled press release.	No byline.		✘ No
[22]			No sigcov of Green, simply says that he was appointed and includes a quote from him.	✘ No
[23]			Doesn't say much beyond that Green was appointed CEO.	✘ No
[24]		Seems to be a wire report based entirely on press releases; strongly promotional tone.		✘ 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}}.

@Mozzcircuit, you say "not all sources were added". Do you have further sources beyond what I reviewed above? Toadspike [Talk] 23:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I ask for the page gratification in order to review the Asian Korean Japanese and other sources, as I did not see them before and I think I may improve the draft /page.--Ticielli (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nawaf Saud Al Sabah

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

The individual clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:NOTCV. If they wish to share their résumé or create a personal webpage, they are encouraged to use one of the many free website providers available online or the hosting service included with their internet service provider. Charlie (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kuwait. Charlie (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did a search on his name in Arabic and there are about 10 pages of results coming up in Google News. Nominator has not done a good WP:BEFORE. Here are just a few 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. So there is plenty to meet WP:BASIC.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these links appear to meet the criteria for reliable sources, and even if they were considered as such, their content largely resembles press releases. Simply appearing on Google News is not sufficient. Charlie (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, some are bios. In particular this is an excellent article on him: annaharkw.com/ Also you need to read WP:BASIC, which is saying exactly opposite of what you said. Anyone that has a lot of coverage in the news will qualify as it says " multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." His name has 11 pages of results in Google news when searched in Arabic. Someone at this caliber for sure meets WP:BASIC. Mysecretgarden (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per available plenty of reliable arabic sources. Primpzetad (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be good to get others' views on whether the sources pass muster, particularly from an Arabic-speaker.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Iseman

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frederick Iseman

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

This article is nominated for deletion due to significant concerns regarding Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. The article contains a large amount of outdated information but also details of financial details that put this individual at personal risk. The subject is a private individual with borderline notability, and the article's continued existence poses a risk of harm. I urge close consideration of WP:BLP and WP:DELPRO in this matter. Balsamcedar123 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Balsamcedar123[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I reformatted this AfD to remove stray square brackets. The {{Find sources}} links should work now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think he's notable. If information in the article is outdated, change that information to past tense. This article and the related lawsuit are part of the reason why he's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have removed the extra square brackets, it looks good now. Fade258 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, and New York. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no personal financial information that would put the subject at risk, and his past chairmanships are solved with past tense rather that outright removal. Nathannah • 📮 16:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. The NY Times article is about his father, Joseph S. Iseman. The financial argument for removal however is not valid. I do not not see any sensitive finacial info in this article. Mysecretgarden (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I definitely don't think "details of financial details that put this individual at personal risk" is particularly valid here, but is there clear notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems like just puffery, about various prestigious jobs this person did. I don't think this topic is actually notable, in that while it's clear he exists, it's very unclear that anyone might benefit from looking him up and reading about him. The artnet article linked above seems like a private dispute and is, in any event, but one event. FalconK (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess.

NYT obit of dad - mentions the subject only in passing
Professorship announcement from Yale - routine announcement; not independent because affiliated with the institution that made the appointment
Caxton spinoff announcement - announcement of a routine business action, and only mentions the subject in passing, and a press release so not WP:RS
dead source - Can't find a copy of this despite my best efforts at archiveteam to save it; I think this was one I was involved in. The article text it is a citation for appears to only indicate a list of jobs he has had, so presumptively even if the source could be located it would not likely establish notability.
donor list at Columbia - literally nothing more than his name on a list of donors. While his donation was rather large, notability cannot be purchased.
theatre dedication announcement - Routine announcement; not independent because published by the institution doing the dedicating, and they pretty much have to dedicate something and interview you if you give them a ton of cash. The dedication was, the source writes, in exchange for the donation, and not due to something that might establish notability.
List of the board of directors of the Met - literally just a list of names again. Also he's not currently on it, though I'm sure he is in the archived one, but the members of the board of the met are not individually notable just for that.
Met press release - not WP:RS because a self-published press release (by the Met). It also states only that the production of a particular piece was bankrolled by him, which does not establish notability.
List of Carnegie Hall trustees Again, just a list of names.
White nights foundation director list Yet another list of names with zero information.
Morgan library and museum board roster Another list of names! I'm sure he's in the contemporaneous archive copy, though not the live one, but even a hundred of these would not establish notability.
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy task force report - the report itself isn't readily available. There's a list of task force members but I did not see him on any of the archived copies I looked at. But being on a task force does not make him notable. There is no indication from the text this is a reference for that he was a subject of the report, only that he contributed.
Yale GSP program site - He's not mentioned. Maybe an archived copy mentions him, but the text citing this source only claims he was a contributor, which again does not establish notability.
Genocide studies program annual report - Thanks him for his financial support and leaves it at that. Also not a 3rd party independent source.

