Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Meyzenq

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a surname page, not a dab page. It's reasonable to include the CEO, for whom a redirect would also be reasonable. PamD 08:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: It was a disambiguation page until you altered it ([1]). Your position would have been much clearer if that was included with your post. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma It was always a surname page. It was incorrectly labelled as a disambiguation page. PamD 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma But, OK, it might have been helpful if I had pointed that out ! Sorry about that. PamD 11:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I understand your position. However, it would have been preferable to make the alterations through consensus. That was the primary reason this article was listed on AfD forums. Nevertheless, I maintain the view that this article, whether a disambiguation page or a surname-related entry, requires the inclusion of more notable individuals with existing Wikipedia articles in order to be retained. As you are aware, there are numerous senior executives across various notable companies who do not have individual Wikipedia articles on them and are therefore not included in surname-related pages. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Raghu D

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted with clear consensus from 12 editors in the previous AfD only 3 months ago. I still can't see any reason to keep this article. It probably doesn't fit WP:G4 due to Hindustan Metro. All sources found, including in my own searches, appear to be very promotional. For example, Cinebuster shows significant coverage but is clearly written by ChatGPT and is horrendously promotional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing has changed since March. Ajay Kumar Rastogi 12 please respect community consensus about this article. Star Mississippi 02:06, 11 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]

Tanzyn Crawford

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

Fails WP:ACTOR NonfrostClive (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Australia. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Two significant roles in notable productions is good for NACTOR. Multiple examples of coverage in independent reliable sources. Targeted payback nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Rountree

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Australia. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Two significant roles in notable productions is good for NACTOR. Focus of coverage in major newspaper (independent reliable source). National Library of Australia has a box of cuttings. AFI Award nominee. Targeted payback nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Grives

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

Fails GNG. Nothing to satisfy WP:ACTOR. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Australia. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lots of coverage in independent reliable sources. Targeted payback nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR point 1. Significant roles in multiple notable productions: here (TV series, main character), here (prominent supporting character), here (soap opera, main character), here (film villain) and here (series regular) – among others. Additionally, the Canberra Times and TAWW sources give detailed independent coverage (WP:SIGCOV). He also won an Australian theatre award in 2005. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevrakis

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

Completely unreferenced, containing unverifiable information, since 2009. No reliable sources found via Internet Archive, Wikipedia Library (general search), Oxford Reference, De Gruyter Brill, brief Google search (.com/.gr). This is a surname page with an empty list of people with this surname. Google turns up the conductor Nikiforos Nevrakis (who may indeed be notable) and the chess player Mihail Nevrakis, but these biographies do not currently exist on English Wikipedia. Furthermore, Greek Wikipedia does not appear to have an equivalent page for Νευράκης. Does not meet WP:V or WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Currently this should not be a page. Coeusin (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom, no SIGCOV. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 18:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That's a compelling argument to me Local Internet User (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No entries and no sources. JTtheOG (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No entries and no sources. Luis7M (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Yar Baloch

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

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

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

Giacomo Merello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rahmah Pinky

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. JBW (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Item

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep My assessment is that the subject, Dario Item, satisfies the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). This is based on the presence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, particularly concerning his activities related to the Credit Suisse AT1 situation and his ambassadorial functions. Several specific publications provide coverage that appears to meet the depth required by WP:GNG: The Financial Times article dedicates substantial content to Mr. Item's role and actions, which constitutes more than a passing mention. Finews similarly focuses on him as a central figure in a noteworthy event. El Español offers an extensive profile, indicating significant interest from a major international publication. These sources are generally accepted as reliable and editorially independent. And these are just 3 of the many international sources other editors already mentioned and can be found in reference footnotes of Item’s article. The subject's diplomatic roles and interactions, such as with the UNWTO ([link, e.g., https://www.unwto.org/news/unwto-and-antigua- and-barbuda-share-vision-of-tourism-for-growth-and-opportunity]), provide further context of a public profile. While notability isn't inherited from a position, significant media coverage of activities undertaken within such roles contributes to fulfilling WP:GNG. Recognitions like the Scottish titles (referenced under legislation such as s.63 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 - [2]) and awards (e.g., from the Royal House of Georgia - [3]) are supplementary details that round out the individual's public record, though the primary basis for Wikipedia notability remains the independent secondary source coverage. The existence of articles for other Antiguan diplomats, as noted by other editors here, suggests that holding such a position is not an automatic bar to notability if WP:GNG is otherwise met. The key consideration is whether this specific individual has garnered sufficient independent coverage, and the evidence regarding Mr. Item's role in the widely- reported Credit Suisse case, in particular, points to this. While any article can benefit from ongoing editorial attention to ensure neutrality and sourcing precision, the available information indicates that the notability threshold for inclusion has been crossed. I think he has enough recognition to be considered in WP:GNG as his fellow peers also have their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SY DIGITAL (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephanie Seungmin Kim

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

Strongly suspect this is WP:COI. New user created this page, made trivial edits to get ability to create articles, and created it.

ko:김승민 큐레이터 ("Kim Seung-min Curator") this is the corresponding article on the Korean Wikipedia; it probably should be deleted too because it's clearly COI. It was created by a "Curatorkim" user (likely Kim herself); the article was made just a few days before the enwiki version.

My guess is that Kim hired someone to write this article in English for her. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, South Korea, and United Kingdom. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI concerns unless there are WP:RS on the issue. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentions of her here and there, biographies on affiliated sites. No independent significant coverage. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Snowdon

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

Previous PROD (endorsed and deleted) for a subject who has no secondary sources, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:JOURNALIST. The subject's claim to a PhD cannot be verified - I wrote to the alleged awarding institution as neither I nor others could find any PhD and the institution provided no information. The restoration of this one seems to have been an error, caught up in this mass restore of soft deleted articles [4] where discussion shows that the dePRODer intended to restore sports bios PRODed by a particular user, but included this one apprently by accident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails all of the above. This is a waste of time. Anwegmann (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's letter to Ali Khamenei

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

This has to be one of the best examples of Trumpcruft on Wikipedia. This is article is about a single letter, sent a few months ago. I held off nominating this article for deletion when it was first created, but it's been enough time now that I think it's clear it does not have enduring notability by itself; it has not received any extensive coverage since it was sent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was not a significant event. Any information worth keeping can easily be merged into the article on the 2025 United States–Iran negotiations (a subject that does have a more clearly enduring notability). Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Literature, Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. No reason this letter needs its own article. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. No need for a separate article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if we have WP:RS, but a merge is more preferable to avoid WP:CFORK happening. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to WP:NOMERGE, articles that are merged should not be excessively lengthy. Conversely, if an article has the potential for expansion, it should not be deleted. The article 2025 United States–Iran negotiations is lengthy and has the potential for further development. Also, the article about Trump's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei is quite well-known. It is a letter between two important and well-known people. Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Many years have passed since this article was published.GolsaGolsa (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Probably yes, but don't WP:OTHERSTUFF please. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This letter has no notability independent of the greater scope article. A sentence or two about the letter in 2025 United States–Iran negotiations would suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. It was the starting point for the negotiations. If it is merged, and a redirect is created, all original information in this article is saved (through History). If it is deleted, everything is gone. PS Just to be clear, if it is not merged, then Keep! Lova Falk (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This can be covered in 3-4 sentences on the main page. No WP:PAGELENGTH concerns due to the minimal amount of net new content. Longhornsg (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merav Ceren

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. The United States National Security Council employs almost 400 staffers, including numerous directors at Ceren's level. Many NSC staffers, including her former boss Eric Trager, a senior director, who has far more significant policy impact, don't even have an article. Coverage of Ceren is primarily due to a short-lived media controversy, not for enduring or substantive contributions to public policy. Routine job appointments or involvement in transient news cycles do not establish lasting encyclopedic notability, especially for a director who was in the job for 2 months. If anything, a case of WP:BLP1E for the controversy around her appointment. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Israel, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Good point about Trager, perhaps you could help develop that page. I think you under estimate Merav's contribution to public policy.Leutha (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trager now has an article. He's notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Still no policy-based argument for Ceren. Longhornsg (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very briefly held a mid-level position and there was a debate around that. Not right to build an article from there. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baraka Al Yamaniyah

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources on her exist 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalani Hilliker

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears to be famous for being famous, but a WP:ROTM actor, dancer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmeen Hanoosh

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

Apparent subject request: talk:Yasmeen_Hanoosh#Please_delete_page ···sardonism · t · c 08:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. ···sardonism · t · c 08:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appears to clearly fall short of WP:SIGCOV from what I have been able to gather, thus I think we should lean in favour of granting the request. ···sardonism · t · c 08:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can only find one review of her books[5] and no profiles. However, the reason for this !vote is lack of notability and not "security concerns". The article is no more a security concern than the subjects LinkedIn page or her faculty profile. Jahaza (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found the same review on JSTOR 27099782 and another review of her translation of someone else's book on JSTOR 23062852. It's not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR for me, and definitely not enough to provide the clear case for notability needed to keep an article in the face of a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, assuming that can be verified. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her faculty page and the linked cv seem to include most of the content of this article so it's difficult to understand how our article poses a risk. It would be better for her to go through the formal system to request this deletion (but on a quick look around I can't find this: Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects just refers someone wanting their article deleted to go to Wikipedia:Deletion policy; Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself doesn't seem to address requests for article removal, only for removal of specific content). We do not know that the IP requesting deletion is the article subject rather than someone else wishing to remove her from Wikipedia. PamD 07:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD you're looking for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. It's further down on WP: Biographies of Living Persons than the "Dealing with articles about yourself" section. Jahaza (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza That still doesn't help the reader much: It says to use AfD or "requesting that a member of the Volunteer Response Team do so", which gives a link to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. There, it says "To contact the volunteer response team, please see Wikipedia:Contact us.", with a link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Readers, with a link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. There, there are instructions about making a COI edit request, and "If this does not help, or for further information, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects.", but Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects#How can I get rid of the article about myself or my company? just refers them back to the deletion policy. Not great. PamD 11:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The final paragraph of Wikipedia:Contact us is useful, but likely to be overlooked as the left-hand margin has a clear link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects, which an article subject is likely to follow: that page seems to provide less, rather than more, information for someone like this person who wants their article deleted. PamD 11:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. she fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR with a single review of a single book (I will not count the review of a translation). She is at best marginally notable, most likely not notable at all. In this case deletion is the prudent course of action independent of the deletion request. --hroest 18:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Hanoosh became notable last week, because she was placed on administrative leave on Friday June 6, 2025. Please consider this deletion carefully, since it is important news.

https://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2025/06/07/portland-state-university-places-professor-on-leave-after-video-shows-her-saying-i-am-hamas/ 129.95.164.214 (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. This is an evolving news event. The faculty member is notable for past statements and a conflict with the university president. 129.95.164.214 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST; the comment by IP 129... makes it clear that the somewhat vague description by the requestor of this article as a "security threat" is a genuine case of "real-world harm identified by the subject". 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject request and borderline notability on either WP:NPROF or GNG (at least at present; 129.95.164.214 is right that this is an evolving event; but does not seem to be turning into larger coverage that would warrant keeping). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ritam Chowdhury

