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

James Hastings (model ship maker)

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

A biography that only has 2 different sources (different pages from the same website are still 1 source). One of which is a non-independent obituary. The most useful of the other source is primarily just a self written article which basically makes this a WP:AUTOBIO. This issue was noted during the AFC process by Cactusisme but the article was moved to the mainspace anyways. Searching for James Hastings brings up numerous unrelated individuals and modifying the search with terms like ship models brings up nothing. Moritoriko (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Moritoriko (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mosharaf Hossain

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

Copy and paste move from Draft:Syed Mosharaf Hossain. Fails WP:BIO. References are churnalism and passing mentions. Fails WP:V 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail WP:BIO $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 16:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the safety shoe invention, I don't really see notability for this person. The awards seem trivial and the rest of the sourcing is simply a resume/CV. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gnews brings up this gem [1], with a whole four lines of text. Gscholar only has two hits on the name, that I don't think are about this person either. Not much of anything in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable vanity article. Interesting shoes, though. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not agree with the notability guidelines matching this profile even after thoruogh research, hence it should be deleted.Almandavi (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If the user doesn't see the problem, this probably has to go to WP:COIN. Nobody (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Wick

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Radio, United States of America, and Texas. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even reading the article, she seems rather routine. Sourcing isn't helpful and I don't find much of anything about her. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some extensive research with different combination but the situation is unfortunate but I added one source with basic info about her but looks weak.AppleBoosted (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Kwang-il

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

Non-notable person, only three sources cited. Absolutiva (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and South Korea. Absolutiva (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dogsbody

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

WP:NOTDICT. This article contains only a definition, synonyms, and etymological information.

Deprodded by an IP without any stated reason.

--Janhrach (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Business. Janhrach (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Korzeń

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

The article is virtually unsourced, as none of the references or links in it have any mention of the person (that I could find, and there's not a lot of text). Same goes for plwiki, where this was translated from. A Google search also brought back virtually nothing besides Wikipedia, Wikidata and Commons. A bunch of Polish pages mention the name, but I couldn't find any with info on this particular person, including any pages relating to the Polonia Restituta award. ☀ Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 11:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Yaghmour

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

no notability. فيصل (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Jordan. فيصل (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that an administrator of Arabic Wikipedia believes that notability has not been established, I am inclined to agree. I cannot validate sourcing in English to any degree that shows notability. PickleG13 (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Al-Masri

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

promotional article. فيصل (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Jordan. فيصل (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Given that an administrator of Arabic Wikipedia believes that notability outside of promotional material has not been established, I am inclined to agree. I cannot validate sourcing in English to any degree that shows notability, and it would require a lot of cleanup to get this page in working order. Nonetheless, I think it could Return to Draftspace. PickleG13 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this guy is notable. The article itself definitely needs some work, but the subject himself meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing in the article and elsewhere. [2] [3] [4]. Cremastra (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Passi

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable topic. Unsourced article and claims no Notability. fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, India, and Delhi. LKBT (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Passi

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks significant coverage on reliable resources. Fails WP:NACTOR. LKBT (talk) 09:41, 21 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, India, and Delhi. LKBT (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam B. Resnick

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

Not notable enough topic for a standalone article. Unsourced article and claims no Notability. fails WP:BIO FreaksIn (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Conspiracy theories, and Crime. FreaksIn (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Kâmil Berk

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

Only found one other reference on a Google search and it didn't seem like he did much that would warrant meeting notability standards. Being the doctor to a notable person isn't enough to establish notability on its own. Orphan article now for several years, so additional information is probably not likely. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument for deletion makes sense, and there is no notability established seemingly in any language. On English Wikipedia, it is especially challenging to source an article where there is not significant notability in English language sources. PickleG13 (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Deepak

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

This article should be deleted because the subject doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s rules for notable academics or public figures. It appears to be written by the subject himself, raising concerns about autobiographical bias. His h-index and i10-index are much lower than what is normally expected for a professor in the Humanities. The only proof that he won a major Chinese award is a dead link, and no other reliable sources confirm it. Charlie (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and India. Charlie (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems feebly notable hence the article should be trimmed in a neutral form and also lodged with some more notable news link.Almandavi (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urmas Nigul

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

Subject is not notable Nixleovel (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Estonia. Nixleovel (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the name does show up, but only as trivial routine coverage. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 04:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has certainly not been established. There has not even been a real effort to make this any more than a stub, which is frustrating in itself. PickleG13 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably notable, e.g. biography in magazine Sõdur (see https://issuu.com/sodur/docs/sodur0415/69). But I am not opposed for deletion--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE coverage doesn't point towards notability. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Wahlgren

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I couldnt find sources online about this subject hence doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment I took the opportunity and edited the page. Used proposed edits and links to at least give it a chance because I believe that people who were notable when articles were not posted on the internet widely or when the digital age wasn't booming, deserves a chance. Also the article is very old so it passed all the screening for years. We can remove some parts though. AppleBoosted (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Farah

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

No sign of notability. Zuck28 (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, and Cyprus. Zuck28 (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A pretty weak deletion rationale. Per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, it would be fairly unprecedented to delete an article on a verifiable Catholic bishop, since there are almost always sources to support notability per WP:NEXIST. He's discussed with some depth in this 2023 book and there are almost certain to be print and/or Greek/Arabic sources on this figure. Was his name searched in Greek or Arabic? Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essentially per Dclemens1971. And frankly deleting an article for someone who is a Catholic bishop just seems weird. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the book source identified above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Antonio City Council election

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

Local municipal elections (outside of mayoral elections) are not noteworthy enough to have their own article, insufficient notability requirements. There are no other articles regarding San Antonio city council elections, which further proves the lack of notability. SanAnMan (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Texas. SanAnMan (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep existence of other articles is not a valid reason for deletion, and local municipal elections may be notable if they receive significant coverage. This election does show significant coverage through the existence of sources on the page and a WP:BEFORE yields pages of results on candidates, campaigns, and other council election-related topics. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ssewali

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Uganda, and Canada. Yuvaank (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with the nominator, the sources lack reliability. A thorough evaluation of the sources is necessary. Zuck28 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Agree per nom.--FreaksIn 15:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Israelis

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of coverage of the concept (see the references already present in the article), but different terms are used, such as Anglo-Saksim. Shalom Horowitz, described as an "Anglo-Israeli lawyer". Move to Anglo-Saksim is one possibility, but Anglo-Israelis is probably preferable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Baldelli

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

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

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

Comment There's an extensive biography in the Dizionario biografico online degli anarchici italiani (which was originally a print publication and is now updated and expanded online)[5]. Between that and the Wieck obituary, I'd be fine with "Keep" if only there was a third published source. The Dizionario points to an undergraduate thesis, but it's unpublished. Jahaza (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd hope with an extensive list of publications for WP:AUTHOR notability, but I only found one review so far.[6] It would be good if someone has access to Italian library sources to search those. Jahaza (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, REDIRECT to David Wieck, where Baldelli and his main book are mentioned. If more sources emerge the article can be broken out again. 04:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep, extensively cited in various works on anarchism. --Soman (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wieck page. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jenkins (sheriff)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a bribery conviction is extraordinarily rare nowadays. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd still consider that all of one event, and $75k in bribes is a rather trivial amount when we look at other criminals that have articles here. I don't see a notable career either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:N. –HirowoWiki (📝) ^w^ 01:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One event and fails GNG in any case. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Shah