There is nothing in any of these sources that even hints at notability. There is no independent coverage here of him at all, much less in reliable sources, and also there is no coverage of any depth whatsoever. My own search does not turn up promising results. It is narrowly possible there might be some notability and material for an article about that one lawsuit, but that also does not establish notability for this person because of WP:1E. FalconK (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Somaiya

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

Not a notable manager and CEO. I don't see the sources to pass WP:Anybio. Cinder painter (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources. Darkm777 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can identify only one reference for consideration [25]. If you own any other substantial coverage, please provide it; I may be inclined to support a Keep. B-Factor (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable profile, Most of the coverage is non-reliable.Almandavi (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like there's stuff out there if you search with google.co.in instead of google.com.^[26][27] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: He heads not only a business but also an eighty year old charitable organisation running several educational, healthcare organisations which are doing good work for the benefit of society and underprevilaged. Further, references give from Times of India, Economic Times, ThePrint, ANI, BusinessWorld and Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers are quite reliable. KhrushchevN (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to AfD guidelines, votes should be made by choosing one of these options, "Keep," "Delete," "Merge," "Redirect," or another relevant choice. Please avoid saying "Do not delete", Instead, use "Keep" to support keeping the article. Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks KhrushchevN (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete:~~ I have furtrher developed the article with additional reliable references. KhrushchevN (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree with B-Factor and A. B.. There seems to be more information and sources available. . I believe the article can be improved. Let me try working on it to improve the article.--Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have worked on improving the entire article by adding more relevant details and credible citations, have made sure it aligns well with WP's policies. The subject meets WP:ACADEMIC as he is the Chancellor of Somaiya Vidyavihar University and head of multiple educational institutions, which satisfies the guideline that states, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." He also qualifies under WP:ANYBIO for receiving the Order of the Star of Italy, a major international honour. So, keep. --Vikram S Pasari (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate recent revisions to article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Thanks @Vikram S Pasari for further developing the article. 14.142.143.98 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same reason as previous relist, but I'll hand out a round of pings this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 00:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinder painter@Darkm777@B-Factor@Almandavi@A. B. This article has changed significantly since it was nominated. It would be helpful to hear your thoughts on the current version and any new sources added. Toadspike [Talk] 00:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – Samir Somaiya meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There is sufficient coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources that establish his significance in academia, industry, and interfaith work.

Academic & Institutional Notability: He is the Chancellor of Somaiya Vidyavihar University, one of Maharashtra’s first private universities, and has led major academic and research initiatives. His contributions are covered in mainstream media such as The Times of India, Scroll.in, and The Indian Express, as well as institutional recognition like Harvard Business Publishing’s case study: "Godavari Biorefineries: From Waste to Wealth" co-authored by Prof. Forest Reinhardt.

Industry Recognition: Samir Somaiya has received the Platinum Jubilee Distinguished Alumni Award from the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers (IIChE) in 2023, and was named among The Economic Times’ Most Inspiring Leaders in 2022. These are neutral, independent recognitions from authoritative bodies: Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers The Economic Times

Cultural & Philanthropic Impact: He and Amrita Somaiya co-founded Kitab Khana, widely acknowledged in Scroll.in as one of Mumbai's most influential bookstores. The article Scroll.in, 2022 offers neutral, in-depth coverage, including both achievements and challenges.