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

Declined prod. Created by a single purpose editor. Only 2 sources, 1 being Amazon that doesn't even mention Chowdhury. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Note that a single purpose editor has been editing this article so possible WP:COI. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and India. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the list of edits and noticed that multiple minor edits along the way had deleted many citations and references for this page slowly over time. Tried adding a few things back in. Not sure the subject of this page is actively keeping tabs on these edits. Would recommend against deletion at this time. Freddiced (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)— Freddiced (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Freddiced, do you know or have any connection to Ritam Chowdhury? LibStar (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar Know as in i know the page as i had edited it a long time ago. Beyond that no - dont know this person IRL or have any connections personal or professional with them. Freddiced (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Freddiced, so why have you edited this article after 7 years not editing? LibStar (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStarLike i said im not a regular editor. I help when i can. I had some time to kill today. Was just checking on the pages i had edited in the past and noticed the notice for deletion on this one specifically. Tried to fix some of it. Apologies if I overstepped. Upto you and other senior mods/editors if yall want to delete this or other pages. Thanks! Freddiced (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar noticed a lot of the information on this page since has been deleted slowly over time. this also included actual references and citations. im not a professional wikipedia contributor. Freddiced (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Delhi, Maharashtra, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and fails to pass GNG, SIGCOV and nauthor. Fade258 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – All sources are of poor quality, and no sources are found on Google either. I agree with LibStar's opinion. Importantly, the page creator Lsmithcoops [6] (2015-02-04) and Freddiced [7] (2015-02-05) have their account IDs registered with a one-day difference. - SachinSwami (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. While their buisness relationship has been publicized a lot, this is a common thread with Trump-related people, and this probably fails WP:ROUTINE as well. We don’t have Donald Trump–Mike Pence feud after their January 6th fallout, so I don’t see why this deserves an exception. This could easily fit better in individual sections such as Politics of Elon Musk. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This is not comparable to the Pence feud. There are implications to this which are becoming apparent as this discussion is occurring; Musk will decommission the SpaceX Dragon, which will affect the operations of the International Space Station. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: ElijahPepe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SpaceX Dragon is an example of how we don't know the real implications. Musk appears to have backed off on that topic already, meaning that was a threat that lasted hours. These are impulsive public figures. Dflovett (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further note that the article creator has now !voted to redirect this article, acknowledging that it does not meet our notability guidelines. Per this comment, it appears they were also previously sanctioned by the community for rapidly creating problematic articles about current events, a concern that I and many other editors have raised in the past. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you've already been told, the opinions of the original creator do not hold greater weight. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t have Donald Trump–Mike Pence feud (why?), but a Category:Hip-hop feuds and several related feud articles like the Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud and Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable conflict between the richest man in the world and the leader of the most powerful country 2603:9000:BC00:149E:6C68:8489:407A:C7CF (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, even before I typed "Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud" into the Wikipedia search bar (can't believe I guessed the exact title!), I somehow already knew that it would have been created by ElijahPepe. As always, this is WP:TOOSOON — wait to see where the conflict goes, then apply the WP:10Y test and consider whether WP:NOPAGE applies. For now, delete. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the creator of an article is relevant. WP:NPA applies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a personal attack; falsely accusing another editor of making a personal attack could be itself considered a personal attack. Calling out another editor for disruptive behavior, even if they may be acting in good faith, is not incivil. Although I usually refrain from calling out editors' past misbehavior, you have a history of prematurely creating problematic articles when notability has not been established; despite innumerable AfDs, you appear to not have learned from these past mistakes. This is troublesome, and other !voters must be aware of this context. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this context is important. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, just take a look at their talk page and you'll understand what I'm talking about ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t say that you made a personal attack, nor even insinuate it. elijahpepe merely pointed out that the identity of the article’s creator is irrelevant to the AfD discussion, which I think is fair. I say keep; WP:TOOSOON is almost always subjective and therefore not a useful heuristic here (maybe ever). No reasonable person would call WP:TOOSOON if a major political figure had just died, because there’s a reasonable (but subjective) assumption that the event will become noteworthy. We document current events as though we are our future selves looking backwards. If this turns out to be a nothingburger, then scrap it. Getabucket (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They wrote, "WP:NPA applies." NPA stands for "no personal attacks", in reference to our policy that prohibits petty insults and disparaging remarks, which I did not engage in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I missed that, totally my mistake. Getabucket (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all" should be clear enough. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That merely suggests that the safest way to avoid making personal attacks is to avoid referencing editors' behavior altogether, not that any reference to an editor's behavior is likely a personal attack. I agree with that statement and do generally avoid referencing editors' behavior, but in this AfD, I made an exception because I felt it was relevant context and made sure to frame it in a neutral, factual manner. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacies: The argument uses an ad hominem fallacy by dismissing the article due to its editor (ElijahPepe) rather than its content. It misapplies WP:TOOSOON by claiming the topic is too recent without evidence of insufficient sourcing or lasting significance. Finally, it assumes WP:NOPAGE/10Y apply without proving the feud lacks verifiable notability, relying on bias over policy. Rosa Olmos (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While AfD nominator is probably formally right, you just need to read the room. It's probably one of the most important events in the 2025. It ~~dominated~~ paralysed all the world news. In just a week, the article about this event will be huge. Flamekinzealot (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid keep reason. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is way more notable. The media is treating it as such. The Trump-Pence relationship is part of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This is something completely different. The senior advisor to the president is basically alleging the president is a pedophile, with a huge reaction! Personisinsterest (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It might be too soon to delete this since this will surely become more notable in the coming days. Looking up Elon Musk shows me a bunch of reporting from multiple RSs and I'm also sure that this will drag on for a while (e.g. Trump sues Elon Musk for defamation because of his Epstein tweet or something) Laura240406 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems premature and too much of a newsy article Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes all 4 aspects of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, and Passes Wikipedia:ROUTINE, as this event has significant coverage in Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Zzendaya (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The activities in the Article are definitely noteworthy, but it remains to be seen how it'll all end up playing out. If this all dies down in a few days it can be merged into another Elon Musk-related page. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 21:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The difference in scope between the Trump-Pence feud and this is vast. Musk and his circle are as deeply entrenched in the executive branch as Trump and his cabinet, whether we like it or not. Should the article have been created so hastily? I don't think so. Should it be removed entirely? I wouldn't. Stick a rapidly developing news template at the top and keep the article updated with current information as the story develops. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 21:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way WP:TOOSOON. Tomorrow it could disappear or turn into a duel. Patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON: "For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." Though facts are still emerging, reliable secondary sources are reporting on the subject. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 21:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP and wild accusations are thrown about which may or may not be true. Related pertinent facts have yet to emerge. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 22:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anchovyx: Sources aren't secondary just based on where they're published. A source can be both primary and secondary. For example, a news article that is mostly just reporting on a current event, with a sentence of analysis/interpretation, is still primarily a primary source. The secondary coverage (that sentence) is not "significant coverage". You cannot call the entire article secondary just because it has one sentence/paragraph of secondary (analysis/interpretation) in it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to a section within Political activities of Elon Musk. That article is too short to require a spin-off and this event is unlikely to have lasting notability on its own. satkara❈talk 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will surely be kept because everything involving Trump is presumed notable. But geez folks. Let's at least let the ink dry on the sources before we need an article to exactly match the news cycle. GMG ^talk 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this, unfortunately, is a very possible outcome. I think the only way to fix this problem is to have some sort of restriction like WP:ECR on AfDs regarding current events. Too many inexperienced, drive-by editors too often rush to !vote to "save" these types of problematic articles because they are unaware that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, not a source of breaking news, and creating articles before notability is established is putting the cart before the horse. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo and InfiniteNexus: do you think perhaps something should be added to WP:TRUMPCRUFT about specifically the interconnect between RECENT and NOTNEWS and things related to Trump? The closest thing now is the "FAQ" of "Look at all of the sources covering this topic, it is too notable!". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great essay. Wouldn't be a bad idea. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An essay with WP:TDS. Hard pass. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm predisposed to a narrow read of WP:NOTNEWS, but even so this minor feud documenting the controversy of the day has only a very small likelihood of meeting WP:SUSTAINED. I'd propose a merge/redirect to One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but others may suggest a better target. (Satkara's suggestion of Political activities of Elon Musk could also work.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd also support an upmerge to a section in a new article with a wider topic. Something like Political alliance between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's probably too early to see if this fails WP:NOTNEWS as the implications of this for the 2026 elections and 2028 elections if this is significant and long lasting will be profound. Musk has tremendous financial capacity and this is a broader schism between the techno-libertarian right (Musk) and the populist right (Trump)

For now I am leading towards Week Keep as this article can always be deleted if this is not a long lasting and sustained conflict. Nkulasingham (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zzendaya. Deleting now is just going to trigger a WP:REFUND a couple days later; this is going to drag out for a while. –Fredddie ™ 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, going into this I was pretty sure that I would be on the "Delete" side but after going through the coverage I'm leaning the other way... I hadn't heard anything about this but it does appear to have gotten a surprising amount of significant coverage. That being said I don't think covering the same material at One Big Beautiful Bill Act and/or Political activities of Elon Musk etc would be the end of the world (especially if the "feud" just fizzles out) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though in my view any resolution shouldn't be done yet. This feels like its firmly stepping into the type of stuff WP:RAPID recommends against. Etatrisy (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BREAKING until we have some idea about WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per basically every other !vote before mine. The "keep" !votes are saying it meets NOTNEWS... when it doesn't. We don't (and can't) predict whether it's going to be lasting at all, and also the coverage about it is routine primary source journalism. By definition there aren't secondary sources at this point for a feud that has only come into the public eye in the last 24 hours. If/when there are secondary sources - such as large investigative journalism, rather than just reporting the news - WP:REFUND is that way (points). It is not a valid excuse that a REFUND may be merited in the future. As a distant second I would be okay with this being draftified in a userspace or in the Draft: space so it (and its history) can be maintained, to help placate the people claiming REFUND is too hard for them (I don't see any other reason "we may need to REFUND it" is a valid argument). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to fall into any of the four categories of content which NOTNEWS advises against, none of that is routine coverage, and "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Your policy analysis is just weak. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. The feud may result in impacts to specific programs/services, and those can be covered in their respective articles. Further, point 2 specifies enduring notability of the event. There is no evidence this will be enduring in its notability, and it's not appropriate to assume it will be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither gossip or diary style coverage. We can't assume either way on enduring notability, we don't have a crystal ball. If in a few years there is no more coverage than what we have now you are welcome to come back and delete it on lack of enduring coverage grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to assume either way. If there isn't evidence it's notable now, then it should be deleted now. If significant secondary coverage isn't available now, it should be deleted now. If such coverage comes out later, WP:REFUND is that way (points). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been repeatedly provided with sources that other people believe are secondary and significant, you disagree... You're just beating a dead horse at this point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "I think (random link) is secondary" without explaining it. I've made clear (in my initial !vote, for that matter) that the sources and explanations so far do not actually prove the sources are significant secondary coverage. You're free to provide more/different sources/explanation to change my mind. But if you can't, this sort of "I still disagree with you" comment is not helpful to anyone - be it a person reviewing this discussion, or the eventual closer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "I think (random link) is not significant secondary coverage without explaining it.

You've made clear that you're just going to go for WP:ICANTHEARYOU Selbsportrait (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming there is significant secondary coverage. So, quote it here. Quote what you think is significant secondary coverage - and I'll either change my view or I'll explain to you why it's either not significant or not secondary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you accept that each participant needs to support the claims they make.

That's progress. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one making the claim. It's not possible to prove a negative. I can't quote something that shows there is no analysis/interpretation. You have the burden to prove there is significant analysis/interpretation, because you're the one making the claim that it exists. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't prove a negative (which is false, e.g. Gödel's theorem), then how will you ever be able to support your claim that it's not significant?

Denial ain't that powerful. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I wrote this above as a reply but I'll repeat it here for visibility. Too many editors appear to not realize that Wikipedia is a "lagging indicator of notability", and rushing to create articles before notability is established is putting the cart before the horse; it should the other way around. WP:DELAY explains why we should not rush to create articles based on breaking news: we do not predict whether a topic "might" be notable in the future; we evaluate whether it is currently notable. If a topic that previously not notable later becomes notable, it can and will be reinstated then; however, until then, creating a standalone article is jumping the gun. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Riposte97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTA much? Thegoofhere (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also look at WP:RAPID Laura240406 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, is there a policy about rushing to create articles about breaking news events? Some1 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for WP:DELAY, Some1 Thegoofhere (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed and described above by User:Zzendaya. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Irrespective of problems this article has with WP:TOOSOON right now, I do not expect them to still be problems by the time this discussion closes; not at the rate things are happening. My biggest problem with the article is large parts of it should be rewritten to better match Wikipedia writing standards but that's not cause for deletion. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giga Keep - This is gonna get spicy quick Dh75 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Egads, what a woefully ill-informed dumpster fire of an article creation. Political disagreements are a routine part of politics, even between people who were once closer in agreement on issues in the past. This is plain WP:NOTNEWS with a healthy heap of WP:COATRACK, as the article just becomes a platform on which to criticize both subjects. We have enough articles where a minor mention of their alliance-turned-sour can be given a brief mention. It is not a stand-alone topic. Zaathras (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Not endorsing keeping or deleting, but while I wouldn't have created this article, I don't think nominating it for deletion the same day the news breaks is helpful, and it will be easier to assess whether notability will be sustained in a week or two. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is probably the biggest interpersonal fallout in recent political history. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important ongoing event. Furthermore, as per what FunkMonk said above. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Per WP:TOOSOON, WP:RAPID and WP:DELAY, coverage is still in the 24‑hour news‑burst phase. Suggest relisting for one‑to‑two weeks so we can see if significant secondary analysis emerges- otherwise a merge to political activities of Elon Musk would suffice. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is about "planned coverage of scheduled events".
That's not it.
WP:NOTNEWS is about original or unreliable research, besides including WP:ROUTINE.
Again, that's not it.
WP:TOOSOON is about "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources".
There is plenty already.
WP:COATRACK is about "unrelated things to make a point".
That's unrelated to notability, and related to what to include in an article, and how. There are enough deletionists around to keep that in check. At best it'd be an argument to burn everything from a page and start anew.
I'm not sure how people can judge the importance of that topic. Could be a tempest in a teapot. Could be big. Nobody has a crystal ball.
Voters might consult WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and bring arguments instead of thumbs. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Coverage of current events by news is not secondary coverage. It is by definition primary. Investigative journalism, in depth analysis, and similar articles are secondary coverage. But there are none of those yet. Per GNG, secondary coverage is required - not just routine news coverage of current events, which, again, is primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether its primary or secondary depends on context... And in this context we primarily have coverage of tweets which would be the primary source with the news coverage being secondary. What that is supposed to prevent is making an article based on the tweets, not on articles about the tweets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Coverage of tweets that just says "this person said this and here's a timeline of what happened" is not secondary. Secondary requires significant analysis/interpretation. A timeline or merely saying "this happened and here's a timeline of related events" is not secondary coverage. It's entirely possible for a source to report on information from elsewhere yet still be primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. There also appears to be a lot of analysis of how we got here and the implications going forward. We also have a number of notable individuals offering their opinion on the matter, and coverage of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not secondary coverage. Saying "this is the historical context of 'how we got here'" is not analysis or interpretation. Offering opinions on the matter does not mean there is analysis or interpretation going on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've selectively replied to my comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not. You said That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. I explained why that "interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context" is not secondary coverage. Explaining the definition of something is not secondary - likewise, explaining what the author thinks a tweet means is not secondary. The burden is on you to prove/show that there is "significant secondary" coverage. I look forward to you providing quotes (or another method) of showing what portion of sources you consider secondary in nature. I will happily revisit my position if your evidence is sufficient, alternatively, I will happily explain to you why your view of it being secondary/significant is wrong. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have and continue to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for you to justify and provide proof for your position. You have yet to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I and a number of other editors have, you have soundly ignored most of it... Going for selective responses and red herrings instead of anything resembling editing by a respected and able colleague. You don't even appear to have read the articles linked, you've only skimmed the URLs (and then falsely claimed that the URLs were titles). At the end of the day it doesn't appear that you can be satisfied, you appear to be WP:IDNHT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have told me to read WP:GNG first:

1. Presumed? That one is seldom on deletionists' side.

2. Significant coverage? Check:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-06-05/elon-musk-trump-feud-full-timeline-of-the-public-meltdown

3. Reliable sources? Check:

https://www.cnn.com/business/timeline-elon-musk-trump-x-dg

4. Secondary sources? From your own source:

"Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material."

In case you have difficulties finding commentaries:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wd2215q08o

https://www.vox.com/politics/415599/elon-musk-trump-feud-bill-contracts-nasa

5. Independent? That is usually implied by 4.

Also note:

"Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

To discuss usually implies one does not beg the question at hand, like you just did. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, coverage of tweets is not secondary. Secondary requires significant in depth analysis/interpretation. The current news is just "this happened, this is the history". That is not analysis/interpretation, much less in depth. A timeline is not analysis/interpretation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timelines I offered establish significant coverage and reliable sources. And again, you are begging the question as to what is significant in depth analysis.

It shouldn't be that hard to find "analysis/interpretation":

https://www.wired.com/story/musk-trump-feud-venture-capitalists-pick-sides/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-blames-musks-criticism-decision-cut-ev-tax-credits-2025-06-05/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis-1.7553387

You may dispute that it's "significant" or "in depth", but then it's easy to do when one just has to argue by assertion.