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

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

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

Snow keep. Interview sources are more than fine. There are plenty of them: e.g. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No, Perlen vom Bodensee is not just a blog, [14], it is a very reliable source, also trusted by de-wp, for what it's worth. - Squasher (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please double check? Because from what I see, the only author who consistently writes on Perlen vom Bodensee is Conrad Schormann, who is also the founder. Six articles were written by Stefan Löffler and a few by Roland Neumeier. The translated DE wiki article states that "The site's editor is Conrad Schormann, who is supported by a team of 18 authors.", which I believe is misleading based on what I’ve seen so far and the fact that the article has very few edits also doesn’t help its reliability. In any case, having a page on DE wiki doesn’t automatically make the source reliable, especially since the standards on EN wiki are significantly higher, which I believe you already know. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to add or to check. I saw the article this afternoon by chance and also the the AfD, with a comment I did not completely agree and just wanted to leave a note that might help. The source is viewed as reliable in de-wp by the chess portal, if you do not agree, that is fine for me. Sagar Shah is at least in my eyes a relevant topic for someone like me, who follows chess purely from an interested viewer point of view. He is very well known in the chess eco system, in de-wp he is notable already just by having reached the IM title. If he doesn't meet the criteria here, because no sources can be found, that are seen as sufficient, so be it. - Squasher (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kristian Halken

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

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

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

.

Keep: Clicking on the Gnews link above brings up more than a trivial amount of Danish articles, [15] for example, suggests a long career and seems to be well-known by the public. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Close call, but doesn’t seem to definitively meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Pisati

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

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

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

Sonia Rathee

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, United States of America, and California. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fully agree with nominator rationale. Chronos.Zx (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She had multiple significant roles in notable productions, including lead roles in Tara vs Bilal,Broken But Beautiful and roles in the main cast of Kapkapiii, and Decoupled, thus clearly meeting the notability requirements for actresses, see WP:NACTRESS.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. She fails WP:GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Feichthaler

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Politicians, and Florida. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The article was moved to mainspace by its main author, not a reviewer. Subject is not notable for the reasons already outlined in the AFC comments; it should be returned to draftspace. Anerdw (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Delete due to dreadful state of sourcing (I identified and removed 6 or 7 references that failed verification, and there's WP:REFBOMBing); WP:SPA editor likely has a WP:COI. May not pass WP:NPOL. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote to delete, the author has removed some of the excess citations but not added anything meaningful: can't see this reaching the WP:NBIO bar, no matter how much editing they do. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I see no prospect of this becoming a viable article. Notability is not shown or even indicated. --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonadea. This was rejected at AfC multiple times and is WP:REFBOMBEd out the wazoo-including 10+ self-cites & 5 that are election results from Lee County (at least one is the same results listed under different titles). I don't see the point in draftifying especially given it was rejected as a draft seven times over the past year and the SPA still tried to unilaterally move it into the mainspace. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources at all. Fails NPOL by a mile. We are not Facebook. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a close call, per above comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malevolent Creation members

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Music, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From looking at the sources, they all seem to be from interviews with members, not random blog posts. Pretty reliable in my opinion. Mewhen123 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears that when this band's lineup changes for the 956th time, only Blabbermouth and sometimes Decibel seem to notice, but those and the occasional others used in the article are reliable and they report on the impact for the band with useful detail. That is enough for a WP article, at least on such a specialized topic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Boufarhat

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United Arab Emirates, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of enduring (or even basic) notability. His brief time in a UAE school didn't really leave any footprints here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet WP:BASIC. Check 1, 2, 3, 4. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in agreement. This is a lot of by-the-numbers reporting that is mostly not about the subject. The most that can be said about him from all 4 sources is that he sold a company. FalconK (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubong Essien CSP

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

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

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

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

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

Anshuman Magazine

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

William LeGate

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Substantially all coverage, including that which I searched for on news sites and Proquest, relates to the companies mentioned and not to him. Of 24 references, 4 are social media affiliated with the subject, and 5 are lists of names. The singular remaining reference that is actually about him is [16] which is a local newspaper profile taken when he was a teenager. The awards, similarly, are not significant enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. FalconK (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

László Kelemen

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not notable. I couldn't find a single independent source. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This article does not demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:NOTABILITY, relying almost entirely on primary sources and containing promotional content with numerous unsourced statements. It fails WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY; independent, reliable coverage is needed before reconsideration. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Steelberg

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Ryan Steelberg

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

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

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

Mark Haapala

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

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

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

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

Sandeep Marwah

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Özer Türkmen

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Cyprus. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This page is two paragraphs long, one of which contains his resume, one of which is about descendants. That's not an encyclopedia article: it's an obituary. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tired to find sources but with little success. Somehow the editor created it a long time ago in 2011 and was relatively left untouched until now. Agree this is an obituary and not an article. I think it is time to let this go. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Couldn't find any sources. The name Türkmen makes difficult to find sources. It should be noted he doesn't have an article in Turkish Wikipedia or other languages. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the sourcing could be better (i.e. exist), but I can't honestly believe that the most senior officer of a country's army (even a largely unrecognised one) is not notable or sourceable in Turkish-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nisar Rahmath

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

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

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

Safar Khan Mandokhail

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omri Ceren

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is a consensus in favour of deletion and not on redirection, but if someone does wish to recreate as a redirect that would appear to be a sensible exercise of WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gofer

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Delete: Like WeirdNAnnoyed said, just a dictionary def. Here is a possible source but it doesn't really provide anything other than a dict def. I would want something like the Lackey (manservant) article. I don't think it or any of the other terms discussed in the first AfD are good redirect targets either.

Gopher: sometimes spelled like this so it is the best possible option but rather different topics shouldn't be carelessly combined.
Errand boy: needlessly gendered and redirects to courier now anyways.
Courier: takes things from point A to B while gopher brings things back to their local station
Aide de camp / Personal assistant: while their may be overlap in these 3 roles I don't think they have the same meaning.

Does someone want to make the wikitionary entry? Moritoriko (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wes Watson

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

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

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

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

If your going to give this guy an artile, might as well give one to everyone else in the world 2001:1970:59A6:5100:0:0:0:546E (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I encountered the article because I searched for "Wes Watson" & wanted to know who this individual was; I was happy to find a Wiki article. He seems to have enough of a following, and to have been involved in enough newsworthy things (if only a couple: the viral incident, the other viral incident, a book, a few media appearances), for the article to be worth keeping. I don't see how it serves Wikipedia to delete it—there are less informative articles about people equally as (un-)article-worthy, and I favor—in general—keeping them, too.