International Engagement: He serves on the boards of global interfaith organizations such as KAICIID and Religions for Peace, and has spoken at UN forums. These roles are publicly verifiable through their official sites and covered by Vatican News and Free Press Journal.

Balance of Sources: While a few sources originate from affiliated institutions, multiple reliable third-party sources (e.g., Scroll.in, Indian Express, The Hindu Business Line, Economic Times, ANI, IIChE, HBS Publishing) provide independent coverage, satisfying WP:GNG and refuting concerns about promotional bias.

Overall, this article documents a person with a sustained, verifiable, and significant impact across several domains. Any neutrality concerns can be addressed through editorial improvement—not deletion. KhrushchevN (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source "Godavari Biorefineries: From Waste to Wealth" opens to hbsp.harvard.edu, which contains no relevant information. The Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers source link does not mention Samir Somaiya significantly. The Economic Times link, when opened, shows unrelated information with no mention of Samir Somaiya. The Scroll.in source from 2022, when accessed, refers to "ISL: After two losses, East Bengal get going with win over NorthEast United," which is unrelated. All sources are unrelated. SachinSwami (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:ANYBIO and WP:HEY. Fade258 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment much better now. The Order of the Star of Italy is a major argument to keep. Cinder painter (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMAN, this article demonstrate notability as indicated in WP:GNG. I can see significant coverage: [28], [29] and [30].CresiaBilli (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have WP:SIGCOV at all, the three sources cited by CresiaBilli barely mention him in passing and one is clearly a profile at a University page and not independent coverage while the other source are not in depth. He does not pass WP:NPROF#6 based on his appointment at a private University as he does not have a "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." While the higher levels of the Order of the Star of Italy are notable, he did receive the lowest rank of Knight per his own communication of which several hundred are handed out each year so I dont think that is notable. --hroest 14:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The Times of India focuses primarily on university initiatives with minimal direct mention of Samir somaiya [31].Indianchemicalnews.com centers on his appointment with a neutral tone but lacks details on specific achievements or challenges, making it informative yet incomplete[32]. Indiansugar.com, linked to the Indian Sugar Mills Association, an authoritative body, mentions Samir Somaiya’s presidency in 2008-09, affirming his professional leadership[33]. Economic Times focuses on his opinions rather than personal achievements, making it neutral but limited due to the absence of other aspects of his work[34]. Asian News International highlights his role in religious dialogue but lacks in-depth analysis or details, and its press release basis makes it promotional[35]. Religions-Congress.org emphasizes his positive contributions and promotes the organization’s goals, rendering it somewhat promotional[36]. Johnson.Cornell.edu focuses on his academic and professional achievements but, written from the university’s perspective, has a positive, slightly promotional tone[37]. New Woman centers on his philanthropic work with a positive tone due to the magazine’s nature, omitting challenges or criticism[38]. Scroll.in discusses Kitab Khana and Samir-Amruta Somaiya’s contributions neutrally, balancing achievements and challenges, making it one of the most neutral sources[39]. Connect2Dialogue.org focuses on his religious and academic contributions but, written from the organization’s perspective, is somewhat positive[40]. Chinimandi.com focuses on an award with a neutral tone but lacks details on Samir Somaiya’s specific contributions[41]. iiche.org.in, tied to the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers (IIChE), an authoritative body, mentions Samir Somaiya’s 2023 Platinum Jubilee Award but lacks in-depth analysis[42]. The Free Press Journal focuses on award recipients with a neutral tone but lacks specifics on Somaiya’s contributions[43]. qimpro.org emphasizes his achievements and promotes the organization’s goals[44]. iiche.org.in is fact-based, listing award recipients, making it neutral[45]. Somaiya Vidyavihar University, affiliated with the university, emphasizes his achievements, making it promotional[46]. Indian Express focuses on Amruta Somaiya but mentions Samir Somaiya in the context of Kitab Khana’s establishment, with a positive and neutral tone[47].Some sources (e.g., Indian Sugar Mills Association, IIChE) are neutral but raise questions about website reliability. Others (e.g., The Times of India with minimal mention, Economic Times with limited scope, New Woman, ANI, Somaiya Vidyavihar, KAICIID) feel promotional due to their positive tone. The Free Press Journal is neutral but lacks contribution details. Scroll.in and Indian Express are similar sources and among the most neutral, balancing achievements and challenges. Other websites appearing in red are not reliable. Among these, one source is reliable. If someone adds another reliable source, I will consider revising my opinion after reviewing it. -SachinSwami (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Pompliano