What would convince you - ten monographs written by political scientists based on a statistical model with a 5-sigma threshold? Selbsportrait (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant and reliable are only two of the requirements. An article topic can have significant coverage in 100 reliable sources - but if none of that coverage is secondary, it's not notable. A paragraph of analysis in an otherwise primary source does not make it significant coverage in a secondary source. All must be met simultaneously - significant primary coverage does not count just because one small paragraph in it is secondary analysis. It must be significant secondary coverage. The burden is on you tyo identify why those sources show significant secondary coverage. Merely saying "analysis" in the title/headline doesn't matter when all it is is a timeline with maybe 3 sentences total of "analysis". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're throwing out red herrings, none of the three articles you were just presented with have analysis in the title/headline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis

You clearly aren't actually reading what you're replying to. This thread is between me and Selbsportrait. Please don't try to derail it by commenting here when you clearly haven't even read the whole thread. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the URL, the title on the piece is "Musk vs. Trump: A power couple tumbles into a messy divorce" and it is marked as analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that it's only marked as analysis. Luckily, we don't just take sources at their word. You're free to quote the "analysis" that's present there. You have yet to do so, even with 3+ requests from me to do so at this point. The only valid assumption is that you are repeatedly not doing so because you can't - because it's not actually analysis that would qualify it as a secondary source and/or because any analysis present is in passing/so short as to not qualify as significant coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit no such thing... Another red herring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"have analysis in the title/headline"

Talk about herrings. An analysis is an analysis, whether or not there is "analysis" on its title/headline. But whatever: "World Analysis" is the kicker of one of them. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You're free to quote the "analysis" that's present there."

You're free to show that you read it too.

Start at "Hints of trouble in political paradise", and the next section. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not analysis. That's simple news reporting - i.e. primary. A couple sentences of "analysis" interspersed within a timeline/news report does not "significant secondary coverage" make. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that analysis not the same thing as providing a timeline.

And you still haven't provided any evidence that you read the piece. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"in 100 reliable sources"

Citation needed. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources. No number of primary sources qualify a topic as notable. It could be 1000 primary sources. Doesn't make it notable. The requirement is that there be significant secondary source coverage. Not that there's lots of primary coverage of the topic with barely a sentence or paragraph of secondary coverage (analysis and/or interpretation). A timeline of events is not analysis or interpretation. There is yet to be shown any secondary coverage here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said "in 100 reliable sources".

Where did you get that?

Arguing by bold is no better than arguing by assertion, or worse by denial. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my original response. The number is an example. 1000 primary sources with one sentence each of secondary (analysis/interpretation) coverage in them does not make "significant coverage in secondary sources" for notability. A source can be primarily primary even if it contains a small amount of analysis/interpretation that would be secondary. Even if there's 1000 such sources, that is still not the significant secondary coverage necessary for notability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a source is "primarily primary" or not is immaterial to the fact that it can be used for its secondary material. Which is the whole point of the discussion in the page you patronized me to read.

A source that contains secondary material is considered secondary when the secondary material is used as source.

1000 bits of analysis exceed what a page can contain, so please beware your synthetic examples.

And you still haven't told me what would convince you. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean its notable. You cannot combine passing coverage in sources to meet notability. Each individual source used for notability must be significant secondary coverage. If it's only a sentence or short paragraph of secondary coverage, that is by definition not significant coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the concept of secondary source is relative, contextual, and something that needs to be discussed as per your own citation, it is certainly not (or, if you prefer, not) a matter of definition.

Repeating the same naked denials over and over again without showing any understanding of the material you asked me to read is unconvincing, to say the least. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any reasoning why the sources you cited were secondary. I've explained to you that one or two sentences, or a short paragraph, of secondary coverage does not "significant secondary coverage" make. It doesn't matter if it has 100 sentences of primary coverage - the secondary coverage is all that counts/matters. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't explained anything. You simply denied, denied, denied.

And now you contradict yourself: first you suggested that a source was not secondary unless it contained a majority of secondary content. Now, the primary content doesn't matter.

Make up your mind. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not mutually exclusive arguments. You're the one making the claim that there is such - thus you're the one with the burden to prove it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are:

(1) A source, to be considered secondary, needs to contain a majority analytical content.

(2) A source, to be considered secondary, needs to contain analytical content.

(1) implies (2) but (2) does not imply (1).

Your obduracy is getting obnoxious. Let's drown it under something more constructive. Try this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/06/05/elon-musk-x-trump-attacks-epstein/

Notice the "Analysis by Will Oremus". Why would it be a primary source?Selbsportrait (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not based on whether it's called analysis or not. It's based on whether it actually is analysis. Merely gathering social media posts and historical information is not analysis. There are a couple sentences that are analysis in that article. But a couple sentences is not "significant" coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Merely gathering social media posts and historical information is not analysis."

So you haven't read the piece, or you don't have a clear reading of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts".

Either way, I don't need to prove what I just said, right?

Meanwhile, enjoy this other gathering:

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/amid-trump-musk-blowup-canceling-spacex-contracts-could-cripple-dod-launch-program/ Selbsportrait (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"But a couple sentences is not "significant" coverage" ummm it generally is... A couple of sentences "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per WP:RAPID. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could very well become one of the largest feuds in American political history, let's at least wait and see what happens before we delete this article. NesserWiki (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bigger than Burr–Hamilton duel. It's gonna be yuuuuuuuge, believe me folks. (sarcasm of course) CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE into Political activities of Elon Musk as its own section CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no rush to delete articles. Let it play out and see what lasts Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's very little "there" there in the first place for the article. Do we need a Wikipedia page for every twitter beef? Is this even notable yet? Trump has feuded with Elon before (even on Twitter too) and brought up government subsidies then too, and they made up after that. There is no reason to believe this will last longer than a week. It is worth maybe two sentences on Political activities of Elon Musk. Catboy69 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Elon Musk called Trump a pedophile this time and everyone actually cares now. I’m sorry to be going against all those Wikipedia guidelines or whatever, but at some point people have to realize this is an important event that people care about. Notability is notability. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't here to be a place for "event[s] that people care about". We are an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the very definition of an encyclopedia is "a compendium of things that people care about" or at any rate think relevant enough to make part of the body of knowledge/record for future relevance. Irresistance (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... Our notability guideline is essentially a proxy for measuring how much relevant people care about something and deciding what is due for inclusion as a stand alone topic based on that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option could be to rename this article to Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk (or to Relationship of Elon Musk and Donald Trump, depending on who you want to list first) to focus on their overall relationship (which includes the feud) rather than just their feud. Some1 (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
might actually be a good idea. better then keeping or deleting. i'm not sure if this article exists though, but under a different name JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support this DecafPotato (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, and there would be enough to siphon from Views of Elon Musk#Donald Trump to provide a background. I was surprised that this article only focuses on the 2025 feud, and not the previous as well. Scope aside, there is more to this subject than meets the topic at present. Please ping me if a broader topic is created, thanks. CNC (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait or Weak Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. If this continues to escalate tomorrow and over the next few days, this article should be kept; if it dies out quietly, than it can be deleted or merged. All in all, it seems to be too early to call what will happen. Remember WP:NTRUMP. 2601:402:680:1270:1449:C1:1B29:3004 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is absolutely notable enough to be kept. EarthDude (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep:Redirect it is currently notable, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we still don't know if it will have lasting effects or not or if the notability will last. it could just blow over and not have much of any effects where it could go into another article or not even be notable enough. redirect per what the author said JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and also because the coverage is already mostly sufficient for it to be notable and WP:NOTNEWS. I would be very surprised if this doesn't turn out to be obviously worthy of its own article in a few months. Loki (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Weak Keep: Although the topics discussed within the article may certifiably be considered immediately notable for many, notability is not determined from the immediateness of its occurrence (WP:TOOSOON / WP:DELAY). Many of the KEEPS appear to mention the possibility for it to become notable in the next couple days or weeks. But, notability cannot immediately be determined either by the possibility of higher significance in a possible future based on speculation (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). But yes, this could indeed become a topic of higher importance within the next couple days. If the article is deleted and then it DOES become notable within the next couple days (causing a WP:REFUND), then this whole discussion would have been for nothing (WP:RAPID)... but I think that a KEEP should only be a reasonable choice IF and ONLY IF such notability is to occur within that short time frame. But if notability is not reached within that time frame, then it should be deleted and reconsidered IF and WHEN the topic becomes notable enough to where it would reasonably need a dedicated page instead as of a subtopic on a already existing page. ThatOneUnorigional (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — This feud does not appear to be headed towards a prolonged conflict. I haven't found an appropriate redirect target yet; One Big Beautiful Bill Act may work. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second. Did I read that right? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article creator doesn't have to support their own article in an AfD request. The only reason that I created this was because there was a possibility of an impact here. That possibility is likely to dissipate tomorrow. Thus, no reason for this to exist. The page may still be useful as a redirect target, given that you searched for this exact title and there are likely others who did as well. It is still possible that there is something tangible to this, but from my reading of the situation (both internally and from public sources), Musk conflated the views of White House advisors with Trump's view. The length of time is not the issue here, for the record, but rather the consequences. Without a meaningful response beyond threats and market reactions. That said, I'm also open to Some1's idea, which I privately considered for several days before abandoning it. Writing an article on the two men's relationship would be a very difficult undertaking. The base is here for a section of such an article, but the author would also have to do a significant differentiation that may not be possible with a lack of sourcing. At present, I do not believe that such an article—which I simply would have called Elon Musk and Donald Trump—could exist. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that this topic doesn't meet our criteria for notability, then you should not have created the article — you should have created it as a redirect. Creating an article before notability can be determined is called jumping the gun. Had this article not been prematurely created, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion (which won't be closed until several days later) at all. For the record, I agree: this "feud" looks to be nothing more than a few-hours-long online spat (happens all the time) that encompassed a bunch of angry tweets and sensational headlines (yellow journalism). InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If you agree that this topic doesn't meet our criteria for notability"

Timeline matters: one could have decided to create that page because it was noteworthy, and then found out that it should not. The strength of that belief also matters: one could believe that building an encyclopedia matters more than one's personal beliefs and that it's up to the consensus to decide.

Both the inclusionist and the deletionist have a role to play. The former have the facts, the latter the logic. It's very important that inclusionists don't get too categorical with the logic they apply, for we don't live in a world closed under deduction, and we need to fix first. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. It is not possible for a topic to be notable and then cease to be notable. If a topic is observed to "stop being notable", that means it was never notable in the first place. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not conflate "is believed to be notable by one editor" with "is notable". One editor can believe that an article is notable, or not; consensus can deem otherwise.

The implication you emphasized earlier is that an editor who submits an article for publication *should* (clarification pending on that type of obligation) believe that it's notable. My point is to say that belief needs not be categorical: an editor can change their mind, or don't put much credence in their beliefs.

Topics and pages are two different things. That a topic *is* notable (as in, forever and ever) does not imply we can't decide to repurpose a page for other reasons. Notability only obligates us to preserve valuable information. We could delete all the pages of the encyclopedia except one if one day everything worth nothing could fit on one page. Notability would thus be preserved.

(I know that's not plausible: it's just a thought experiment to make a point.)

That page is about a page, not an editor. Once a page has been created, it's out of the original editor's hands. Remonstrating should be reserved to personal talk pages, and only if an editor has formal authority over them. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not encourage editors to unilaterally create articles on non-notable subjects because "they can always change their minds". It's true that they can change their mind, and it's true consensus can override their initial decision to create the article via AfD. However, this process is disruptive, time-consuming, effort-wasting, and could have been avoided if the original creator had exercised prudence and consulted on a talk page to gauge consensus on whether a subject could warrant its own page (i.e. a split proposal, or start a draft), rather than act unilaterally and then have buyer's remorse. As you can see with various !votes that boil down to "it shouldn't have been created, but it now exists, so oh well, let's save it, I guess" (which is basically the sunk-cost fallacy), editors are often hesitant to delete an article once it has been created, even though it is sometimes unfortunate but still necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not encourage turning talk pages into trials either, yet you revealed that you were doing so all along one minute after I posted my previous comment.

And now you're going for armchair psychology about editors who disagree with you.

The question if any gun has been jumped has yet to be settled. So perhaps you should hold your horses yourself. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not encourage turning talk pages into trials either, yet you revealed that you were doing so all along one minute after I posted my previous comment. I don't believe I said that? What statement are you referring to? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what you say, but what you do with words that matters most. I'm referring to the comment you made one minute after this one. Since I made my comment at 17:34, it should be a comment a bit after that.

And just so we're clear, your implicit argument is of the form:

(P1) A* has been caught drunk typing a few times already.

(P2) A* was probably drunk typing this time too.

(P3) We should discount the output of those who type drunk.

(C) We should discount the value of what A* did because he was probably drunk typing at the time.

The alternative is to consider what A* did on its own merits.

There are contexts where this kind of ad hominem argument is valid. This page is not one of them.

I'm just using "drunk typing" for effect here. Replace that with any predicate you please. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is distracting too far from the main topic, so I'll probably disengage after this reply. I did not say, or even imply any of that: I did not say that we should delete this article because it was created by a problematic user (it's because it doesn't meet our notability guidelines), or that we should discount what they have to say (in fact, they agree with deletion/redirection), or that this AfD is a "trial" that should result in disciplinary action (that would be the wrong venue, and I do not think someone should be disciplined for one mistake, only given a stern warning), or that the user in question is acting in bad faith (they are not). I am not sure why you interpreted my words this way, but perhaps I did not articulate myself very well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I did not say, or even imply any of that"

Yes, you did. Right here:

other editors should be made aware of this context. The fact that you have been sanctioned in the past is demonstrative of the fact that I am not the only editor to share these legitimate concerns.

Let's spell it out:

"editors should be made aware" => this is relevant to the actual discussion

"this context" => the page under discussion is probably the result of drunk typing

"sanctioned in the past" => being caught drunk typing

"demonstrative" => an inference is being made

"legitimate concerns" => the argument is valid

Either you retract that "editors should be made aware", or you own what you're doing right now.