Himaldrmann (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find coverage about the "viral beatdown", that seems 1E-ish. Otherwise, people are discussing if he's even worth as much money as he claims. Whole lot of nothing here. No sourcing and not even a real claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Wilson

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anish Shah (Businessman)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan Akbas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Russell Surasky

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Russell Surasky

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Medicine, and New York. Yuvaank (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surasky meets Wikipedia's WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NBIO, and WP:NPROF notability guidelines:
1. Media Presence: Surasky appears regularly as medical expert and as the primary subject of interviews on major national networks including Fox News, NewsNation, Newsmax, and One America News, frequently offering neurological and addiction medicine analysis on nationally important topics like the President’s cognitive health and the opioid crisis. His interview with Neil Cavuto in July 2024 on Fox News—the most-watched cable news network—focused solely on his expert medical opinion regarding the President of the United States, satisfying WP:SIGCOV in national media.
2. Academic (WP:NPROF): He is a Fellow of both the American Academy of Neurology and the American Society of Addiction Medicine—a rare dual distinction. These fellowships are conferred only on physicians with significant and sustained contributions to their fields. He also held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post as Medical Director of Bridge Back to Life and faculty positions at Hofstra/Northwell (verified by Northwell Health’s official profile), major academic institutions.
3. Published Author with Major Publisher (WP:NAUTHOR): He authored This Book Will Save Your Life, published by Simon & Schuster/Post Hill Press, a major commercial publisher. The book received an endorsement from Cardinal Timothy Dolan and a foreword by Dr. Drew Pinsky, which supports its cultural and professional impact and then it satisfies WP:NOTABILITY for authors.
4. Significant Independent Coverage: Coverage includes The Hill, The Economic Times, Fox News, NewsNation, Psychiatric Times, New York Post, and Long Island Press, all of which provide in-depth and independent analysis of his views, not just trivial mentions.
5. Expert Witness in National Litigation: His expert testimony in high-profile medical and legal cases adds to the notability of his professional work, especially as cited in legal directories like Expert Institute and Expert Witness Profiler.
  And also from the last deletion discussion in 2021 couple of editors has pointed out future notability for this individual.Zelaatan (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article meets multiple notability standards, including WP:NBIO, WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:SIGCOV. Substantial updates have been made since the 2021 AfD, including new, reliable sources that document sustained public visibility, national expert interviews, academic and clinical appointments, and verified legal testimony.
1. Significant Independent Media Coverage (WP:SIGCOV)
  Dr. Surasky has been the primary and often sole medical expert featured in nationally televised interviews on networks such as Fox News, Fox Business, NewsNation, Newsmax, and One America News. These appearances are not trivial mentions but full-length segments focused on his professional analysis. He continues to appear on these networks to discuss medically relevant and nationally significant topics, including:
  - Fox Business’ Cavuto: Coast to Coast (May 2019) – interviewed following the death of a Columbine survivor to discuss trauma and opioid addiction
  - Tucker Carlson Tonight (February 2022, two appearances) – focused on masking mandates and neurological exemptions for children with developmental disabilities [18]
  - Fox News’ Cavuto Live (July 2024) – analyzed President Biden’s debate performance; cited in The Hill and The Economic Times
  - Fox News’ America Reports (January 2025) – discussed the neurological risks of wildfire-related air pollution [19]
  - Additional appearances on NewsNation, Newsmax, and OANN — covering stimulant shortages, adolescent cannabis use, and public health communication
  These interviews represent sustained, non-trivial national coverage and meet Wikipedia’s standards for significant coverage.
2. Academic and Clinical Roles (WP:NPROF)
  Dr. Surasky is a full-time practicing neurologist at Northwell Health and holds a faculty position at Hofstra’s Zucker School of Medicine. He is board-certified in both neurology and addiction medicine and holds fellow status in both the American Academy of Neurology and the American Society of Addiction Medicine is, reflecting long-standing contributions to his fields.
3. Expert Witness Credentials
  He is listed on Expert Institute as a testifying expert in more than two dozen legal cases, including both plaintiff and defense work, deposition transcripts, and expert challenges. He has also taught continuing education courses on medical-legal testimony, further underscoring his recognition in legal-medical contexts.
4. Published Author (WP:AUTHOR)
  Dr. Surasky is the author of This Book Will Save Your Life: The New Medical Cure for Opioid Addiction (Simon & Schuster, 2024). The book includes a foreword by Dr. Drew Pinsky and an endorsement from Cardinal Timothy Dolan. It has been discussed on national platforms including Fox News, The Dr. Drew Podcast, and Real AF with Andy Frisella.
  Conclusion:
  The subject has demonstrated sustained public visibility and professional impact through clinical medicine, national media, legal expert work, and commercial publishing. All notability criteria are met, and the article is supported by independent, reliable sources. The article should be retained.
  --Neurodoc99 (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC) — Neurodoc99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. WP:NOTADVERTISING, the fake AI generated references ("The Hill and Economic Times" as of Special:Permalink/1296634479) is borderline G3 and I highly suggest the editors above reconsider their behaviour. Or, you know, someone should probably just block them because at this point I think the evidence points towards WP:NOTHERE, and is clearly disruptive regardless of intent. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely WP:Promo, with editors continually adding WP:Peacock. As stated by both the nom and @Alpha3031 there is nothing here that is WP:SIGCOV that discusses him, just appearing for his opinion does not pass notability. For certain not close to any pass of WP:NPROF, neither FAAN not FASAM qualify as passing WP:NPROF#C3, both are routine member categories for practicing professionals. For instance, FAAN says that a single research grant is required, which is very minor. Just having a foreword by a Cardinal does not pass WP:NAUTHOR.Ldm1954 (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Dr. Russell Surasky meets Wikipedia notability standards under WP:NBIO, WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:SIGCOV. Below is concrete, verifiable evidence of significant, sustained coverage from independent, reliable sources — along with direct responses to the prior deletion arguments.

Response to Yuvaank (Nomination): Yuvaank claims there is “nothing in terms of WP:SIGCOV” and that Dr. Surasky is only mentioned in passing. This is factually incorrect.

Dr. Surasky has been the primary subject and sole expert in multiple national broadcast segments:

Fox Business – Cavuto: Coast to Coast (May 20, 2019): Full segment on the opioid epidemic following the overdose death of a Columbine survivor. Dr. Surasky is the only expert featured. 🎥 Watch segment

Fox News – America Reports (Jan 2025): Expert analysis on the neurological risks of wildfire-related air pollution. Dr. Surasky is introduced as a neurologist and provides extended, expert commentary. 🎥 Watch segment

Fox News – Cavuto Live (July 2024): Analyzed President Biden’s cognitive state in the aftermath of a debate performance. His analysis was cited in:

The Hill

Economic Times

These appearances are non-trivial, independently produced, and nationally broadcast. They fulfill all criteria under WP:SIGCOV.

Response to Alpha3031: Alpha3031 alleged “fake” or AI-generated references. This is demonstrably false. Every citation provided is:

Publicly accessible

From mainstream national news organizations

Supported by video evidence directly from Fox News, Fox Business, and OANN

Cited in secondary sources (e.g., The Hill, Economic Times)

These are not AI-generated or unverifiable.

Response to Ldm1954: Ldm1954 dismisses FAAN/FASAM as “routine” and calls the article promotional. That is inaccurate:

FAAN and FASAM are selective designations requiring peer nomination and documentation of professional impact. See: AAN Fellow Criteria

These fellowships are accompanied by:

Faculty role at Zucker School of Medicine (Hofstra/Northwell)

Medical Directorship of Bridge Back to Life

Dual board certification in neurology and addiction medicine

These credentials meet WP:NPROF#C1 (significant professional role) and WP:NPROF#C3 (selective membership).

Regarding promotional tone: that is not a deletion rationale under WP:NOTADVERTISING and can easily be fixed through neutral editing — which I fully support.

Response to WP:NOTHERE accusations: I acknowledge that I am a new editor. However, I am acting in good faith, following policy, and supplying high-quality, independently sourced references. New editors who follow policy are not in violation of WP:NOTHERE.

Additional Notability Criteria Met:

Published Author (WP:AUTHOR)

This Book Will Save Your Life (Post Hill Press, 2024; distributed by Simon & Schuster): 📚 Publisher link

The book is independently covered in major media:

Cardinal Dolan podcast

Real AF with Andy Frisella

The Brian Kilmeade Show

Foreword by Dr. Drew Pinsky and endorsement by Cardinal Timothy Dolan Meets WP:AUTHOR#C3 through broad independent coverage and cultural reach.