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

This new promotional draft consists entirely of routine business news and personal interviews. The NY Post and TechCrunch links are obviously interviews, both saying in their voices what the subject wants them to say about him. The Forbes.sites source is a blog, the Bloomberg source is entirely about routine funding, and the WSJ article is about a complaint the subject made about a former employer eight years ago. None of these seem to meet what I would normally consider direct detailing of a biographical subject from reliable independent sources. The page creator has lately arrived on Wikipedia and each of their page creations seem to be badly sourced drafts about crypto subjects. I am sometimes wrong, but this set of edits looks much like undeclared paid editing to this reviewer. I was inclined to tag as A7, but IMHO the big name sources WSJ and Bloomberg deserve a fuller discussion (though neither detail). I can't determine from found or applied sources how this particular subject is more noteworthy than any of the tens of thousands of other aspiring crypto-entrepreneurs out there. BusterD (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Cryptocurrency. BusterD (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Wall Street Journal is more about the firing than about the person, it doesn't seem promotional. Blomberg is about an IPO, but the source is solid. Forbes seems ok, along with the rest, I suppose we have enough to pass the notability bar. I don't see a strong pass, but it's there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the reviewer for this AfC submission. While reviewing, I mulled over the same criteras as per the nom. but as per AfC reviewing instructions and scope, I decided to accept the article based on the facts that (a) Bloomberg article met the criteria of a reliable, independent source and has more than passing mention. It identifies his expertise and verifies the information contained in the article. (b) TechCrunch, while an interview, captures some notability, (c) he is regularly present on Fox Business/CNBC (cosidered reliable) news segments as an expert on Crypto topics, (d) and upon further search, sources may exist such as Coindesk (ack. WP:RS). — WeWake (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Further sources: (a) He was the judge for "Forbes Cryptocurrency Awards 2020", (b) Business Insider coverage of his Bitcoin Investor Week conference, (c) and sustained coverage as a founder and cryptocurrency expert/investor in Reuters (1 2), misc. finance news 3, for example. — WeWake (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is poorly developed, and the subject is not well known, except for his attempt to destroy Snapchat. Kailash29792 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :I appreciate the feedback so far and the opportunity to respond. I’d like to begin by clarifying that I am not involved in any form of paid editing or promotional activity. I’m an independent editor based in Africa. The subject of the article is completely unaware of my existence, as I came across the profile while researching a cryptocurrency topic and was surprised to find no Wikipedia entry despite various respected sources and a Google knowledge panel. That was what first inspired me to draft the article.

I’m still fairly new to creating Wikipedia pages, and this submission was part of a learning process (learning how to contribute to global knowledge beyond optimization). Because crypto is my area of expertise, I naturally gravitated toward that subject when experimenting. Admittedly, my early drafts may have shown inexperience, but each iteration has been an attempt to align better with Wikipedia’s standards, particularly in sourcing, neutrality, and notability.

Based on past feedback, I made a conscious decision to avoid citing crypto-only sources, even when more abundant, and instead prioritized mainstream, non-crypto-specific outlets such as Bloomberg, WSJ, TechCrunch, and Forbes.

As one of the reviewing editors correctly observed, the Bloomberg article is a strong indicator of notability. It goes beyond a passing mention by discussing the subject’s role in a public company IPO, referencing his expertise and leadership within the field. This is consistent with WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, which recognize reliable business coverage as a valid measure of notability when it provides meaningful, independent context.

The WSJ article, while about a workplace dispute, nonetheless documents a verifiable part of the subject’s professional history and is neither trivial nor promotional. As noted by Oaktree b, its reliability as a source alone justifies inclusion and is not grounds for deletion under A7.