To disengage, one must engage first, and not ignore the points being made. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't want to drag this on further, but you've made some serious allegations here. You originally wrote that I was turning talk pages into trials, suggesting that I was scrutinizing their entire edit history and calling for disciplinary action to be taken. I found this to be a gross exaggeration, so I asked for clarification; in response, you did not explain why you felt my comments were "trial"-like but invoked your drunk-typing analogy, asserting that I had suggested that we should discount the output of those who type drunk and discount the value of what A* did because he was probably drunk typing at the time, i.e. we should delete this article because of the article creator's history, and anything they say should be ignored. Again, I did not say this: I wrote editors should be made aware because this is relevant context to consider, not because it is the smoking-gun justification for deletion; otherwise, I would have phrased it as, "Delete, because the article creator often creates articles on non-notable current events and has been 'caught' doing so before." I also did not say anything about their "output" or "value" being irrelevant, which I obviously disagree with. You're making it sound like I presented a long list of irrelevant evidence of past misbehavior, hurled ugly insults and baseless accusations, and threatened to have them sanctioned, which is not the case and does not appear to be assuming good faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "often creates" bit allows us to rephrase the argument:

(P1) A* often creates articles on non-notable current events.

(P2) A* probably did so this time too.

(P3) We should discount the output of those who often create articles on non-notable current events.

(C) We should discount the value of the page under discussion, i.e. it (probably) fails notability.

Without something like P3, P1 and P2 adds nothing to the current discussion. One reading of it is that this ad hominem argument supports the claim that the page is not notable. The alternative is that this argument does not "inform" how to judge the current page.

"Does not appear to be assuming good faith" is often used as an ad hominem too. It probably is one. Should it allow us to discount the value of the position it accompanies, i.e. that this page is non-notable? Let's hope not.

From times immemorial, Knights and Gnomes chased down Dragons away from thy wiki. While this sport can bring vigorous merriment, they are often followed by complaints about the sad state of undeveloped entries afterwards. Perhaps Knights should let our Dragon population grow for a little while, and organize jousting tournaments between themselves instead. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That possibility is likely to dissipate tomorrow."

I would take the other side of that bet, but I'm not sure why deciding what to do with that page should rest on the result of that bet.

A Musk-Trump page could be useful. A mention on the Big Beautiful Bill page is warranted either way, but it's really not the same thing. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElijahPepe, you could rename the feud article to Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk to expand the scope, or create a Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk article and redirect this feud article there. I do believe that the relationship between these two men is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Some1 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A change in scope requires consensus, not to be done unilaterally. The closer of this AfD will determine whether there is consensus to change the scope of the article, or leave it as it is, or delete/redirect/draftify it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this article gets kept, then yeah, a change in scope and title would require consensus on the talk page. If this article gets deleted/redirected/draftified, that doesn't prevent another editor from creating a Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk / Trump-Musk relationship article, which has a different (and broader) scope than this feud article. Some1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The event is gaining immense media coverage, and it's still too soon whether to really consider this a short or prolonged conflict. Until we see what happens we should keep the article as is. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per WP:RAPID. This article probably shouldn't have been created so soon, but the feud looks to be notable per WP:EVENTCRIT. It's had a substantial economic impact already and significant coverage from diverse sources. However, given the characters involved this could either blow over in a day or be a protracted conflict. So, it's too soon to say if coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, as people said above. It's too soon to say. Trump is well known for getting into controversies with all kinds of people. Not all warrant an article, even if they are prominent people. In my opinion, we have to wait and see the consequences of this. Given a couple weeks, if nothing comes out of this, it should be deleted. Sure, there are plenty of news articles about this, but not everything that has news written about it warrants a Wikipedia article.
Not sure why this article was created in the first place. This AfD could've been avoided if the creator had waited a bit longer to see how things went. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 06:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was created too early, but the event is likely to easily meet the WP:GNG given the media coverage so far. Melmann 07:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This right here will be a peace of history. I don't think that Trump or Musk will refrain from further attacks on one another, even if its just on X. We have a US Prez and World's richest man going against each other. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT Divyanshu8999 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As pointed out above, there is no article for Elon Musk—Donald Trump relationship. This article could cover the full history and dynamic and be better suited to evolve over time. Dflovett (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to do that, we could use content from Views of Elon Musk#Donald Trump. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great idea. Their relationship warrants an article, not just this particular event. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 06:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Too. soon to tell. Could fizzle, could explode. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The feud is even analyzed in international media, including naming (long term) consequences and so meeting all aspects of WP:NEVENT. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify We have wp:notnews for a reason, and this may well blow over and (given how childish the pair of them are acting) they may be best buddies again this time next week. So we should wait to see if this has any lasting consequences. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, WP:10YT. Let's see where this goes.LM2000 (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Probably WP:TOOSOON but to me the obvious notability of this event leads me to lean keep. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 12:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of general encyclopedic interest and notability. It's a political drama more suited to celebrity gossip shows than Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. I thought the page creator was TBAN'd from making new pages through anything other than the AfC process? ^EF⁵ 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up as I was not aware of this, but I must say I'm not surprised given my past dealings with this user. It appears based on this ANI discussion that they were topic-banned by the community for six months ... which expired last month. Almost immediately, their pattern of disruption has continued. It appears they did not learn from their all-too-brief period of sanction. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I have created are here. Of the last nineteen since the topic ban, only this one has been sent to AfD. I did not create it as a one-sentence page, which was largely the issue, and I have been expanding it. This crusade against me is not appropriate in this AfD. There are other venues for this if you believe that I am acting maliciously. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe you are acting in bad faith and did not accuse you as such; however, disruption made in good faith remains disruptive. I hope this AfD will serve as a reminder to refrain from jumping the gun and mass-creating articles about current events before notability is established — again, we do not predict whether a topic might be notable in the future. As I have stated above, this is not a personal "crusade" against you, but other editors should be made aware of this context. The fact that you have been sanctioned in the past is demonstrative of the fact that I am not the only editor to share these legitimate concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mass creation does not appear to be at issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Their talk page says otherwise... InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking because, although it was not my intention, some editors have raised concerns that this could be interpreted as a personal attack. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh its obviously a personal attack... What I'm saying is that its also wrong, this article under discussion here was not part of a mass creation and given that you've already seen their article creation history you know what. So you know for a fact that there is no issue with mass creation in this context but you brought it up anyway purely as a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article was probably created too soon; however, I personally have no doubts about the notability and long-term significance of the event, which is why I'm voting for keep. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Another article created too soon about something we will after forgot soon enough. Not everything that Trump does deserve an article, Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and I don't think there is any real benefit of having an article about this here, in an encyclopedia. Cosmiaou (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC+2)
Keep This was all over the news yesterday and definitely took up most of the top news. Additionally this could flare up again if the BBB fails. BigRed606 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This was all over the news" is not a valid argument to make. See WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. WP:TRUMPCRUFT is a great essay that talks about this as well. It's too early to make the call on whether this article meets our notability guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay and carries zero weight. The bit that actually matters says "may not" instead of "does not" I don't think you can say that isn't a valid argument. If its too early to make that call then its too early to delete (or even have this discussion), that argument only goes one way and its not in favor of deletion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People often say this when an essay is invoked (that they disagree with), but just because an essay is non-binding does not mean it's automatically wrong and should be immediately tossed aside as irrelevant. Essays often contain good advice, especially those that have been continually shaped by consensus. The fact that SUSTAINED says "may not" and not "does not" does not change the meaning: it is still true that press coverage does not guarantee notability, but SUSTAINED suggests that it may not be the case if proven otherwise. The editor who made this !vote did not explain why they believe this to be the case other than "it was in the news", which is a weak (if not invalid) justification. Regarding your last point, if it's too early to tell if an article meets notability guidelines, then by default, it is not notable. If it's too early to tell whether your chicken is done cooking, we don't assume it's cooked. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding your last point, if it's too early to tell if an article meets notability guidelines, then by default, it is not notable" if that was true then NOTNEWS wouldn't say "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Everything we have so far indictates that its notable and will remain so... Hard to imagine future biographies of either man aren't going to talk about this in-depth. The argument that it won't receive sustained coverage is nonsensical, even if it fizzles there will be sustained coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Delete Gossip and trivia. WP isn't the 'National Enquirer'. Having reviewed much of the commentary here, the suggestion/proposal to rename the article more broadly (a la Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk) would be the more productive choice. A good deal of overflow content from the respective individual articles can be merged there with redirects. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is obvious WP:TRUMPCRUFT WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON also apply. The spectacle of two wealthy and powerful men bickering on social media might be appropriate for a discord but it's not encyclopedic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It is way too soon to know if this social-media tiff between these two powerful men will have any lasting significance or be forgotten in a week when one of them tweets on some other subject. Placing this in draft space for the next 6 months will avoid wasting the hard work that has already been done by the creator in assembling sources and documenting the early hours of the dispute so that, if it does have lasting significance, the article can be returned to mainspace or portions of it incorporated in other relevant articles. However, if it does not have lasting significance, it will allow an admin to delete it at a point in time when its encyclopedic value or lack thereof is actually able to be determined. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also not object to the scope of the article being broadened to cover their entire relationship, per several !voters above. I also do not think anyone needs to wait for the AFD to close to begin that work. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering CNN has a timeline now I’d say it’s pretty notable.--69.74.180.42 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support broadening the article per the above. 69.74.180.42 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm in the wait camp, the mere existance of a timeline doesn't factor in. We know RS are covering this. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 05:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the announced decommission of the Dragon capsules has now been canceled, apparently. Maybe in a few days it's all forgoten (or perhaps gets growing). Wait a while, the article can be keep temporarily until the fog of war goes away. Iberia-Tao (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the proposed redirs, Political activities of Elon Musk, is long already, so we'd have a subpage anyway. And this particular topic will have its continuation, with its own repercussions. — Kochas 23:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The Trump-Musk fallout could have major political and economic consequences in the coming months and may even affect the 2026 United States elections. I'd say it is too early at this point to determine whether the article violates WP:NOTNEWS, but I'd definitely recommend it for deletion if there doesn't turn out to be any major consequences. MilaKuliž (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – If the story is sustained for more than a few days, then keep. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ → Weak Keep - way too quick of a nom. Deleting an article on one of the largest news items of 2025 that almost certainly will pass WP:LASTING within a week causing the inevitable recreation is so silly. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 02:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me what Wait means here - the usual !votes are "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect". Does Wait mean "keep for now" or "delete and bring back if sustained"? One possibility is "Draftify", which would move the article out of main space for the moment, but that will make it hard for others to work on it. Personally, I'll go with Keep and link this to various articles about Musk and Trump, as appropriate. It also will need a redirect from "Donald Trump-Elon Musk feud". (I think "feud" is too strong but I'm failing to think of anything better. Lamona (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait means 'keep for now', per WP:RAPID it was too quick to create an AfD, I was basically signalling that this AfD should result in a keep, but a few weeks later I could be swayed. I've always lent towards keep in this AfD, but I'm officially changing it to a weak keep as I've also grown increasingly unconvinced by the arguments in favour of deletion as the story has progressed and the article been expanded to detail the 2022 feud as well. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd encourage @InfiniteNexus to WP:DROPTHESTICK, especially regarding whatever issue you may or may not have with this article's creator, which now seems to be sprinkled all around this AfD discussion. The creator's history has no bearing on the merits of whether or not this article is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. RachelTensions (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion, I have only discussed the article creator's past behavior twice: first, to note that they have a history of rapidly creating current-event articles that are often sent to AfD due to notability concerns; and second, in reply to another editor's comment on the user's previous topic ban. I did not make any additional references to their history other than in replies to those two statements; all other comments pertained to the notability of the topic. My intention was to alert !voters of the context of this AfD and to caution the editor against engaging in said behavior in the future, as it could and have been seen as disruptive. I did not anticipate the replies to those two comments to balloon out of control and create the impression that I am waging a personal war against the user, which was not my intention. I do apologize if my comments, which were intended as sincere advice, were interpreted as such, but I do maintain that the editor's background is relevant context, and I was mindful to remain civil but direct. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the third time, your last sentence is all you needed to move on here. Regurgitating and justifying your arguments again, in summarized format, is not exactly dropping the stick. It's more like reformatting the stick into a pole and entrenching it. CNC (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the stick in my last comment and moved on; why did you have to pick it back up? It's unfortunate that my words are being cherry-picked as a "gotcha" moment. Whether or not you agree with me on the relevance of the context, this has been blown way out of proportion. This will be my final reply; moving on to more important matters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't, but you have now. Thanks. CNC (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Plenty of detailed secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly violating WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:TOOSOON. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only actually sustainable argument against this is that it violates WP:TOOSOON, Which is a very weak argument. Also, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. And WP:notnews is very, Very, wrong on multiple reasons. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 04:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could be moved to something like 'Elon Musk and Donald Trump' and it could information about their relationship before this. KnowDeath (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could move the article to "Relationship between Elon Musk and Donald Trump", much the same way as Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this. KnowDeath (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a week or so per WP:RAPID. As others have said we don't know if this will keep getting significant coverage past the current news cycles, so I don't believe we should delete it outright at this moment. Sophocrat (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename?). The sources support a page on this, but I do not know if another name would make sense, or if in the event of multiple such "feuds", maybe a date qualifier in the title such as "2025 Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud" or maybe even something even more specific and refined. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as too soon for standalone article, even if notable enough not to delete. As referenced in the discussion, there is the previous feud that isn't even mentioned, though will excerpt that after this comment for consistency. Overall I think a Musk–Trump relationship based article, as other editors have already suggested, would be the best approach to broaden scope for a more notable topic; therefore including this content within as merely one part of a broader topic with long-term SIGCOV. Am otherwise opposed to merging to a Musk or Trump child article, as this is about both individuals, thus content doesn't belong to a child article of only one party to the dispute. CNC (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with being opposed to merging this feud stuff into the Musk or Trump article. I want to mention too that this feud article has received 30,309 page views in two days, so clearly readers are interested in this topic. Some1 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giga keep. this may reflect a potential split of the Tech Right and Populist/MAGA Right. Important stuff man Shadow Dreadlord (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, not a breaking news platform. If it becomes an historic break between the tech right and MAGA then after we would have an article about it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part of CRYSTAL is at issue here? This isn't any of the five categories or otherwise mentioned... Going line by line none of it seems to apply here, so do us a favor and pull every quote from there you think applies here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot predict a social media spat will become historically significant in the future. I think points 3 and 5 are relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of points 3 or 5 are relevant here. Not a single sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand... Point 3 is about "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"" but this article doesn't do that, a synth complaint has been raised about a single section but no such claim has been made about the article writ large nor does it appear that one could be (and the extant synth claim is about information from the past, not about the future)... Point 5 is about "product announcements and rumors" (and not rumors in general, rumors about a product) and this article isn't about a product at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Culturally relevant and a feud between capital and the government ForFawkesSake (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This is not a question of whether the feud impacts other 'keepworthy' events or phenomena, but whether this feud in and of itself is sufficiently "event-like" to justify its own article. I believe that it is. Irresistance (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Also - compare this to the article about "Covfefe" and ask yourself if THAT is seriously worth including more than the circus going down right now as part of this feud ;) Irresistance (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe? The hashtag #covfefe had been used on the Internet 1.4 million times within 24 hours of Trump's tweet. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - but would that not be more valid as an expression or symptom of the presidency and/or character of Trump (as president) - and not so much worthy as being an event in and of itself...? Trump's behavior (however you feel about it) was the thing that made the impact - Covfefe was merely one instance of it. This feud does have some similarities but I still believe is sufficiently impactful as its own "event" to warrant an article. The Covfefe tweet did not have such an impact. Irresistance (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm on your side. We even have COVFEFE Act and Category:Hip-hop feuds, like the Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud. Hence why I wrote Strong Keep under your initial comment. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud started 16 years ago and its article was just created last month. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud? Rosa Olmos (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good example of a feud between two equally notable individuals, even though it lasted much longer than this topic. The AfD in 2024 was a snowball which is quite revealing tbh. PS please strike your bold for the benefit of the closer to avoid voting twice. CNC (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I allow you to edit it, if you or somebody else deem it voting twice. Or are you to referring to User:Irresistance indeed casting 2 votes? Rosa Olmos (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK done, bold removed. Thanks. CNC (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I changed one into a comment, excuse the apparent double vote - unintended Irresistance (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. AfD isn't based on votes anyway, my fault that I adopted that view, my formatting was also unintended: Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.. It's just hard to edit the comment, once it's posted. Rosa Olmos (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Fully passes Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:ROUTINE --Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It should be merged into another article or redirected to an anchor section. – 216.49.130.15 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would contradict Wikipedia:LENGTH. Hence exactly such particular-topic "summary" articles. — Kochas 19:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t the article be trimmed? – 216.49.130.15 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIZERULE at 1,500 words there is no size-based justification for that. CNC (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This feels like a very temporary event; it won't affect anything in a permanent way, not nationally & not internationally. The fact that most of this has been a back-and-forth type of talk on Twitter/Truth Social proves that it won't have a lasting effect, in my opinion. Diamondcladskies (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments based upon feelings without policy grounding aren’t helpful. Consider amending to reference relevant policy. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a prerequisite for tendering a vote? I see a dozen or more each of 'keep's and 'delete's above that are nothing but feelings about how deeply important a social media spat is, and that it's one of the most important events in the 2025/American political history, and stacks of predictions that it will have massive, long term consequences (such as affecting the 2026 election. Should all votes that don't cite policy be discarded from the final tally? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are not a democracy. They are not votes. Arguments without policy grounding will be discarded by the patrolling admin, yes. I was simply informing them of this fact. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 22:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a valid vote. So nothing to worry about. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no reason to delete this, including the Not News arguments above. This article is one of those things that WP readers will benefit from, by having the community of WP editors collect facts and present them in an organized way. KConWiki (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significance of the participants notwithstanding, this has been extensively covered by RS. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have just published articles detailing the rift between Musk and Trump, which spanned several months and only culminated in this brief 24-hour online spat. We should not give WP:UNDUE weight to this incident while ignoring the larger context of their long-simmering tensions, so this should either be merged back into Political activities of Elon Musk or refactored into a larger article covering his role in the second Trump administration. It should not solely cover his relationship with Trump, as some have suggested, because we would be pulling too many unrelated details such as their earlier spat over Musk's acquisition of Twitter. Response to the Department of Government Efficiency (which was previously titled "Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government") could be merged into that hypothetical article well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the feud has a longer history, we should not give undue weight to the current events and the article should be expanded to cover that. I have no idea how the existence of more history lead you to the conclusion that this article should be deleted. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it appears like you're grasping for reasons to keep this AfD alive. The assertion that this conflict spans months you just provided invalidates the vast majority of deletion support on the grounds of NOTNEWS and TOOSOON. Clearly the right decision if it is true that there is many months of history to this feud is to abandon the AfD and expand the curren feud article to detail the extensive history instead of shoving it into other tangently related articles. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 22:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be non-neutral and inaccurate to describe the leadup to their online spat as a "feud", leaning into sensationalist yellow journalism territory. We are not a tabloid, and no sources have characterized their entire relationship as a "feud". Articles dedicated to criticism or controversies are generally discouraged. I don't appreciate or agree with your characterization of my comment as grasping for reasons to keep this AfD alive; and yes, it is still TOOSOON to declare that this incident should exist as a separate article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your argument now appears to be in favour of a rename. Even then I may disagree, we have plenty of articles on feuds as it stands, and the fact that no source have characterized their entire relationship as a feud isn't compelling as this article isn't about their entire relationship, it is about the ongoing feud.