Expert Witness Recognition (WP:NBIO)

Testified in over 25 legal cases

Listed expert on Expert Institute

Example case: Mecham v. Jarvis (2020)

Conclusion: Dr. Surasky has been the central subject of sustained national coverage, holds academic and clinical leadership roles, authored a book with a major publisher, and has been legally recognized as an expert witness. He meets all four applicable notability criteria — WP:NBIO, WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:SIGCOV.

Any concerns about tone or formatting can and should be addressed through collaborative editing — not deletion.

Strong keep.

––Neurodoc99 (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a "no" on reconsider behaviour then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sigcov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molikog (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riaan Manser

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Spragg, Iain (2014). "Manser's African Odyssey". Cycling's Strangest Tales: Extraordinary But True Stories. London: Portico. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-1-909396-49-4. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "That's a hell of a lot of pedalling if you were to undertake the epic journey on a humble bicycle, but such trifling obstacles did not deter South African adventurer Riaan Manser when he decided to accept exactly that daunting challenge, an ambitious expedition which very nearly killed him. Manser set off on his trusty mountain bike from Cape Town in September 2003. He averaged an impressive 88.5km (55 miles) per day and after two years, two months and 15 days in the saddle, travelling through 34 different countries, he had become the first person to circumnavigate Africa on two wheels. ... Manser's feat was recognised when he was named 'Adventurer of the Year' by Out There magazine in 2006 and granted an audience with Nelson Mandela. He politely declined an offer to work for the Liberian Tourist Board."
2. Razzetti, Steve (2010). Great Cycle Journeys of the World. London: New Holland Publishers. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-84773-463-1. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Riaan Manser from Cape Town went one better. In September 2003 he set out on his mountain bike to ride the whole way around the continent. Two years, two months and two days later he was back, having pedalled an incredible 36,500 km (22,680 miles) through 34 counties, lost 14 kg (31 lbs) in weight, learned French, Portuguese and Arabic, eaten monkeys, rats and bats and been kidnapped by child-soldiers in Liberia. The journeys described in the pages that follow may not be quite as epic, but they will certainly open your eyes to the wonders of this most wonderful of continents."
3. Simontacchi, Andrew V. (2014-06-18). "World renowned adventurer Riaan Manser makes stop in Great Kills Marina after 5-month row across Atlantic (with photos)". Staten Island Advance. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "That's been the reality for Riaan Manser, a renowned world traveler and self-proclaimed professional adventurer whose five-month, 5,000-mile rowboat trek from Morocco to New York City included a stop at the Atlantis Marina in Great Kills on Wednesday. ... The long-haired, long-bearded Manser, 40, was hanging out with Ms. Geldenguys in their home one day when they decided they would venture to New York City in an incredible way -- via rowboat. Without a support staff, the couple set off in December, with a portioned supply of food and water donated from a South African grocer. ... Manser is a traveling author and public speaker outside of his professional adventuring"
4. "SA adventurer Riaan Manser and his wife Vasti were stuck on a small boat together for 173 days – What they learnt could help you through lockdown". News24. 2020-04-13. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "In 2009 Riaan Manser set on a world first when he became the first person to circumnavigate Madagascar by kayak. The expedition lasted 11 months, a feat he achieved alone and unaided. The incredible 5000km journey, 5000 km, was demanding, both physically and mentally. Not only did Riaan have to overcome severe loneliness, but natural disasters, extreme weather conditions, and ten hours in saltwater wreaked havoc on his body. ... Four years after his solo trip, Riaan and his wife Vasti took on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. They endured a 173-day expedition from Agadir, Morocco to New York City, USA. ... In 2018, Riaan was joined on his 7-metre rowing boat, by rowing rookie and a total stranger Fanafikile Lephakha for a 5500 km expedition from the Canary Islands to Barbados which would last nearly two months."
5. Kilgannon, Corey (2014-06-21). "Adventurous Couple Arrive in New York From Africa, Merrily, Merrily". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-09. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "Riaan Manser and Vasti Geldenhuys, a fun-loving couple from Cape Town, have been together for 14 years, so when Ms. Geldenhuys, 36, suggested a vacation, he was agreeable. ... Mr. Manser, 40, is a professional adventurer who, without Ms. Geldenhuys, a lawyer, has traveled the perimeter of Africa on a bicycle and around Madagascar and Iceland by kayak. So he suggested that the two row a boat from Africa to the United States, with no accompanying vessels. They completed that journey around 2 p.m. on Friday, rowing their custom-built, 22-foot, high-tech rowboat into the 79th Street Boat Basin almost six months after leaving Agadir, Morocco, on Dec. 30. After rowing almost 6,700 miles, they claim they are the first pair to row from mainland Africa to mainland North America."
6. "Riaan Manser – Do something almost impossible". The Newspaper. 2023-06-05. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "First, it was Riaan Manser, alone and unaided…cycling the entire perimeter of the African continent, then circumnavigating Madagascar in a kayak and similarly around Iceland in a double kayak, adding two more incredible world firsts to his name. He then met his adventure partner for life, Vasti. Together, they broke world records through their adventures; from a world-first ocean row – Africa to North America, and then earning another Guinness World Record during a subsequent ocean crossing – the fastest mid-Pacific row from California to Hawaii."
7. Monakali, Namhla (2024-10-01). "Renowned adventurer Riaan Manser captivated primary school learners with thrilling tales from his travels". People's Post. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notse: "Manser, whose children’s book My First African Adventure, was awarded the overall winner of the SA Book Awards 2023, spoke to the Grade 3s to 6s about his remarkable adventures, including a journey cycling around the perimeter of Africa. ... After the talk Manser signed copies of his books, including My First Wild Island Adventure and My First African Adventure, for students and staff alike."
8. de Lange, Phil (2023-05-16). "Riaan Manser's brush with death". Smile 90.4FM. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "He’s known as the South African that has conquered the world’s toughest oceans and most hostile environments. But now Riaan Manser is about to take his whole family on an adventure. He told Ryan all about it this morning and also shared a story about one of his scariest adventures. First, it was Riaan Manser, alone and unaided…cycling the entire perimeter of the African continent. Then he circumnavigated Madagascar in a kayak and Iceland in a double kayak which added two more world firsts to his name."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Riaan Manser to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Shammi Thilakan

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shalom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep as per @Flipandflopped Sam11333 (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep close call, but per “FlipandFlopped” above, seems to cross the notability threshold. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Pradeep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sudip Pandey

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Thank you for pinging me.