While TechCrunch and Forbes contain elements of direct commentary or interviews, they still reflect the subject’s relevance within their professional sphere, particularly within the tech startup and crypto ecosystem. Interview formats do not disqualify sources from notability considerations when they are not promotional and are hosted by reliable, editorially controlled platforms, as is the case here.

Another editor also rightly noted that the subject has appeared on Fox Business and CNBC as a crypto analyst. These are mainstream financial media outlets with editorial standards, and such appearances are a strong indicator of professional recognition, even if individual transcripts weren't included in the current draft.

I also made an effort to include critical coverage, specifically citing the WSJ article that referenced a firing, to avoid creating a flattering narrative. That should demonstrate a commitment to neutrality and to presenting a complete, balanced view, not promotion.

If there are remaining concerns about tone or structure, I fully welcome constructive suggestions on how to improve the article, not simply remove it.

My goal is to contribute to global knowledge from my small corner of the world and to improve Wikipedia by participating in good faith. Dismissing this effort as “routine news” or “promotion” without offering improvement guidance risks discouraging new editors who are genuinely trying to engage with the platform.

I believe the subject meets the notability criteria, as supported by multiple independent, reliable sources that give more than passing mentions. If aspects of the article need refinement, I’m happy to revise. But I respectfully disagree that deletion or A7 tagging is the right course of action.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion, positively or critically. I am here to learn, improve, and contribute constructively to the platform and its mission. Olaseni Kehinde Precious 1 (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Skimpy as hell. Just removed NY Post and a Forbes contributor blog, neither of which are up to notability or BLP muster. What remains is passing mentions and the Snap thing is not sufficient - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Ekezie

AfDs for this article:

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

This entrepreneur's article was deleted after an AfD discussion in April 2023 (and this 2020 AfD discussion and this 2018 MfD discussion). It was nominated on the basis of lacking reliable/independent sources, but was re-published later that year. I don't see any improvement in available reliable sources on the article subject (e.g., sources published since the last deletion). The article for his company, Kippa, also seems lacking in sourcing and possibly doesn't meet WP:NCORP, so I'm not sure a merge/redirect would be too useful in this situation. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bridget (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Finance, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 21 May 2025 (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 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day awards for up and coming but run of the mill business person. We are a charity. not LinkedIn. Protect against re-creation yet again. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am wholly leaning keep on this. Queen's Young Leader Award and Future Awards Africa definitely meets ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ekezie is notable, he passes general Wikipedia guidelines, having received significant coverage from reliable sources and has won the Queen's Young Leader Award. He has also been recognized by Forbes 30 under 30 in the finance category. He is also the recipient of the The Future Awards Africa (2022), which is very notable in Africa. Send down the rain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notability has changed since I voted to delete in 2020. While Forbes 30 under 30 at this point is a junk measure of significance, we have profiles in the Independent Nigeria (2022?), Face2Face Africa (2022), Nigeria Tribune (2018), BBC (2019), and an article in The Nation about receipt of the Future Awards Africa (2022). That, + receipt of Queen's Young Leader Award satisfies me that GNG is met. I really don't think the high bar of ANYBIO is met by those two awards, but it doesn't need to be. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 and Shoerack: I have major concerns about the reliability of many of the cited sources. I know speaking in broad strokes about Nigerian news sources may sound problematic, but see WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA (on the RSP page) for recurring discussions on the media landscape.

For example, just out of the sources you cite, I think the Independent, the Tribune, and the Nation articles read very suspect. See the last paragraph of the Independent for example: "Kennedy Ekezie-Joseph’s story is not merely about achievements; it’s a testament to the power of dreams, perseverance, and embracing opportunities [...] Kennedy’s journey encapsulates the essence of a true visionary. He serves as an inspiration to young minds across Africa and the world, showing that with determination and unwavering belief, anyone can turn their dreams into reality."

A similar quote from the last paragraph of the Nation article: "In a world where technology continues to evolve and reshape industries, Kennedy Ekezie-Joseph stands as a shining example of the innovation Africa has to offer. His trailblazing spirit, coupled with his visionary leadership, has propelled him to the forefront of the technology sector. As he continues to inspire the next generation of innovators, Ekezie-Joseph’s impact will undoubtedly leave an indelible mark on the continent and beyond."