My comment on grasping is not made in isolation. It relates to the conduct I've observed throughout this AfD, starting with the undue criticism of ElijahPepe and followed by the vast number of arguments you've attempted. However my opinions on your motivations do not matter if you can make compelling arguments. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My position has been consistent throughout the discussion: I do not think an article dedicated to the social media dispute that occurred on Thursday should exist until notability is established. I am less concerned with how this outcome is achieved, whether through redirecting to One Big Beautiful Bill, merging with Political activities of Elon Musk, refactored and renamed into a broader article, or outright deleted. The majority of my comments have been dedicated to demonstrating why this topic does not meet our notability guidelines. If the closer finds consensus against keeping, they will have to perform a WP:BARTENDER close. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic scope is not only about the recent feud between Musk and Trump that "that occurred on Thursday", but also the previous spat in 2022 that was also described as a feud at the time, per content. CNC (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CommunityNotesContributor: When did that happen, and why? The article is now pulling two unrelated incidents together to draw a forced connection, akin to WP:SYNTH. The previous "feud" (if it is even neutral to call it that without sources to support its use) is even less notable than last week's, so the latter would be the primary topic and the article should solely cover that. The article title doesn't necessarily imply there weren't other "feuds" in the past. We can mention it briefly in the "Background" section, but it probably does not warrant an entire paragraph per WP:UNDUE. I do not see consensus on the talk page for this change in scope; was this done unilaterally? InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this discussion to the article's talk page, as it is not related to deletion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"is even less notable than last week's"

Still begging that question, I see. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unconstructive to make snarky comments under every one of my replies, especially one that was not even directed to you. You're welcome to weigh in if you have something to add, but otherwise, this is not helpful and, frankly, incivil. This AfD has not been closed (probably should), editors continue to cast !votes, and consensus has yet to be detrmined as to whether this topic is notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of constructiveness, your 350-word and five-point request has already been answered.

That took less than three minutes.

Before that, I have compiled and published a small set of commentaries, so that editors who want to help can have a head start, and to provide a solid moat against earlier naked assertions of non-notability.

This took more than three minutes.

What metapedians get out of metapedianizing may always elude me.

In the great online battle between smarm and snark, I picked my side.

Sorry about that. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's bordering on bludgeoning, to be honest. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Its still a developing story so we should keep it for now, but we can see how it stands later on. TheBritinator (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and probably rename to "Relationship between Trump and Elon" per @KnowDeath above. WinKyaw (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is clearly significant, and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon Not a kitsune (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relevant content can be covered elsewhere. Encyclopedic notability of this particular turn of events has not been demonstrated. This article is largely excerpts and summaries of other articles and play-by-plays about tweets and unfollows.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't wikipedia articles supposed to be almost entirely excerpts and summaries of other articles/sources? WP:V and all that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant other Wikipedia articles, mainly Views of Elon Musk. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, that makes more sense. Not sure I entirely agree but I get it now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please have mercy I only recently got that article back below 9,000 words 😭 CNC (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KConWiki. Zero Contradictions (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a temporary feud between two people. The only thing that has happened up to now is them exchanging insults on social media. In my country, one of the richest people also has a feud with the government through social media and the press. That does not need a new article and neither does this.Bigar (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. A social media fight that lasted one day does not have enough encyclopedic value for its own article. The information would fit better within one of the many other broader scope articles involving the 2 subjects. Ratgomery (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I doubt this is going to be a simple feud that peters out quickly, especially with Elon owning X and Tesla, I have my bets there is going to be much more drama to go on. Also there's the whole "Trump is on the Epstein Files" and who knows how that will shake out. G5bestcfb (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it a celebrity gossip magazine. Almost all the sources in this article are immediate reactions from 5 June to the twitter spat, followed by significantly less from 6 June, then only a couple sources from 7 June and none from 8 or 9 June (with a few sources from years ago synthetically attached to this subject). If this subject does not have significant coverage enduring enough to make it even a few days past the immediate gossip circles, then it's hard to accept that this is meets the criteria for a notable event. If this turns into anything, then we can revisit it, but right now, it's just gossip with no wider consequences. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not determined by the sources in the article but by all extant sources on the topic, you will easily be able to find signficant coverage from the 8th and 9th. I suggest a google news search limited to the past 24 hours, that will turn up pieces like these: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of replying to so many comments, but I keep seeing this argument being used. However, the existence of sources alone isn't the sole determinant of notability, and it doesn't automatically warrant a standalone article. Some topics may meet sourcing requirements but are nonetheless better off as a section on an existing article, per WP:NOPAGE. See WP:N: [GNG] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. We also need to consider the WP:LASTING significance of a topic through measures such as the WP:10Y test: is the topic likely to remain notable in the long run, or will it simply be a blip in time that we're devoting undue emphasis on? WP:EVENTCRIT sets a higher bar than some other topics on Wikipedia. Pardon of Hunter Biden; Death of Matthew Perry; Controversies surrounding Ezra Miller. These topics all received brief bursts of widespread news coverage, but they do not and should not have standalone articles because they are ultimately fleeting events with little historical significance. If this event ends up having significant ramifications later on, then we can consider restoring it in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a red herring, I did not argue that the existence of sources alone is the sole determinant of notability, or that it automatically warrants a standalone article. Also note that WP:10YT instructs "Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." so if you're trying to use it to argue for deletion you simply do not understand what it is saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
neutrafor me Although this matter has almost gone viral on TikTok in China, I think it can be kept or deleted directly (it still has some record value) 后藤喵 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an important event that will affect future events. in future articles when this has lost familiarity but still affects future events, this can be easily wikilinked instead of having to explain the whole thing a million times. as other people have said, in the unlikely scenario where this does not achieve impact, then it can always be deleted Plastixfy (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Political activities of Elon Musk or Delete. It was a 3 day thing that doesn't seem to have any impact. Especially since he deleted all his tweets. Looks like WP:TRUMPCRUFT. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is EXTREMELY notable news going on right now. This is the fallout of a formerly tight relationship. If this does not happen, then I believe it should be merged into Political activities of Elon Musk/ It is a fairly well-written article that could use some extra information. Whykiepedia (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was extremely played up. 2003:D1:C737:C0AF:B4BF:EB8B:B177:5E77 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The feud was definitely played up by the media, but there is notability. I think the ultimate solution would be to merge this like I commented above. Whykiepedia (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. 129.104.244.113 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into One Big Beautiful Bill Act#Musk–Trump feud. Seems this feud, and related coverage, has mostly died off. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. I think it’s too soon to definitively determine lasting notability and it does little harm to keep it up. On the contrary, I think it is very helpful to have it up right now because the feud is currently the focus of a lot of attention and people (like myself) look for bird’s eye views like this article in order to understand what’s going on.^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 07:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Parra Vallette

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fail NPOL, as the mayor of a large city in Chile (Viña del Mar). He did so in full capacity following the removal of office of Rodrigo González, who preceded him. Although he was the mayor for only three months, the article could well be expanded using offline sources such as El Mercurio de Valparaíso. --Bedivere (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 334,248 is not large enough to entitle the mayors to be inherently notable. Let's be consistent with our judgments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put that into perspective then. It's the sixth largest commune in Chile by population. It's a large city in Chile. Bedivere (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets enough NPOL, the subject of the biography has held an official position and has received sufficient media coverage. --Carigval.97 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luis Trejo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kris Knochelmann

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

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

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

Lorne Maclaine, Baron of Moy

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

Minor nobility? figure, has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." to pass WP:BIO WP:GNG Suggest redirect to Clan Maclaine of Lochbuie Nayyn (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. Nayyn (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellycrak88 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage at all outside of Burke's Peerage, which includes more than 100,000 living people - clearly not enough to fulfil WP:GNG. Even a redirect seems generous. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 21:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahzeeb Hafi

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

Not a notable poet, writer, and engineer. Fails Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dilraj Singh Rawat

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources, also the article is little promotional, may be a fan creation. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Internet, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did a search myself and didn't find anything that would lend notability. Only thing I can imagine is that there are non-English sources available. nf utvol (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mentions, primary, WP:NEWSORGINDIA or otherwise unusable sourcing is all I find. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking more LLM creation, actually. Which I suppose is not entirely exclusive with fan creation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article also lacks sources to verify its claims; therefore, it completely fails to meet the WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Yu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countess Maria Antonia von Waldstein

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

The article is pure genealogy. There is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV). Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, Austria, Czech Republic, and Hungary. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waldstein family: No notability. Not an important historical figure. As nom said, it's just genealogy. She isn't even listed as a prominent member in the Waldstein family article. Her husband ~~isn't notable either, but~~ and her daughter Maria Antonia has some notability, so a redirect to him or her could also work. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her husband was arguably the most powerful man in the Kingdom of Hungary and served in several court and government positions before rising to the office of chancellor. I am able to find significant coverage of him (in Hungarian) but not of her. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - or smerge - to her husband's article. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Szwedkowicz

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

Subject does not appear to be notable enough to warrant her own article. Upon a WP:BEFORE search, no sources passing WP:GNG show up. I noticed that the article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject as well, and the article seems to be written in a promotional tone. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Film, Television, and Poland. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.

I believe that Magdalena Szwedkowicz meets the notability criteria, especially within the Polish film and television industry. She is a well-known producer with significant contributions, and the English article is a faithful translation of the existing Polish Wikipedia page, which is well-sourced and has been maintained without dispute.

I understand the concerns regarding tone and sourcing, and I am open to improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I will work on adjusting the language to make it more neutral and will add reliable, independent sources in English or Polish that verify her notability.