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

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

Comment: Nominator is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Zuck28 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayshree Misra Tripathi

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

Nagamani Srinath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[20]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[21].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shantanu Naidu

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

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

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

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

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

Keep You can see numerous siginificant coverage on reliable sources like this: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and there are many more in line. Easily passes WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources are about a Linkedin post he made. Two have no bylines. Toadspike [Talk] 05:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:GNG.Sync! (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ahmad Ali Karim

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT and the subject is the author of several of the sources cited - that makes the sources more of primary sources than independent secondary sources. Patre23 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He's 22 years old. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Self written articles can't be considered for establishing notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a case of a badly written article, not notability. The person is notable enough and is cited by many sources, and it was the article writer's fault for using primary sources. We should instead improve the article, not delete it. If we were to refer to WP:GNG, it says that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As I will mention below, the person in question has significant coverage in the media over the course of time, and they come from reliable sources independent of the subject (newspaper and television). The person is not only known for one event, and WP:ONEEVENT is therefore not applicable. Although the article talks about his police report, he is actually more known for his analysis, which is found both on newspaper and television. These, however, are hard to cite due to the inaccessibility of Malaysian media online, such as TV reports not being entirely well documented. The person being 22 does not mean that it is too soon, as WP:TOOSOON refers to something that is still too early to anticipate. The person, as mentioned, is an established writer and political analyst in Malaysia, and has even been referred to by television for election analysis along with notable domestic radio stations such as IKIMfm, aside from his weekly newspaper writings. The reason why the article is considered self-citing, as it is citing his analytic works on Utusan Malaysia, the oldest living newspaper in Malaysia which is well-established and reputable. We can see that most of the citation is to refer to the time he started writing, or certain things like his personal information which is part of information included at the end of newspaper articles where they write the biography of the author. What we should do as editors is to help improve the page's quality, not remove pages entirely just because it's in a messy state. EmpHaziqR (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EmpHaziqR The quality of writing is not the issue here. Even poorly written articles can be kept if they meet the general notability guideline (GNG). But this article does not. The subject is primarily cited through his own columns, opinion pieces, or media appearances without independent coverage about him. Being published is not the same as being covered.

There is no significant secondary coverage about Ahmad Ali Karim as a person. The article is mostly supported by primary sources (his own writings) or brief mentions. Without independent, in-depth reporting on him, the subject does not meet GNG.

Utusan Malaysia is a reliable source: That may be true as a publication, but using it only for the subject’s own articles does not establish notability. Self-authored work is not independent coverage. Even if it's printed in a reputable newspaper, it does not satisfy WP:GNG if it’s not about him.

We should improve it, not delete it: Improving an article is ideal only when the subject passes notability guidelines. Here, despite claims of media presence, the article provides no actual in-depth third-party sources discussing the subject’s impact or biography. Without such sources, there's no foundation to improve upon—we can’t build an article on unverifiable claims.

The subject may be active, but activity alone ≠ notability. Without independent, significant, and in-depth coverage from reliable sources, the article does not warrant retention per Wikipedia's core inclusion policies. If future reliable sources emerge, a new article can always be written, but as it stands, deletion is appropriate. WikiRockk (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: I believe the article fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies of living people. Specifically:

Primary or self‑published sources only — nearly every citation links back to the subject’s own writings or platforms that promote his work, rather than independent coverage. These do not satisfy notability requirements.
One‑off mention only — his sole notable action appears to be lodging a police report about politicians. Even that received minimal attention and no follow-up coverage beyond routine reporting.
Lack of sustained or in‑depth independent sources — there is no sustained coverage in reliable, third‑party media (national newspapers, magazines, or independent online outlets) that analyze or profile him. This is essential under WP:NOTABILITY.
Autobiographical tone — much of the article reads like a resumé or self-promotion. Wikipedia requires a neutral, verifiable summary of significant coverage, not self-written biography.

The article lacks independent, reliable, and lasting coverage, and appears to exist for a single fleeting mention, it does not meet even the basic threshold of notability. For these reasons, I support deletion. WikiRockk (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meyzenq

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a surname page, not a dab page. It's reasonable to include the CEO, for whom a redirect would also be reasonable. PamD 08:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: It was a disambiguation page until you altered it ([28]). Your position would have been much clearer if that was included with your post. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma It was always a surname page. It was incorrectly labelled as a disambiguation page. PamD 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma But, OK, it might have been helpful if I had pointed that out ! Sorry about that. PamD 11:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. This is a useful surname SIA which links to substantive information about two name-holders. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fasih Ur Rehman (entrepreneur)

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Article is about a notable Person in Pakistan. He is the CEO of a major television network Green Entertainment and a notable Businessman. He is also a recipient of Notable Government Awards. I have found a better coverage from Independent and Reliable Sources across the web. Sxohi (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - For closers, Green Entertainment has been deleted and the StayCalmOnTress sock farm is notarious for working on those pages. Not going to be surprised at !keep votes in this discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim to notability vanished threre. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Yar Baloch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To get a fuller discussion, I'm pinging some of the users who participated in AfD discussions for two related articles last month. @MSLQr, MarioGom, GrabUp, Cerium4B, JayFT047, GarethBaloney, Yue, and Wikibear47: Would you say this article should be deleted as well, or do you think enough non-Godi sources exist for you to favor keeping it this time? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the Republic of Balcohistan article is deleted but I think Baloch warrants an article (albeit a stub) given how he leads one faction of a Baloch separatist group (or perhaps a state soon?). GarethBaloney 17:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I will try to assume genuine intent, this seems to be pushing against Wikietiquette, specifically: "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines."

I say this not because you pinged users who participated in AfDs on similar topics, which is totally fine, but because you only pinged those who agreed with your stance in those discussions, which can appear like an attempt at votestacking. Ike Lek (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair i said (speedy delete for the AfD for the Republic of Balochistan so idk GarethBaloney 18:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't want to be overly accusatory, nor do I want to imply that y'all won't take an unbiased independent approach to this discussion. It just felt off that no one who was saying keep in those discussions was pinged. Ike Lek (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A case of WP:TOOSOON and has serious notability issues. Just because someone says that a province is independent from the federation doesn't make the claim true. Also declaring himself the President is a joke. As far as the sources are concerned we need independent sources which are not biased in their reporting towards the issue which in this case are clearly lacking. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an issue of the legitimacy of his claims (I agree they are somewhat flimsy), but his notability as a figure. Since his joining MEMRI, more articles are being published that are heavily critical of him. I linked one earlier. There is no such thing as perfectly unbiased reporting, but some of these sources are seen as relatively credible. The existence of sources independent of him reporting on what he did and who he is makes him notable. Ike Lek (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make things fair, I shall ping @Logichulk, 7uzyfa, M1rrorCr0ss, BlinxTheKitty, TabahiKaBhagwan, and WikiEditPS: even though I didn't believe that their arguments for keeping the Republic of Balochistan article were as sound as everyone else's arguments for deleting it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Merello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

keep I was doing a random round of edits and came across this one. As I did that before, I thought my knowledge could benefit Wikipedia. Anyway, I think according to WP:NONENG Italian sources could be added and are reliable. And, according to WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor the subject seems notable. Also, I have seen discussions where admins say that even a single reliable source is enough for notability verification. AppleBoosted (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "well-known and significant award" you are referring to here, @AppleBoosted? Nayyn (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knight Grand Cross (GCEG) of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia. Seems an important honor for those people and region. Anyway, that was my analysis as per my knowledge and research on topics of Wikipedia. Thank you! AppleBoosted (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you read the article... Merello works for the organization that hands out this "honor" and helps people acquire such titles.. this is his business. So I can't imagine that we can consider it independent of anything. Nayyn (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, as its sources are clearly insufficient or trivial. The few reputable sources are passing mentions or focus on his family (His mother and uncle meet some criteria), not his professional activities – no significant coverage in reliable sources, not even from Italy or the country he supposedly represents at diplomatic level. XICO (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note with Added material - non vote. This is not a vote as I know the subject and may have COI, but for completeness I want to share further additional info and material supporting WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NONENG. All is WP:RS and WP:V for everyone and closer admin to have a fair, broader view. None of these appear currently in the article.