And the last paragraph of the Tribune article: "His achievements have already inspired countless young minds across the nation, offering a beacon of hope and proof that determination and dedication know no bounds [...] The story of this remarkable achievement will undoubtedly serve as an inspiration for many aspiring scholars and will be remembered as a turning point in the nation’s educational landscape." Bridget (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. I will strike my keep - Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per Eddie891 above. Shoerack (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG given WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. The one potentially notable point, his fintech company Kippa, closed down years ago. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Bhandari, Devir Singh (26 January 2021). Yuva Bharat: The Heroes of Today. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-93-88414-07-4. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
^ raghav, kuldeep (26 March 2025). "Success Story: MBA डिग्री छोड़, कैमरा थामा, 95% CAT स्कोर के बावजूद लक्ष्य चावला ने फोटोग्राफी में पाया मुकाम". Times Now Navbharat (in Hindi). Retrieved 12 June 2025.
^ पंवार, कुलदीप. "'3 इडियट्स' जैसी है इस युवा की कहानी, 95% CAT स्कोर और टॉप B-स्कूल में एडमिशन, फिर भी बन गया फोटोग्राफर". DNA Hindi (in Hindi). Retrieved 12 June 2025.
^ Nayar, Aashmita (7 December 2015). "PHOTOS: This Bollywood-Style, Taj Mahal Photoshoot Of Couple From Hong Kong Is Everyone's Dream". HuffPost. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
^ "WATCH: Wow! This Hindu-Muslim couple missed their pheras and nikah to dance the night away". The Indian Express. 9 May 2017. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
^ "Hong Kong couple flies to India for Taj wedding shoot". The Indian Express. 9 December 2015. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
^ jain, vanshika (19 July 2022). "Meet some of India's best photographers and filmmakers behind celebrity and A-lister weddings". Vogue India. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
^ bhasin, tanushree (2 Feb 2025). "Love in the Time of Likes: The Evolution of Celebrity Weddings". thewire.in. Retrieved 12 June 2025.

[1] Omigbodun, Ao (July 2012). "The membership certification of the west african college of surgeons and its relevance to the needs of the west african sub-region". Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. 2 (3): 83–87. ISSN 2276-6944.

[2] Bhandari, Devir Singh (26 January 2021). Yuva Bharat: The Heroes of Today. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-93-88414-07-4. Retrieved 12 June 2025.

[3] raghav, kuldeep (26 March 2025). "Success Story: MBA डिग्री छोड़, कैमरा थामा, 95% CAT स्कोर के बावजूद लक्ष्य चावला ने फोटोग्राफी में पाया मुकाम". Times Now Navbharat (in Hindi). Retrieved 12 June 2025.

[4] पंवार, कुलदीप. "'3 इडियट्स' जैसी है इस युवा की कहानी, 95% CAT स्कोर और टॉप B-स्कूल में एडमिशन, फिर भी बन गया फोटोग्राफर". DNA Hindi (in Hindi). Retrieved 12 June 2025.

[5] Nayar, Aashmita (7 December 2015). "PHOTOS: This Bollywood-Style, Taj Mahal Photoshoot Of Couple From Hong Kong Is Everyone's Dream". HuffPost. Retrieved 12 June 2025.

[6] "WATCH: Wow! This Hindu-Muslim couple missed their pheras and nikah to dance the night away". The Indian Express. 9 May 2017. Retrieved 12 June 2025.

[7] "Hong Kong couple flies to India for Taj wedding shoot". The Indian Express. 9 December 2015. Retrieved 12 June 2025.

[8] , vanshika (19 July 2022). "Meet some of India's best photographers and filmmakers behind celebrity and A-lister weddings". Vogue India. Retrieved 12 June 2025.

[9] sin, tanushree (2 Feb 2025). "Love in the Time of Likes: The Evolution of Celebrity Weddings". thewire.in. Retrieved 12 June 2025.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]