Please feel free to suggest any specific changes or improvements. I’m committed to ensuring the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines Jotdr4822 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jotdr4822 You're new to Wikipedia, so maybe you lack experience creating articles. Please review WP:PRODUCER along with WP:GNG for guidelines. The subject of the article needs to meet some requisites, such as being part of creating or co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, which Magdalena doesn't (or doesn't yet).

In regards of the tone, it must be encyclopedic. Review WP:MOS.

Wikipedias in different languages are independent of each other, and the English Wikipedia has higher standards than most of the other ones.

If you could improve the language of the article and add multiple reliable, independent sources that would help a lot in reviewing the article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many folks are easily impressed by the title of "producer", but it's become meaningless and run of the mill. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Glenn Haber

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

A friend of mine, knowing I am a Wikipedian, requested on behalf of the article subject that I nominate this for deletion (also evidence of the subject's desire at ticket:2023111810000545). Based on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this probably qualifies as a low-profile author who is not particularly notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and Massachusetts. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think I'm qualified to vote on this, but it happens to be the first article since I started following Articles for deletion that came up that I had consulted myself previously. I shall be sad if it is deleted, but that's not a good enough reason to keep it, as my reason is purely personal: I remember the day she was born, to someone I knew well, a short time after my first daughter was born. Athel cb (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with Delete. The books are not award winners, and her focus now seems to be academic. I checked scholar and she wouldn't qualify as NACADEDEMIC so there no policy that would support keep. Lamona (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP REQUEST - I couldn't find any significant reviews of her books in newspapers.com etc., there are some mentions and a bit of academic notice but nothing that makes me think subject unambiguously passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Zzz plant (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are a couple of reviews, but not sure if they would be considered significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Tavakoli

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

Someone that says they are the subject requested deletion on BLPN and on the article talk page. An IP editor attempted to nominate for AfD discussion, but the nomination wasn't correctly formed. I am nominating as a courtesy. I think that the subject probably meets notability, but give some weight to the request from (presumably) the subject, so I am neutral at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLPN discussion at WP:BLPN#Request for Review/Deletion - Janet Tavakoli. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would seem to pass AUTHOR with sources 8 and 12 being book reviews. Seems to be a fairly neutral article, I don't see anything controversial about it. Looks notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She seems to want it removed (from the discussion threat above) due to scammers emailing her. I understand the frustration, but I'm not sure a scam email is our concern, to be blunt. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the following reasons;

The subject of the article initially got interested in it back in 2013, when IP66 (presumed to be her) expressed the belief that the addition of {{Notability}} to Janet Tavakoli was intended as a retaliatory action in response to criticism she leveled at Wikipedia in an article on HuffPost. To my knowledge, before the addition of the template she never objected to the existence of the article. I harbour a good-faith belief that, had the template never been added, we likely never would have heard from her.
Apparent efforts by Janet to have the article removed have largely relied upon the clarification that the article had been created without her participation / knowledge / consent. I find the notion that Wikipedia requires the authorisation of the subject of an article to document notable material regarding them profoundly troubling. Examples of pertinent edits: One, Two, Three (see also: the edit summary of Edit #3).
While she has admittedly expressed a preference for article deletion, I think it's only fair to observe that her contributions to the website have been far from an unequivocal attempt at its deletion. Instead, she has been positively falling over herself to tell us about her career, accomplishments, and prominence. In the very same edit as previously linked she refers to being interviewed by, writing for, or being written about by C-SPAN, Forbes, CBS Evening News, and CBC News - in addition to clarifying one of her books is now in its third edition. I've never seen quite such a self-promotional (bordering on self-aggrandizement, tbqf) effort at claiming not to be notable in all my life. That particular edit almost reads like satire.
As a matter or principle, I don't believe in being more Catholic than the Pope (it's an idiom). The only argument in favour of deletion that I can possibly see is to suggest that the subject of the article is insufficiently notable. Even Janet herself has not been prepared to stake this claim. Now - I could understand someone not having realised this, but Janet has actually been incredibly careful with her choice of words. I have reviewed every edit by both IP66 and Contributions/Requester123 and I have yet to find a single instance of Janet claiming not to be a notable figure. We've had "I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards" (29 May 2025, 18:42 (UTC)), "as I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards" (29 May 2025, 23:47 (UTC)), "does not claim to meet notability standards" (31 May 2025, 22:09 (UTC)), and "Page created without consent of living subject who does not claim to meet notability standards" (1 June 2025, 14:11 (UTC)). But never just "I am not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." If she isn't prepared to claim she isn't notable, I don't see why anyone else should on her behalf.
The subject of the article is demonstrably a significant figure who more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. She has authored a minimum of nine books under her own name, in addition to ten books under the pseudonym Michael K. Clancy. IMDb describes her as an "internationally renowned finance expert." According to this page, she has written for and / or been quoted by The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, New York Times, The Economist, Business Week, Fortune, Global Risk Review, RISK, IDD, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, LIPPER HedgeWorld, Asset Securitization Report, Journal of Structured Finance, Investor Dealers’ Digest, International Securitization Report, Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Magazine, Credit, Derivatives Week, TheStreet.com, and Finance World. The same page further states she has been featured on television by CNN, CNBC, BNN, CBS Evening News, Bloomberg TV, First Business Morning News, Fox, ABC, and the BBC. Finally, she has been profiled by both Bloomberg and the University of Chicago.
I could foresee the use of a pseudonym being cited as potentially being an example of her not seeking to have a public profile. Speaking as a self-confessed zombie nerd, the use of a pseudonym for zombie-focused science fiction novels but not finance-focused books strikes me as being an effort to separate them in a bid to avoid her criticisms of individuals and bodies from being associated with her other pursuits. That she expressly claims authorship of the latter on her website suggests it's not a bid at anonymity.
While it's not necessarily part of the process, I believe we could look at WP:LOWPROFILE to help us gauge whether the deletion request forms part of an apparent effort by a person to 'lie low'. Criterion #1 is 'Media attention': Janet has herself, while arguing in favour of deletion, referred to numerous outlets that she has granted interviews. Criterion #2 is 'Promotional activities': In addition to Janet Tavakoli having a prominent biography on the website of her company - which she has named after herself - she also has the personal website JanetTavakoli.com which lists some of the books she has written. Criterion #3 is 'Appearances and performances': Janet promotes her availability as a speaker at events. I would also argue that some of her financial books would appear to qualify. Criterion #4 is 'Eminence': Janet has been profiled by the University of Chicago, "Structured success" and Bloomberg, "The Cassandra of Credit Derivatives". Additionally, she has appeared as an expert before forums of the IMF, the SEC, and the Federal Reserve bank. Finally, Criterion #5 is 'Behavior pattern and activity level': I've seen nothing to suggest her career is in any way over or in a lull. Zombies and Men (Z-Factor Book 4) by "Michael K. Clancy" was published in mid-2022, and the 3rd edition of Credit Derivatives and Securitization: Instruments and Applications was published earlier that same year.
The only known example of harm caused to Janet by the existence of the article is the receipt of a single spam email. While I could perhaps be somewhat persuaded by this were the subject of the article at disproportionate risk of falling for scams and the like, to my knowledge Janet is a perfectly competent (and, indeed, rather impressive) individual who is readily capable of disregarding such trivial inconveniences.

For whatever it might be worth - I bear no ill will toward Janet. The more I learn of her, the more I admire her. I just don't happen to think there's a great argument in favour of deletion. ···sardonism · t · c 10:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. Elsewhere a community member has raised the notion of this being a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE case, but I've yet to see an argument that even a single factor cited on the page applies. I believe the onus is on those proposing that the article be deleted - not pointing the finger at you, Russ - to demonstrate that it should be. As this has not happened to any meaningful degree, I am presently unable to support deletion. ···sardonism · t · c 15:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, similar past discussions have often ended in delete when any notability was marginal, or in keep when notability was solid enough that the article seems essential to the encyclopedia. As WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says, "editors should seriously consider honoring such requests." Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. (Saw this mentioned at the BLPN thread). The article has received an average of 4 page views daily over the past year (from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025). The general reader base won't be impacted at all if this article were to be deleted judging by the extremely low page views. If the BLP subject, who may not "clearly pass the general notability guideline", wishes to delete their article, we should honor their request. Some1 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks Russ Woodroofe for your assistance. The subject of this article is of borderline notability: I agree with Oaktree b that the article would probably survive a deletion nomination on pure notability grounds (as either keep or no consensus), but the article was tagged for notability in October 2021 and there were a grand total of 6 edits to it from that point until the article subject began requesting deletion a few days ago (four automated, one vandalism, one vandalism revert), so it's not a slam dunk. BLPREQUESTDELETE says Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests. Factors weighing in favor of deletion include a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, ... Obviously this person is not a government official, and the case for passing GNG is nonzero but far short of a clear pass, and the subject has identified a genuine harm (being targeted by scammers). Needless to say that Sardonism's very long comment is completely beside the point. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is exactly the sort of situation that I warned about in my speech earlier this year at Wikimedia NYC: very marginally notable people being targeted by scammers. The interviews (and articles in Forbes) do not contribute to significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject has not sought fame, unlike two other examples this year. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject, while sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia that seeks to be a compendium of all human knowledge, falls short of the degree of notability that reasonably requires Wikipedia to maintain an article against her wishes. Routine activity as a speaker in one's area of expertise and a supporting CV are not the earmarks of the more robust notability that would warrant keeping this article regardless. Requests of this nature have been honored throughout our history, albeit not with perfect consistency, and we should continue to receptive to these request, and grant them when we can. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete per BLPREQUESTDELETE as detailed in the policy, this is a case of marginal notability. While she does have multiple books that were reviewed in the general press and a several hundred citations on GS across three books, this would probably still fall within the "average professor output" under WP:NPROF. Furthermore, while we cannot base deletion decision on the fact that scammers exploit this situation, marginal notability + request for deletion is sufficient reason for me even in a case like this where the subject doesnt keep a low media profile per se. --hroest 16:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The book reviews are enough that I would go for a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR if we did not have a request from the subject, but I think the case is still borderline enough for us to respect WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't think it will cause significant gaps to our coverage to not have an article on this subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lyakhov

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

Subject does not meet inclusion criteria per the sources in the article. The sources do not meet WP:RS as the subject is the author of some of the articles. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tas Qureshi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here are the sources I could find [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. These are mainly database entries that prove he exist, some with a small bio but they can't be independent. I couldn't verify the majority of the sources or claims presently in the article and most that I could open were not BLP quality. Moritoriko (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as it stands is not in good shape - most of the sources are 404 not found, which is not helpful. I am still doing WP:BEFORE, and it may help other editors participating in this AfD to also search for the subject under his full name Tahseen Qureshi (as, for example, here) under which name many of his academic papers appear. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princewill Chimezie Richards

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

Fails notability guidelines, as notability is not inherited from the Biafra Nations League. Searches fail to indicate notability of the individual aside from serving as a spokesman for the group. In lieu of deletion, the redirect could be restored or relevant content can be merged to the aforementioned article. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Africa. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone sees this, would they be able to move the comment on the talk page (which I'm assuming is a keep vote) here? I'm unable to easily on my phone. Thanks! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2025-06 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Dahl

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is pure puffery - all notability inherited from Roald Dahl or Ruby Rose Molikog (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Molikog (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO. All but one source mentions relations to another famous Dahl or Ruby Rose, about 3/4 of place an extreme focus on them. Almost surely not notable in her own right. I can do stuff! (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources in the article, there is also coverage in The Cut [22], Women's Wear Daily [23], Cool Hunting [24], Racked again [25], Maxim and Curve [26]. Some of those include interviews, but also have biographical info and/or coverage of her fashion label. Many of them do mention her relatives, but just in passing, with half a sentence or so - the bulk is about her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hayes (adventurer)

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

Self-promotional article, subject does not meet notability standards. Article was created and heavily edited by user RowenaFernandes, who was banned for advertising and COI. All significant subsequent edits and expansions (most of them unsourced) came from a succession of accounts whose only contributions are on this article, likely to circumvent the initial ban. These accounts include 112.203.124.109, Litolividomaliwat, Service pa, Erictobeprecise, and Sonia.sherif. The attempts at ban evasion and COI/self-promotion should be enough for deletion, but the subject also has received no coverage besides a handful of low quality and self-published sources. A very niche Guinness World Record held briefly almost 20 years ago does not in itself establish notability. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched and added a ref, but overall don't think there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is material for a personal blog, not for wikipedia. InaRoed (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. These sockpuppet's edit histories are very revealing! NoSlacking (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alerted to this a few days ago, which I find a bit bizarre given the page has been published without comment / warning for 15 odd years - and only after a couple of new inputs from someone on my recent summitting of Mt Kanchenjunga appeared. References to all my work are everywhere online and I have little idea of inputters / input bans and other 'warning' comments. 2A00:23C7:F883:F201:5B4:B60E:DE2:73B5 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the error. Here you go

[27] as rising star, [28] as a cast, [29] for his early drama roles, [30] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@CNMall41 Sorry, I was being lazy before.

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

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

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

Another important national newspaper, minor article about the subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vantia

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

Unsourced, hoax article, There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources, not enough coverage, fails GNG. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, and Gujarat. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This article has existed for 15 years, with no sourcing whatsoever. — Maile (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has expressed a "delete" opinion, this likely will not stop the nomination. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending towards delete, but it seems reasonable to given it a bit more time for more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article should be deleted due to lack of reliable references. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsource, falls WP:GNG. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 10:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sivad Heshimu Johnson

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

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

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

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

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]

Sahim Alwan

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

WP:BLP1E, the event being Buffalo Six. Article subject has no independent notability outside the Buffalo Six case, where all pertinent information can be covered. WP:SIGCOV is only in the context of the Buffalo Six case.