https://thoibaonganhang.vn/tan-dung-kinh-nghiem-quoc-te-de-viet-nam-quan-ly-tai-san-dien-tu-hieu-qua-163455.html (This is the Vietnam Banking Times, piece all on subject);

https://daibieunhandan.vn/tai-san-so-tin-chi-carbon-co-phai-la-tai-san-bao-dam-10370864.html (this is Vietnam's official parliamentary press);

https://vnba.org.vn/en/digital-assets--carbon-credits-expected-to-be-collateral-in-bank-loans-17452.htm totally independent news article;

Series of other articles on Vietnam Investment review (which is State-linked):

https://vir.com.vn/the-tropical-paradise-that-appeals-to-travellers-and-investors-121662.html ; https://vir.com.vn/a-comparative-investment-guide-to-singapore-and-malta-124553.html ; https://vir.com.vn/navigating-offshore-opportunities-in-a-globalised-world-123277.html ;

a prime time TV show on Singapore Channel Five, called Makan Times Stories, also features the subject (the Italian martial artist and lawyer in the trailer): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvzWKthxtlM ;

Another Italian article: https://www.true-news.it/facts/giacomo-carolina-tommaso-chi-sono-figli-marcella-bella-carriera-vita-privata ;

There may be also qualification as WP:POLITICIAN as subject represents directly the Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and Barbuda as Special Economic Envoy (the same exact role from the same Country is covered also by actor Robert De Niro, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/29/robert-de-niro-economic-envoy-antigua-barbuda .

There is a clear constant pattern of coverage in international sources and from multiple reasons of different kind.

Also I simply observe that several of the editors participating in this AfD discussion, including the proposer, seem to be very actively involved with each other in the broader context of arguing and engaging in what appear to be editing wars, which somehow casts a doubt on their WP:NPOV . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.220.129.231 (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, you are casting aspersions if you are suggesting the proposer and other editors are colluding on some sort of agenda here. If you are trying to insinuate something, do provide evidence. Nayyn (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For precision and intellectual honesty, I never accused you or anyone else of "colluding on some sort of agenda", these are words you are putting yourself in there. And "casting aspersions" involves direct accusations which are "repeated or particularly severe", which, again, it is objectively not the case. 5.148.85.22 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have declared a COI in this case, it is quite serious to suggest that uninvolved persons are purportedly engaging in editing wars over this subject. This is not true. Nayyn (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmah Pinky

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Item

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

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

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

(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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

off-topic discussions of sockpuppetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep My assessment is that the subject, Dario Item, satisfies the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). This is based on the presence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, particularly concerning his activities related to the Credit Suisse AT1 situation and his ambassadorial functions. Several specific publications provide coverage that appears to meet the depth required by WP:GNG: The Financial Times article dedicates substantial content to Mr. Item's role and actions, which constitutes more than a passing mention. Finews similarly focuses on him as a central figure in a noteworthy event. El Español offers an extensive profile, indicating significant interest from a major international publication. These sources are generally accepted as reliable and editorially independent. And these are just 3 of the many international sources other editors already mentioned and can be found in reference footnotes of Item’s article. The subject's diplomatic roles and interactions, such as with the UNWTO ([link, e.g., https://www.unwto.org/news/unwto-and-antigua- and-barbuda-share-vision-of-tourism-for-growth-and-opportunity]), provide further context of a public profile. While notability isn't inherited from a position, significant media coverage of activities undertaken within such roles contributes to fulfilling WP:GNG. Recognitions like the Scottish titles (referenced under legislation such as s.63 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 - [29]) and awards (e.g., from the Royal House of Georgia - [30]) are supplementary details that round out the individual's public record, though the primary basis for Wikipedia notability remains the independent secondary source coverage. The existence of articles for other Antiguan diplomats, as noted by other editors here, suggests that holding such a position is not an automatic bar to notability if WP:GNG is otherwise met. The key consideration is whether this specific individual has garnered sufficient independent coverage, and the evidence regarding Mr. Item's role in the widely- reported Credit Suisse case, in particular, points to this. While any article can benefit from ongoing editorial attention to ensure neutrality and sourcing precision, the available information indicates that the notability threshold for inclusion has been crossed. I think he has enough recognition to be considered in WP:GNG as his fellow peers also have their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SY DIGITAL (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the Financial Times article is so integral to Item's notability, why are so few of the claims from the article appearing in the Wikipedia page? They disclose a number of things that do not appear, such as Item being the lawyer to Vladimir Putin's son in law, one of his licenses being revoked in Antigua, being investigated by a Malaysian financial institution, his many pictures of beaches on his Instagram account or his 4000+ posts on his pizza forum? This is the same article that said his media organization Antigua News had 15 followers on Twitter at the time of the story, and some other choice words about the quality of the journalism on the site.

While many suggest that he was the reason that the Credit Suisse case is known to the public, this is not true, he "broke" the case by just shortly before the Financial Times. It is clear he has a personal business relationship with parties in the case and this in its outcome and continued notoriety. A Wikipedia page is not a fan site, it is a balanced account of someone's biography, and it is clear from how the page has edited it is not the case. Nayyn (talk) Nayyn (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Looking at this, what really stands out is how consistently this person shows up as notable across totally different areas. First, you've got high-level diplomatic work covered by big international organizations. Plus, major financial news outlets aren't just mentioning them in passing,they're reporting on specific, impactful actions that actually matter. And on top of that, there's formal recognition in official, publicly accessible registers. This isn't just one-off mentions. it's a real public profile built from multiple angles. When you see that kind of consistent, independent coverage across diplomacy, finance, and official channels, it really drives home the point of encyclopedic relevance. It directly answers what the Notability Guideline looks for: significant, reliable coverage from multiple independent sources across different spheres Wadurorsch (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@SY DIGITAL you cannot vote twice, you will need to strike your second vote. Nayyn (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a separate vote rather adding the argument to previous vote. SY DIGITAL (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something that gets continuously conflated in this discussion is the notability of the Credit Suisse scandal, and the notability of Item as a person. I've done multiple hours of research this morning and have yet to find a single article outside the 2 mentions that come up continuously:

The "FT article" was published in the "FT Alphaville" section, which is essentially a blog; there's nothing that suggests this ever made it to print. It also discusses his involvement essentially as a curiosity in a "haha, look at this guy" way—they literally call him a "crusted advisor" for his 4,635 posts in a pizza forum.
Finews published a grand total of one 400-word article mentioning him, again largely because of the curiosity of using "Antigue News" as an outlet.

In any of the 'real' coverage in reputable sources are he never makes an appearance: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] (the last is another Finews article about this exact scandal, and guess who isn't mentioned)

@SY DIGITAL, I've also seen you mention that this supposedly is a part of the Indian Civil Service exam. What you fail to mention is that "this" is the Credit Suisse case, which very much does not include Item in any of the sources I've seen. Happy to be corrected, of course. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcaist your comment is completely lacking in objectivity.

According to Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Dario Item clearly meets these requirements both in relation to his activities linked to the Credit Suisse case and in his role as ambassador for Antigua and Barbuda.

With regard to the Credit Suisse case, there are at least 7 secondary sources that are indisputably “reliable,” “intellectually independent of each other and of the subject,” and that have profiled Dario Item over the past two years. These are: 1) Financial Times; 2) Finews; 3) El Espanol; 4) Economia Digital; 5) Insideparadeplatz.ch; 6) Dominica News Online; 7) Antigua Observer (links to the articles have been already provided above by Mediascriptor).

The way you disparage the FT and the ALPHAVILLE section (see WP:PUBLISHED) and misrepresent the article published in Finews is very unfair. I gather that you have not even read the other sources I mentioned.