Also nominating the pages of the other Buffalo Six associates for the same reason:

Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect all there (aka add the sources). No comment on thereoeticsl notability but none of these talk about anything else at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and GNG. _Dgw|Talk 01:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well going by BLP1E we would redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more feedback here, especially given that it is a bundled nomination. Merge? Redirect? Or deletion? Or....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (author, pastor)

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

Non-notable biography with no coverage in independent sources that fails NAUTHOR. Most coverage is primary and awards do not arise to the significance of ANYBIO. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and England. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weakly squeaks by on WP:AUTHOR I think. I've added reviews of his books to the article, not all of his books are even listed yet or all of the reviews. Article should probably be moved to "Andrew Wilson (pastor)" rather than using a double disambiguator. Jahaza (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Christianity.com article[31] appears to be an independent source. The site is owned by Salem Media Group. Jahaza (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional references addeed to the article including multiple reviews of his works in reliable sources so that WP:NAUTHOR is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree he meets WP:AUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This author meets WP:NAUTHOR. His books reviewed by many reviewers such as John Watkins. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edwards (Australian composer)

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

This Article relies so much on unreliable sources and no improvement have been made, I was thinking I could find a source with independent coverage but I couldn’t find, The subject has contributed in many field of entertainment yet fails to have WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO, fails WP:GNG per no particularly article that speaks about him independently on multiple secondary sources, most of the citations are either usercreated space under a music website where he has listed his musical works. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Theatre, Advertising, Germany, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avner Netanyahu

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

There's a lot of coverage of him because he's the son of a public figure. Supporting your relative's political career does not make you a public figure. He's not involved in politics himself or done anything to establish WP:NBIO. WP:INVALIDBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is rather routine, he went to school, military and he got married... Perhaps competing on the TV show would make him notable, but there isn't much coverage about that either. I don't see notability being met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP and WP:NOTINHERITED violations galore. Many more (75%?) lines of text are devoted to his family, fights, arguments, phone hacks, breakups, and security details - than anything he's ever done. Where's the assertion of notability? Also, the photo of him as a kid is problematic. Ping me if you can fix this. I'm a fan of Israel, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avner Netanyahu himself requested that the article about him be deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia on 8 Arpil 2024. The article remained. There were editors who admire Benjamin Netanyahu, who supported the deletion. There was a biased vote. The article was deleted and then restored because it was discovered that there was a problem with the vote with editors who specifically registered to vote. See here. It is strange that even the English Wikipedia wants to delete an article about a person in whom there is a lot of interest. Avner Netanyahu is going to get married on June 16, 2025, in Ronit farm a very expensive place with 2,000 very wealthy guests. This is causing a lot of anger in Israel, and there are going to be many demonstrations near the wedding venue, including blocking the narrow road to the wedding venue. And here they suddenly think it has no encyclopedic importance. See Articles 1. חתונת המ(ח)אה: ההכנות לחתונה של אבנר נתניהו קיבלו תפנית מפתיעה - ואיש לא נשאר אדיש. 2. התכנון למחאה בחתונת בנו של רה"מ - והביקורת בשמאל: "מטומטם וחסר תועלת, כך מתכננים בשמאל "להחריב" את חתונתו של אבנר נתניהו, 3. חתונת בנו של נתניהו בסכנה? אלו הפעולות הצפויות באירוע Hanay (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article about him? Avner Netanyahu is less involved than his brother Yair, but he is definitely involved. He said of his father, Benjamin Netanyahu, that he is a great leader like Winston Churchill. and more. Hanay (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Avner Netanyahu may have been in the background in the past but his upcoming wedding is now of major interest. People will want to know who is Avner Netanyahu. His wedding is a slap in the face to the thousands of hostages, injured, dead, and their families. The lavish and ostentatious event for some 2000 guests is occurring while hostages, soldiers, and Gazans are being killed as a result of the policy of Avner's father, Benjamin Netanyahu. While some claim Avner shouldn't pay the price of his parents' perfidy, one of the leaders of the protests, who worked as security guard for the Netanyahu family so knows them well, appealed to Avner to wed in a modest ceremony. Ami Dror posted this notice: "Avner, Advice from someone who knew you as a cute little boy...Have a modest wedding,...as if the 58 kidnapped people were your brothers, and not as if they were a story that doesn't concern you. Go to the media and talk about it. I promise you we won't come. Stay at Ronit Farm, say there will be 200 guests, a reasonable number. No asado, no caviar, and no champagne waterfalls...Avner, A modest wedding - I promise you won't see us. A Ceausescu-style banquet - we'll do everything we can to have you dance to the Gaza horror film while pictures of the hostages fly above you tied to yellow balloons." Activists are reportedly organizing motorcades to disrupt guest arrivals and plan to distribute copies of the book Mr. Abandonment and magnets bearing images of hostages. “We’re not trying to ruin the wedding,” protest leader Ami Dror told Ynet. “We couldn’t if we wanted to.” He explained that the protest isn’t about the marriage itself, but what the celebration symbolizes—especially after 21 months of war, during which many soldiers have held modest, makeshift weddings in between reserve duties. “It’s about the disconnection and arrogance. While reservists got married on wooden crates, he’s hosting a grand event at the country’s most luxurious venue.” MK Naama Lazimi of the "Democrats" party, headed by Yair Golan: “The problem isn’t the wedding itself,” she added, “but the complete tone-deafness. While the public grieves, struggles, and goes sleepless, the prime minister’s family puts on a lavish spectacle. It’s a show of detachment from the people.” Who is Amit Yardeni? Meet the woman marrying into Israel’s most-watched family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves coffee (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By having this extravagant wedding while so many people are suffering, Avner has made himself a public figure. Loves coffee (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The singular source provided is about Avner's finance. Still no policy-based argument or evidence for keep. Longhornsg (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Hanay, it is interesting to learn about the subject's deletion request at hewiki, but as I understand it he has made no such request here, so it likely does not impact this discussion. The English Wikipedia has its own standards for notability, which are fairly high. Please do not be surprised that an article kept elsewhere might be deleted here. More importantly, I understand that the discussion at hewiki was troubled, but the way you have worded your comment, it sounds like you are accusing Oaktree b and Bearian, two highly-experienced editors, of being connected to the issues there. This is casting aspersions and not allowed; I encourage you to strike the sentences beginning "It is strange..." and "And here they..." Toadspike [Talk] 23:30, 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) 06:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Even with the sources from Hanay, it seems the subject would be considered WP:BLP1E at best.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avner receives regular coverage, not all of which dervives from his family name, From the recent wedding saga to the very debate on his article deletion on hewiki (1, 2), to his victory in the bible quiz, enlistment and so on. I haven't looked into it too deeply, but this seens to constitute repeated coverage from noteworthy sources (haaretz, ynet, N12) that centers on Avner himself. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:INHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're more experienced with this than me. If that's how the criteria is defined, i guess i'm changing my stance Totalstgamer (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark A. Bragg

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

No evidence of notability from independent reliable sources, only from church sources[32]. The only independent sources are about the sad fate of his mother. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Latter Day Saints, and California. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGY as a holder of an inherently notable position of religious leadership. Per the EL here, while a regular Mormon bishop is equivalent to a local pastor, a General Authority Seventy, which Mr. Bragg is, is a much senior position, with a scope easily equivalent to a Bishop in the Roman Catholic or Anglican traditions. As such, we know that appropriate coverage exists, whether or not we can find it and/or agree on whether coverage in LDS sources is independent. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example SlTrib from earlier this year notes his position as "president of the faith’s North America West Area" which puts him above a Catholic archbishop in terms of adherents, clergy, area, and institutions overseen. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are essays, not policies or guidelines. And the claim that coverage zxists is rather a weak claim for a US BLP, where coverage is normally easy to find if it exists. Fram (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They accurately reflect consensus. Point being that it's a waste of time for us to go digging through looking for stuff that's going to be there somewhere. There's simply no question that he has a ton of coverage from LDS sources which are some degree or another less than completely independent... but discounting all of that is needlessly Procrustean and anti-LDS. Notability has never been a policy, always a guideline, and sticklers for it in such cases can never really explain to me why an encyclopedia with oodles of pop stars, voice actors, etc. would be improved only by removing the leaders of religious denominations that are covered in the religious (non-independent) press, rather than nominally independent pop-culture sources. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you allow articles where all you have are non-independent sources, then there is no way to keep out all spam, vanity, self-promoting individuals and groups, ... A basic principle of Wikipedia is that we reflect and summarise what other reliable, independent sources have written, to get as close as possible to a neutral point of view and independently verified facts. Fram (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is. You rely on things like WP:BISHOPS to restrict, for example, bio coverage of major religious figures to the top 1-2% of clergy based on position and importance, rather than title. It's a parallel way to make sure we're not covering every self-promoting, self-declared apostle, but can e.g. cover regionally/nationally important figures. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my last sentence. Fram (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article, I concur with Jclemens that Bragg is inherently notable per WP:CLERGY and WP:BISHOPS, being in a position equivalent to a Bishop in Catholicism or Anglicanism and "[being a] high level religious official with a substantial deal of power and autonomy, and they tend to play a substantial role in their local community, including interactions with public officials, the media, etc." PortlandSaint (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fram makes a very compelling argument that the assumption of independent reliable sources existing is problematic. 206.83.99.60 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Yang

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

Refs do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression he passed WP:NACTOR, with at least two notable roles (a main role in a miniseries and a lead role in a film + a further upcoming project). However, if I was mistaken, then it's a case of WP:TOSOON and I would support redirecting to Last Days (2025 film) for now. Starklinson (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to clarify, my vote is keep (for passing WP:NACTOR) or if not, redirect (for being WP:TOOSOON). Starklinson (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Source 8 is a RS, but it's rather thin. Source 12 is also a RS, but isn't just about this individual. Those are all I can find as well... Would likely pass ACTOR, but we need sourcing... Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi

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

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

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

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

Comment Also found these sources on Google, [33], [34]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough references to demonstrate subject's notability. [35] - This is an in-depth coverage by reliable source Mongabay, [36]- An in-depth article by Hindustan Times. AndySailz (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ok, i wasn't aware of this. Outside his death, i found some sources [37], [38], [39].Afstromen (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @CNMall41,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I responded because you pinged me. I haven’t directly accused you of anything. Based on the photo added by Jodhpuri, I only mentioned that it “ I'm a bit confused" and asked about it while staying within WP:AfD rules. If my question has hurt your feelings, I apologize.-SachinSwami (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kliff

AfDs for this article:

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

Page was deleted after an AfD discussion in 2021, and recently recreated. I can't see the old version to know if this is a G4 situation, but I do not see any sources beyond those discussed in the 2021 AfD, and do not think much has changed. Bringing back to AfD for clarity. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources aren't sufficient to meet WP:GNG, just like last time. - MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment to answer a point the nominator raised: this is substantially different to the 2021 article so should be discussed on its merits. G4 does not apply. Star Mississippi 01:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a well-known journalist who has non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. Here are examples, which include an interview on NPR:

Sarah Kliff brings transparency to ER prices, one hospital bill at a time - Columbia Journalism Review

Healthcare policy journalist Sarah Kliff talks Obamacare legacy, coronavirus - The Princetonian

Republicans Want To Get Rid Of Obamacare. But Then What? : NPR

These, plus other sources, suggest that she satisfies WP:GNG. I add that she also frequently appears in the media as an independent expert beyond her reporting role:

Breaking down the House GOP health care bill - CBS News

Obamacare open enrollment set to begin as Trump officials try to upend health care law wikicreativity (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspaper articles and interviews with the biography subject do not build the case for notability. Just like last time around. MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I can see why this was an AfD nomination as the article isn't sourced properly, as most sources, while reliable, are primary and not independent secondary ones. And it's really hard to find sources about a subject who is also a prolific writer as one has to weed through and not consider authored articles. Regarding sources mentioned so far, I don't see why the Columbia Journalism Review and The Princetonian articles presented above by the article's author don't count as sources. The first is an interview although has introductory secondary coverage. The second has a lot of quotes which some editors don't like. But I'd count them. Here are some more: This article [40] discusses Kliff's views on the ACA and give some background on her. This has a review [41] of a NYT article she wrote with a colleague. The Nieman Lab published this article [42] about Kliff and a piece she wrote for JAMA. I think in sum these may meet WP:BASIC but only the Columbia Journalism Review source is in the article. I think this article has potential but needs to be Draftified and re-worked to include sources and verify claims. Let's first see if editors think it meets BASIC like I do. Nnev66 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In accordance with WP:JOURNALIST, Kliff "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" in the area of health policy. She is frequently interviewed in the media and especially in audio or video, so I'm not sure how accessible a lot of that media is. Because of her notability and media prominence, she has 128k followers on Twitter. A Reddit "Ask me anything" from 2019 has 19k upvotes and 1.5k comments. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NJOURNALIST, which simply requires the subject "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers". A whole frickin' episode of Fresh Air devoted to her is clearly shows she is "widely cited by peers". And there is nothing wrong with student newspapers per se. In this case, Columbia Journalism Review isn't even a student paper, while The Daily Princetonian is older and more highly-respected than many non-student papers. Toadspike [Talk] 22:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like emerging consensus is clearly on the keep side. I may have been too hasty in my nomination (I see for example that G4 had already been considered and rejected in the viewable article history), although I also note that the sources considered here are pretty much the same as the ones found lacking in 2021. For myself, I find the framing put forth by Nnev66 and Toadspike reasonably convincing. Remark that many of the sources considered are interviews, but e.g. CJR and Fresh Air are weighty sources that one should take seriously. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sarah Kliff is a notable American journalist. I found this to demonstrate her notability: [43], [44], [45]. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For the record, those are the first three links posted by Creativitywiki above, not new sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 17:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A detailed review of independent sources would be helpful, remembering that interviews are not independent sources and so do not contribute toward notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me, the interviews are not convincing to establish GNG, but a case can be made for NJOURNALIST, that she is "widely cited by peers". Neimanlab and this report are clearly sigcov on her reporting. Then, the CJR article and NPR episode are good sources to demonstrate her recognition as an expert in her field. Combined with sources like this article (Wichita Eagle), this response (by a professor, I think), I'd say she easily passes the NJOURNALIST bar. (note that most of these sources were listed by !voters above)
There's other non-independent sources that could be used to flesh out an article, such as a profile by her alma mater, NYT announcement, so I'm not concerned that we cannot have an encyclopedic article here.
As an aside, I really don't think student journalism can count as reliable reporting that would be indicative of notability though, even one like The Daily Princetonian. As an undergrad, I published some things in Ivy League level undergraduate publications that got literally no peer review. And undergrads can't be trusted to reliably review things anyways. But there's enough here beyond that Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are not great, and I'm not even seeing enough to meet WP:BASIC. Most of what is available is WP:PRIMARY or from sources that are not considered reliable. However, the subject meets WP:JOURNALIST, and seems notable in her profession.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 5 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]

Khokhar Khanzada

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

There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator's reason. Ixudi (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has concurred with the delete rationale, this may not stop the nomination. I have no opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Mayuran (Saba)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bolu Okupe

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no information or sources stating of this person is either a model or activist. The article does not mention any fashion shows or brands that he participated in, nor does it mention any activism that he has done. He is only notable as a son of a former presidential aide which makes this WP:INVALIDBIO. This person is not notable. Sackkid (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is some coverage in reliable sources; how significant is debatable. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. The coverage that you are referring to all mirror that this is a gay man who happens to be the son of a former presidential aide. But there is no actual notability in that. I would say it would be more appropriate to merge this with Doyin Okupe but it is already there. Sackkid (talk) 06:35, 26 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!} 23:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. Shoerack (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Blaise

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

Fails WP:BIO. A lot of this stuff is trivial. The Time source does not feature him as the topic of discussion, The Pink News source simply mentioned that he was one of the attendees but does not state that he organized the protest, The Bloomberg source does not exist, The Out magazine source was written by them (Blaise); which leads that this article could have been created and edited by Matthew Blaise. "In 2020, they were a winner of The Future Awards Africa "Prize for Leading Conversations" but the source does not mention him winning any award of the sort. Also, the page receives very little traffic. If this person is an actual activist, there should be more focus on what they actually changed in the course of history and human rights. But once you take away the sentences with the meaningless sources, you are left with trivial information about where he is allegedly attending college. Sackkid (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg source exists and link is still active. There are many articles and publications about them, and their nonprofit is quite active as well. Iseaseeshells (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, none of them say what he has actually done as an "activist", they are simply mirroring each other. I saw several pages that says he founded The Oasis Project but there are no articles that elaborate on it, say who it has helped, or what it has actually done. Many publications do not do their own research to see if the information given to them is credible. They are simply calling it "a Nigeria-based registered non-profit organization" but it is not registered with the Nigerian CAC or Global Giving, so it is not an establishment. So again, these publications are mirroring each other. Example: "I believe the sky is yellow and pink because you told me. You believe the sky is yellow and pink because I told you." Sackkid (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear where you’re coming from, he is active with his nonprofit, Obodo, which is registered with CAC Iseaseeshells (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There would still need to be significant coverage from reliable sources in order to support the claim that Matthew Blaise is notable by Wikipedia standards. Also do you know Matthew Blaise personally? Sackkid (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 12:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umair (music producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. At first glance there appears to be significant coverage but looking closer you will see that most are not bylined, are from unreliable sources, or just routine coverage or mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Umair meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. His 2024 album Rockstar Without a Guitar peaked at #8 on Spotify Pakistan and was featured in Genius Community’s 25 Best Albums of 2024 (ThePrint). His single “Asli Hai” topped YouTube Pakistan charts (Music Metrics Vault). Covered by reliable sources like Samaa TV, ThePrint, Wordplay Magazine, and Itz Hip Hop. Producer for notable duo Young Stunners. Meets NMUSIC via charting work, media coverage, and national significance.

— Behappyyar (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSICIAN would not be met based on charting. Spotify and YouTube are not acceptable under WP:CHART. Also, being a producer for someone notable does not come with inherent notability. Can you address the non-bylined references? Do you feel these are reliable and if so how? For WP:GNG, you are also cited press releases above which can never be used for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 While it’s true that WP:CHART places limits on YouTube/Spotify data for standalone notability, those indicators support broader cultural relevance under WP:NMUSIC#1 and WP:GNG. Chart placements help demonstrate impact in the absence of traditional charts in South Asia, where mainstream media often lags behind independent or digital-first musicians.

Regarding sources:

Samaa TV and ThePrint are independent, professional outlets with editorial oversight and journalistic standards. These are not self-published or fan-driven and are widely accepted as RS in other music-related AfDs.
The Itz Hip Hop review is bylined and analytical, not promotional; it contains critical assessment of Umair’s production and album structure.
The Wordplay Magazine article, while regional, is independent and contains critical evaluation — see similar RS used in AfDs for artists in UK/India-Pak context.

I accept that the ANI press release cannot count toward WP:GNG, but it was cited for factual support of chart placements, not to satisfy notability directly.

Notability isn’t only about headlining credits. Umair is the primary producer behind Rebirth and Open Letter, two of the most discussed hip-hop albums in Pakistan — both critically reviewed in RS and recognized in independent retrospectives. His influence is creative and structural, meeting WP:NMUSIC#2 (“significant contribution to the work of others that is covered in reliable sources”).

On balance, the article meets WP:GNG through multiple independent sources with critical commentary, and WP:NMUSIC through documented production of notable albums and influence on Pakistan’s hip-hop scene.

— Behappyyar (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a major role in major works proves notability. Could you give more info on the part he played and on the notability of those albums? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to forget: Talha Anjum's most famous song Kaun Talha? in which he diss an Indian rapper Naezy was produced by Umair. ^[1] Behappyyar (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@(Itzcuauhtli11) He served as the lead producer and co-composer on both Rebirth (2017) and Open Letter (2023), two landmark Urdu hip-hop albums in Pakistan.

On Rebirth, Umair produced all 15 tracks for Young Stunners, a duo considered foundational to Pakistani rap. The album is credited with shaping the Urdu hip-hop scene and received wide media attention from outlets like SAMAA TV.^[2]

For Open Letter, he was again the key producer, collaborating with Talha Anjum and international names such as KRSNA. The album was reviewed independently and discussed critically within South Asian music forums.^[3]^[4]

These albums are not just popular but culturally significant, marking key points in the evolution of Pakistani hip-hop. Umair’s complete production involvement and critical coverage of these albums demonstrate a major creative role in notable works, satisfying WP:NMUSIC#2 and strengthening his case under WP:GNG. ^[5]

References

^ "Indian rapper asks 'Talha Kaun?', Talha Anjum responds with a brutal diss track". Images.Dawn.com. Dawn Media Group. 21 May 2025. Retrieved 23 May 2025.
^ "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.
^ "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".
^ "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".
^ "Umair and Jokhay The man behind the rise of Talha Anjum amd Talha Younas".

There is a huge WP:WALLOFTEXT so I will only be addressing some of the main points. I wouldn't consider Young Stunners even notable despite having a Wikipedia page (that one needs to go to AfD as well). A single collaboration with a rapper is not something that gains inherent notability. Everything else is more of an WP:ILIKEIT argument. As far as the "landmark" albums you speak of, I would guess they would have enough coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page since they are landmark, yet I do not see it. Fact is, the coverage has some mentions, routine announcements, and unreliable sources (even a publication that is reliable like Dawn can have specific articles considered unreliable - see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). The rest of what you cited is not reliable (two blogs and Reddit?). If this artist was truly worthy of notice (a requirement of notability), there would be more than blog posts and promotional churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 This isn’t WP:ILIKEIT—his notability stems from his influence on multiple notable works. While some early coverage may be light or promotional, there is independent, reliable coverage (e.g., SAMAA TV, The Express Tribune, and Dawn articles/interviews) highlighting Umair’s production role. [46]. Behappyyar (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The comment proves what I have been saying. You cite this which is a routine announcement and not-bylined. It is not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. It is the same concept as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Finally, please do not cite interviews anymore. They are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link i have shared Umair slides into Genius Top Albums of the Year is not a routine announcement. It highlights Umair’s recognition by Genius alongside global artists like Beyoncé. This editorial coverage by a reliable source (The Express Tribune) goes beyond routine mentions and supports notability per WP:GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already stated numerous times. It is NOT BYLINED and falls under similar concerns as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Articles published under "news desk" or "webdesk" have consistently found to be unreliable for notability purposes as they are promotional churnalism, not something in-depth written by a journalist. Please see WP:CIR. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: would benefit from additional input. Contributors are also reminded to please refrain from using LLMs to generate walls of text, as they don't help anyone. Write your own arguments, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I lean to agree with CNMall41; most of the articles with SIGCOV doesn't mention the author of the article, and all of them have promotional undertones. The Rolling Stones review is nice, checks all the boxes for a good sources (except the promotional vibes). If we can find another 2+ sources of the quality of this Rolling Stones article, we can save the article. This source also has a little bit specifically on Umair. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought the Rolling Stone reference was okay, but when I looked closer during a WP:BEFORE, I saw it was Rolling Stone India which is not Rolling Stone and has different (if any) oversight authority. Should be treated similar to Forbes India or Entrepreneur India. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that he meets WP:NSINGER criterion 2, having a single listed on a country's national music chart. 1 190.140.190.217 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source that you pointed out states that "As well as several tracks making Spotify’s viral charts in Pakistan and India". Regional Spotify listings do not count towards WP:CHART. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to modify sources: Having read the above discussions, read the article over and checked the sources, there are a few things that stand out to me. Firstly, the names of some of the article writers, namely refs 2, 5, 10 and 12, appear to not be the name of an actual person (Images Staff and Culture Haze). These sources are likely not bylined, as I believe has been mentioned previously. Secondly, ref 14 is a link to the artist's Spotify. Whilst Spotify isn't listed on WP:RS/PS, I would question whether it counts as a WP:RS. For these reasons, along with the article still potentially being a WP:Stub (it has the notice at the bottom of the article), I think that draftifying the article to take care of these issues would be beneficial in strengthening arguments for keep. 11WB (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb The references contain nonsense parameters because this article is AI generated. Sources 4 and 16 contain utm_source=chatgpt.com in the URLs. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Yes, it appears you are correct for ref 16. That link was attributed by Google Analytics to ChatGPT as a source of traffic. I believe this relates to Wikipedia:AI-generated content - not yet a policy, but important nonetheless. Having seen this and the other things I mentioned previously shifts my opinion from draftify further to deletion pending further insight. 11WB (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my last message, it appears ref 20 also links to Spotify. I've re-read the article, I'm still not confident in my own ability to detect LLM usage or other AI generated content, so I think it best I leave that to be confirmed by more experienced Wikipedians. Regardless of AI, this article definitely has issues that need addressing in its current form. 11WB (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Needs more coverage.

Edard Socceryg (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines regarding WP:NMUSIC. From a glance of the sources in the article, they do not discuss the subject significantly, or are adverts, or are profiles... And I could not find any valid sources on the search engine. I also opposed draftification unless there is a possibility that the subject will be notable in the future. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Ghorbani

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Attempted to draftify but OP recreated it in mainspace. It was noted this was the "english" version so I looked at Wikidata and it appears there is a mass posting campaign across many languages. CNMall41 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Iran. CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 20 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!} 22:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a real person, one of the Iranian music artists and press writers. As you can see, the article has complete sources and is well-known. Given the importance of the topic, there is no reason to delete the article!Thank You! Rahavardeparsì (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This appears to be a case of long-term abuse. See User:Richardsondiva. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link before it was blanked. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:, it in fact is, across multiple Wikipedia projects. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Iran, due to internet filtering and users connecting to VPNs, there are always network interferences and I have no knowledge of the past. As I said, the article has a valid and necessary topic and sources. It is better to discuss whether the article should remain or not. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahavardeparsì. You have "no knowledge of the past" yet you happened to recreate an article of Hamidreza Ghorbani very similar to that created by User:Farbodzade. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Raha and we share the same internet with Farbodzade. We are trying to create. We are students of Professor Hamidreza Ghorbani. Look at our edits. We do not intend to sabotage the files. We only made edits. Please do not seek adventure and comment on whether the article should remain or not. This is a poll, not an interrogation! Should the article remain or be deleted? Rahavardeparsì (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked, not by me but by another user, to disclose outside connections you have. Up to this point you have been skewing this discussion about long-term abuse. I question your sincerity. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be pessimistic. I am honest with all users. We are the educated class of Iran and we have learned the way of honesty from our professors. If you and other friends believe that our professor's article should remain, please vote positive and save the article. We, the people of Iran, love all the people of the world. Thank you for your attention. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:, it is. The SPI found the connection which is something that should have been disclosed in the beginning by the user (only now they talk about "shared internet" now that they are aware of the SPI). The LTA can be dealt with once the AfD has run its course in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know anything about the Iranian internet. We have connectivity problems and many networks and sites are filtered here. Yes, we have shared internet because Farbodzadeh is my neighbor and we live in a residential apartment. I am not looking for adventure and we respect your decision to stay or delete the article. You are respected. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Time to discuss the article not the editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article can remain. Objection to deletion. Reason: Reliable sources and importance of the topic. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and the history of the page indicates promotional moves. Just because a user page is blanked doesn't erase its history. These shenanigans are why our charitable status is in trouble. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stay - The sources are credible in Persian and are well-known. Media coverage in independent and impartial sources indicates the importance of the article's topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahavardeparsì (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have p-blocked Rahavardeparsì from this discussion. They retain access to edit the article. Star Mississippi 23:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Junker

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

Article has been orphaned for more than a year; the main subject is of the memorial that never happened, not the person himself. Does not meet WP:BIO LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Wisconsin. LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 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!} 22:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clear cut application of WP:ONEEVENT here - subject is only notable for a single event that made the news, and all of the coverage of his death focused on that same event. I also don't think the construction of the shrine passes WP:NEVENT, so a page move from Ted Junker to an article about the event is not a viable alternative to deletion. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added some refs. The reason for my "keep" is that I have found accounts of this in a variety of sources, including a newspaper in Iceland (no idea what it says but it's about this). A story went out over Associated Press so it got spread pretty far. I also recognize the WP:ONEEVENT aspect so would not protest if this gets deleted. Lamona (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found my link to the Icelandic news article: Hitlers-stofa hættuleg heilsunni?

Blaðið, Iceland 16 June 2006 Lamona (talk) 22:39, 31 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) 13:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person that's been deceased for a decade, possibly wanting to do some controversial things before passing away.... I don't see notability. Barely even BLP1E, not even sure the "event" even happened... From what I see in the article, the monoment was blocked from ever being build, students protested... Then Junker dies and the story ends. More of an interesting/colorful local tidbit at this point than anything notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People proposed deletions

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

[1] "Indian rapper asks 'Talha Kaun?', Talha Anjum responds with a brutal diss track". Images.Dawn.com. Dawn Media Group. 21 May 2025. Retrieved 23 May 2025.

[2] "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.

[3] "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".

[4] "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".

[5] "Umair and Jokhay The man behind the rise of Talha Anjum amd Talha Younas".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]