In addition to profiling articles, Dario Item has been interviewed several times over the past two years by other reliable secondary sources: 1. Reuters; 2. Bloomberg; 3. El Pais; 4. Die Weltwoche; 5. Corriere del Ticino, etc. Here are a few examples:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/swiss-court-weighs-greater-disclosure-credit-suisse-bond-suit-filings-2023-10-03/

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/capital-markets/credit-suisse-at1-litigators-hit-back-at-reform-discussions

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-09/ubs-wins-further-delay-in-filing-response-to-at1-wipeout-case?srnd=undefined&embedded-checkout=true

https://cincodias.elpais.com/mercados-financieros/2024-04-04/la-cnmv-suiza-intenta-bloquear-el-acceso-de-inversores-a-los-documentos-sobre-el-colapso-de-credit-suisse.html

https://cincodias.elpais.com/mercados-financieros/2023-11-22/el-colapso-de-credit-suisse-llega-por-primera-vez-a-los-tribunales-de-estados-unidos.html?rel=buscador_noticias

https://weltwoche.ch/?post_type=weekly&p=166065

https://www.cdt.ch/news/economia/la-giustizia-e-troppo-lenta-e-gli-investitori-la-contestano-davanti-al-tribunale-federale-395725

In relation to his role as ambassador for Antigua and Barbuda, Dario Item has been covered by many authoritative and reliable secondary sources: 1. Antigua Observer; 2. Dominica News Online; 3. Yahoo Finance; 4. UNWTO; 5. Huffpost; 6) La Nueva Crónica; 7) Variety.com; 8) El Mundo etc. etc. (links to the articles have been already provided above by Mediascriptor, CreateAccou4343nt555 and by me). I am adding two more that I found:

https://antiguaobserver.com/antigua-and-barbuda-pioneers-tourism-innovation-with-google-street-view-project/

https://variety.com/2022/film/global/andrea-iervolino-film-tv-investment-west-indies-1235440705/

@CROIX, an editor from Antigua and Barbuda, has finally confirmed Dario Item's notability at the local level.

I am very concerned about the way in which objective facts are being downplayed in this discussion. With this approach, Dario Item appears to be a target, casting a serious shadow over the principle that Wikipedia policies must be applied to everyone in the same way, avoiding blatant disparities. Juliannua (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This constant barrage of articles demonstrating his supposed importance, only to then fall apart once one reads those articles, is really starting to get on my nerves.

I've already covered FT and Finews.
El Espanol: An article quoting him at length; no real editorializing, merely reporting what he's saying.
Economia Digital: same as El Espanol.
Insideparadeplatz.ch: Repeats the Antigua News article.
Dominica News Online: Repeats the Antigua News article.
Antigua Observer: Summarizes the FT article.

None of this fulfills WP:SIGCOV, especially not any article that just repackages what was written about him by Antigua News (which he founded).

The other articles you cite quote him briefly, calling them "interviews" is silly:

Reuters: Two-line quote because he legally represents Credit Suisse investors. Not only does that not establish notability, it also raises serious concerns that he directly benefits from coverage of the scandal, including from a coincidentally long section on this issue in his article.
Bloomberg and Bloomberg Law: Again passing mentions because he represents investors in a case. (Also paywalled)
El Pais #1: Two-line quote in a 1,200-word article.
El Pais #2: Quoted with four lines in a 1,300-word article.
Weltwoche: No idea, since it's paywalled.
Corriere del Ticino: 4-line quote with basically the same text from the other sources.

None of the sources you cite say anything about him that would convince an uninvolved party that he's notable. They're all the same brief quotes in the same context with pretty much identical wording.

I would also suggest that you don't let this devolve into WP:PA, such as accusing me of "completely lacking objectivity", and "disparaging" and "misrepresenting" articles. That's not helping your case. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 13:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note from SPI: There are good faith, non-sock, non-meat, non-canvassing reasons for at least some of the unusual contributions here and I encourage experienced editors to respond to them with patience and an open mind. Now that that's said, with my AfD closer hat back on, I'm wondering why this discussion is between "keep" and "delete" and not much discussion of a redirect? It seems from the comments above that Item's notability is primarily with regards to the Credit Suisse case. If we have an article on the scandal, should this not be redirected there? And if we do not have an article on the scandal, since it seems to be notable, is there an argument to be made that we should keep the article on Dario Item at least until that article can be created? -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi, no there is not an article on this case. There were a lot of things happening with Credit Suisse at the time and this was just one of them. And going back to the Financial Times article that keeps being mentioned, Item "broke" the story only a very short time before the Financial Times published their piece. Because the Antigua News is so small very few even knew about the "scoop". That's why FT Alphaville did a story on Item afterwards because of the novelty of the "scoop" by the news outlet. The FT piece isn't really that complementary to him either.... which is why it is used in an WP:UNDUE way in the Wiki article.

The Credit Suisse case story did not come out solely because of Item's involvement in leaking it. The FT I think published like an hour later (according to their article that keeps being mentioned). Nayyn (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I could find was Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS § AT1 bonds issue, which does not mention Dario Item, his scoop, or the Antigua News. So I don't think that is a viable target, and, were Item's scoop very critical or important to the story/timeline, I imagine that it would already be there. That leads me to think it is therefore tangential at best. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayyn what you write is totally wrong.

On May 15, 2023, on antigua.news Item published in full the FINMA orders of March 19 and 22, 2023 by which the write-down of AT1s was made (https://antigua.news/2023/05/15/credit-suisse-at1-bonds-swiss-federal-administrative-court-orders-finma-to-disclose-documents-to-plaintiff-investors-credit-suisse-warned-finma-about-the-lack-of-a-contractual-basis-for-the-write-do/).

If you carefully read the press articles from those days, you will see that no one was aware of the full content of the March 19, 2023 order, while the existence of the March 22 order was totally unknown in the media.

Articles subsequently published by the FT (Credit Suisse privately

challenged Finma's AT1 writedown" (https://www.ft.com/content/fbf3f385-1c4a-48fc-a7a0-d7

ae998637dd) and Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/credit-suisse-neared-it

s-cash-limits-days-before-rescue-filing-shows-2023-05-18/ ) mention precisely that it was antigua.news that published these documents before any other. In other words, if Item did not publish those documents, FT and Reuters had nothing to publish at all. Juliannua (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can agree with you here @Juliannua. I have carefully read the releases as well as the other sources that were reporting on this case at the time. I'm not here to waste anyone's time and did my research before proposing this. I don't deny that Antigua news published first. But the case was going to come out, with or without Item, as others were also reporting on this and publishing shortly after. I do not find evidence that the case would not have been made without Item's "scoop". Even if he had, it is still a case of BLP1E. Nayyn (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Parra Vallette

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We don't keep poorly-sourced articles on the basis of speculation that better sourcing might exist somewhere that nobody has actually searched for or found — we keep or delete articles based on the quality and depth of the sources that people show. If all one had to do to save an article for deletion was to idly speculate that other sources might exist, then even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable from Wikipedia anymore — and even if the article gets deleted, it can always be recreated at a later date if improved quality sourcing actually does turn up that got missed now. So just speculating about the possibility of better sourcing existing somewhere in the world doesn't prevent deletion, if those sources don't actually turn up and get added to the article now.
And we need to see a lot more than just "mentions" and non-winning candidacies for offices other than the one that constitutes his attempted notability claim, so none of the sources in the comment immediately above this one add up to enough all by themselves either. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of sources known to be available would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luis Trejo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Destinyokhiria 💬

18:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Knochelmann

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Yu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tas Qureshi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here are the sources I could find [36], [37], [38], [39], and [40]. These are mainly database entries that prove he exist, some with a small bio but they can't be independent. I couldn't verify the majority of the sources or claims presently in the article and most that I could open were not BLP quality. Moritoriko (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as it stands is not in good shape - most of the sources are 404 not found, which is not helpful. I am still doing WP:BEFORE, and it may help other editors participating in this AfD to also search for the subject under his full name Tahseen Qureshi (as, for example, here) under which name many of his academic papers appear. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the error. Here you go

[41] as rising star, [42] as a cast, [43] for his early drama roles, [44] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@CNMall41 Sorry, I was being lazy before.

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

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

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

Another important national newspaper, minor article about the subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) Churnalism/WP:NEWSORGINDIA: Author is part of syndicated outlet that allows for paid content, 2.) Churnalism, reads like promotional routine coverage - author has large amounts of writing in a single day: e.g. 10 articles created/edited on June 20th, and writing style looks LLM-generated on many articles 3.) Churnalism, author has vast amount of writing in a single day: e.g. 20 articles on June 21 4.) Source only loads 2 headlines 5.) Same author/reasoning as #2. Also, all of these sources are from May 2025, I assume due to Judwaa coming out this year, but it's not WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment I'm finding it hard to sort through and see actual significant, reliable coverage vs what is paid content. The !keep votes from sockpuppets from this and past nominations make the sources even more questionable to me.
More recent coverage seems to be bylined and (from what I can tell) published by more well-known papers, like Siasat and Gulf News. But the actual articles seems like fast-paced entertainment-style news at best, which makes for questionable notability, and churnalism or paid content at worst (per the sources I commented about above). From what I've been able to look through, I'm leaning towards delete. - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found significant coverage which are independent and from reliable sources: [45], [46], [47], and [48]. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- [5] Interview [6] Already mentioned above, but: Churnalism, author has vast amount of writing in a single day: e.g. 20 articles on June 21 [7] Unbylined / churnalism [8] Asif is not talked about in the article, and is only mentioned in the image caption. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:58, 22 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]
@Oaktree b "aren't online"? You know better than to require online sources... Toadspike [Talk] 07:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying I can't verify them, so I can't say how extensive they are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. I could write a longer statement about how IAR, while being a good reason to be bold, is not a free pass to ignore broader consensus whenever one wishes to or how the common sense of "noteworthiness" or "celebrity" is not actually what is meant by the guideline we've unfortunately titled Wikipedia:Notability (the former more commonly considered under WP:SIGNIFICANCE), and instead we mean "can we write an article meeting the core content policies" (q.v. WP:WHYN).
I'm not sure how much that would actually help though, so I'll — while acknowledging the fact that we have discretion to bend even the core content policies (barring WP:NPOV) given a Very Good Reason — simply opine that editors have failed to establish the no doubt Very Obvious Very Good Reason we should be measuring the Obvious Notability by something other than the usual standard, which does in fact require sources to be independent of the subject, among the other requirements (direct and in-depth, reliable, secondary). Given that, in my opinion, we lack both the Very Good Reason or the sources that can meet the usual standard, I see no other option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't need IAR, it meets GNG ("...now I know my ABC's") Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am convinced by above explanation and nomination statement. Notability has not been shown by the participants in this discussion. Historyexpert2 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a deletion worthy offense but the article also should have been declined at AFC for tone as well, it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. Now for the real meat and potatoes, I am not seeing sources that meat [;)] the requirements for Notability as Alpha has explained above, emphasis on secondary. I tried looking his name up in conjunction with different movies that he worked on or even the models that he sells but I couldn't find anything. (Unfortunately?) As a species we usually value the person that put the design on paper more than the person that puts that same design into the real world and this seems to be a similar case. Moritoriko (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence sounds like whataboutism. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGVAR, wikt:encyclopaedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I caught my own mistake, but you saw it first. However, there are so many bad articles on Wikipedia. This is a decent one. Why waste time when there is so much to do? Orlando Davis (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you didn't understand my last sentence. What it means is that we have an article about Sagrada Familia and about the designer Antoni Gaudí (the person that put the design on paper) but most of the stonemasons who have carved the intricate detail (the people that put the design into the real world) haven't received coverage for them to meet GNG.

Looking up the movies he worked on, the large pieces that receive coverage (DeLorean time machine for example) seem to be designed by someone else and Cooper just worked to make the design a reality. Moritoriko (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Often, model makers are respected for their craftsmanship, and it doesn't matter that they don't design. The talent is in the handwork. For example, model makers of ships and aircraft. Norman a Ough didn't design the ships he made for movies. However, Randy Cooper has designed his own work. Also, there is the fact that the modeler's unique style in the models makes the models uniquely his own, even if he follows a design. Anyway, what matters is what Randy Kryn said: the article passes GNG. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deletion worthy offense but the article also should have been declined at AFC for tone as well, it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. it was declined multiple times, but the editor is not required to follow AfC recommendations so we ended up here. Star Mississippi 01:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it was declined so many times is that many reviewers tend to have a deletionist bias and often don't even read the articles that they turn down. They assumed that no changes had been made when changes had been made. Several other experienced editors on this forum believe it is a worthy article. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is encyclopedic; editors often get that confused. You can say positive things about a subject if credible sources have said those things. Reviewers are not necessarily experts. Some have less experience than I do. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some parts that I considered when making that comment:
He considers himself "really lucky because a lot of people don't get a chance to do what they really want to do." (who cares?)

Cooper has said his favorite kits as a child were the Saturn V and the Apollo kits. (who cares?)

Having transitioned out of the film business,... (tone, He left the film industry)

I looked through the IMDb pages of Solar Crisis, Batman Returns, Spider-Man 2, and Iron Man 2, and he isn't mentioned at all. I'm really not sure what the claim of notability is supposed to be? He built some props for a couple movies and now designs his own model kits. Moritoriko (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say who cares but that's how to write boring articles. Those are interesting facts that make it readable. Just because you don't care doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic. It seems to me like you're just making stuff up. We don't use IMDB on Wikipedia. (If it was up to me it would be ok) Stargate, Starship Troopers, and Bicentennial man are referenced on Metacritic. The rest by Sci-Fi Fantasy Modeller. The fact that he has articles and has been interviewed by so many credible sources means he is a notable model maker. Orlando Davis (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember the name of the guideline or link thing that I was thinking about when I said "who cares", but yes it was a bit crass. If anyone else reading this has an idea of what I meant to say, I'd welcome suggestions. I know we don't source from IMDb on Wikipedia, but what is important is that the 4 movies I mentioned are not the ones that you have sourced to Metacritic. In fact they are sourced to a source from 1979, more than 10 years before any of them came out. I don't see any comment about the last point but I found the hot link I wanted for it, WP:FORMAL. Moritoriko (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date for the article was wrong. It is 2014. I just changed it. Thank you for pointing that out. If you want to change the article in the areas you pointed out, be bold and do it yourself. It is a trivial issue in my opinion. Orlando Davis (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles have you written? 1? And you think you're ready to be involved in an AFD debate? Orlando Davis (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft as a WP:ATD, to provide further opportunity for research and development. BD2412 T 01:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to insufficient reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 07:08, 23 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, [49], [50]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough references to demonstrate subject's notability. [51] - This is an in-depth coverage by reliable source Mongabay, [52]- 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 [53], [54], [55].Afstromen (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @CNMall41,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Mayuran (Saba)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People proposed deletions

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