🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Deletion_sorting
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

WikiProject Biography
General information
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do
Biography article statistics
Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.

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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Deletion sorting|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch

People

[edit]

Paul L. Ayers

[edit]
Paul L. Ayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. There are roughly 200 major generals in the U.S. military at any given time, and the rank itself does not automatically confer WP:GNG. WP:NBIO requires SIGCOV in multiple, independent WP:RS (i.e., not connected to the U.S. military), which subject lacks. Coverage is primarily WP:RUNOFTHEMILL announcements, directory-style entries, or routine reporting connected to their official duties. All this falls squarely under WP:ROUTINE. Finally, while leading a WP:MILUNIT can sometimes be a path to notability, not every senior official meets WP:GNG, as is the case here and a similar AfD that resulted in deletion. Longhornsg (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ecomasculinity

[edit]
Ecomasculinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see this being a distinctive encyclopedic topic that passes the threshold of WP:NOTDICT. Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Haruka Iwao

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Emma Haruka Iwao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Let's try this again. This article was nominated at AFD about 6 years ago which was closed as no consensus (although I think there was at least a rough consensus to delete even then). The primary concern here is that this was a case of WP:BLP1E, surrounding a fairly minor achievement that made the rounds in the popular press and then quickly died out again. The intervening years have only solidified this view, as I can find no real additional coverage of Iwao, especially independent of this one event (doing a record-setting calculation of the digits of pi). That record has been surpassed at least 3 times since this article was written, once by Iwao again, and twice by two others. It's also worth noting that this achievement isn't particularly interesting or impressive. It's just a matter of throwing enough computing power and time at it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and Computing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is impeccably referenced and the subject's claim to fame justifies inclusion on Wikipedia. I would also respectfully disagree with the assertion that "this achievement isn't particularly interesting or impressive." Capt. Milokan (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The references are irrelevant in the face of WP:BLP1E. And there is no real claim to fame here. It's a fairly trivial accomplishment in the wake of ever-increasing available computing power, that made the rounds for a week or so because it coincided with Pi Day, and made a for a nice light-news-day type story. After that, it quickly faded; there's been no lasting coverage or impact on anything. Something like this doesn't magically endow one with the right to inclusion on Wikipedia. She didn't develop the algorithm to compute pi; she didn't write the program to compute pi; she just ran it. This is a nothing burger. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was hoping time would have helped put this one in perspective, but let me elaborate by reiterating the salient part of BLP1E:

    We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

    1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
    2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
    3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
    Number 1 is pretty clear and I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. As for number 2, after this was over, there's been no coverage of Iwao, so she has pretty clearly remained a low-profile individual. Number 3 is probably the most arguable, but as I pointed out above; this is not a particularly impressive accomplishment. It's just a matter of throwing enough computing power at y-cruncher. This record has been broken 3 times in the the 6 years since, and will likely be broken more times as computing power increases and people with the resources to do it feel like doing it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McIntyre

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kate McIntyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see this passing WP:GNG, winning an award is no guarantee for inclusion on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Flannery O'Connor Award for Short Fiction is arguably the most prestigious/notable award for short fiction in the English language, and many of their winners are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages, as you can see from the list of awardees. More recent ones do not necessarily have yet, because different point of their careers. The solution here is probably to flesh out her page rather than delete it? Feel free to jump in. Jenny8lee (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep or draftify per above. at worst it's not ready. Oreocooke (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. My advice for delete still stands under WP:Too soon and the need for multiple sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: Unless this is the same person [1], I don't find coverage about this author. The award is likely notable, but one source isn't enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this might be WP:TOOSOON. I did go back and forth on this a bit because arguably she meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO, given the significance of the award. But in those circumstances, one would expect there to be more critical attention of her work, and there simply isn't enough out there. I've found a couple of reviews in minor journals: the Colorado Review and Split Rock Review, and the book also received a Kansas Notable Book Award... but that's all I can track down. If she publishes another book, perhaps that'll give enough for an article. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Y'know, not only isn't there particular coverage about the subject, the article on this purportedly very important award is entirely sourced through either primary sources or casual mentions. If it indeed is "arguably the most prestigious/notable award for short fiction in the English language," one would expect several seriously reliable sources saying so, as well as mention for the same in the article. I realize this isn't an AfD for the award's article, but if winning this award is the sole claim of notability for the subject -- otherwise, we're just looking at an A7 speedy -- it would behoove any keep proponent to see that the award meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Ravenswing 01:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravenswing: Good point about the award, actually. It doesn't appear to have anything like the coverage of the Commonwealth Short Story Prize or the Nebula Award for Best Short Story, just to name a couple of indisputably notable short fiction awards off the top of my head. Incidentally, Kate McIntyre's collection was longlisted for the PEN/Robert W. Bingham Prize; I don't think that adds anything to her notability, but that prize itself also looks more notable than the Flannery O'Connor award. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - only 12 years out from her PhD, associate professor, and her award, while significant, is the only thing in her favor for passing PROF. Likely a case of TOO Soon, so please don't salt it. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Eric Gilbertson (climber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the third nomination for deletion in a little over a year with successful deletions on October 19, 2024 and January 4, 2025. As noted in those discussions, the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The article relies on several primary sources plus some media sources. The media appears to be reliable at a glance but the vast majority of these are not independent of the subject (WP:GNG) and are instead involving interviews with Gilbertson himself or directly quoting his blog/social media profiles.

Examples of especially problematic sources carrying significant weight on the article are self-entered data on websites, this and this which largely contain direct quotes from Gilbertson's blog or Instagram, and this and this which largely regurgitate Gilbertson's findings that he (et al) had published in one of two academic papers. Most of the rest are interviews done with Gilbertson, which are also not independent of the subject.

Many of the sources on the article could be useful if sufficient independent coverage can be found but a web searches do not seem to offer any sources that don't stem from specialist interviews, the blog, social media, or the short bio on the Seattle University website. Gilbertson could indeed become notable at some point in the future, but for now this is not the case.

Finally, the article includes a lot of trivia to WP:FLUFF it up, such as that Gilbertson has climbed 144 of 196 country high points (according to Gilbertson), that he holds the fastest known climb for the tallest 100 mountains in various U.S. states (again self reported). DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Kentucky, and Washington. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, and Geography. Graywalls (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep As you can see from the sources cited in the article, there is a mountain of independent coverage. I'd agree if you were just referring to churnalism, but plenty of the sources are clearly not that. the interpretation that sources should be excluded from GNG if they are "specialist" or quote the subject in the article is not supported by policy or practice. Many of the sources additionally quote other people, showing that they cannot not just be repeating what gilbertson tells them. The most thorough sources imo are [2][3][4] and I would keep the article even if there was no other coverage.
    Some of the claims in the nomination also show a lack of understanding of the topic—for example, FKTs are independently verified. (t · c) buIdhe 18:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The FKT "verification" process is to simply a review of self reported data as described on their website. Their disclaimer reads "We are unable to definitively verify the accuracy of every FKT submitted." DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the FKT website supports notability given that it's a database entry, but their verification process is rigorous and FKTs often generate media coverage and sponsorships. It's not accurate to describe it as a self report as you claimed. (t · c) buIdhe 18:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simply responding to your claim that I have a lack of understanding of the source material. If you have another resource that shows more rigorous verification of FKT claims then sure, but based on what's described on the linked website I am not convinced this is beyond self-reporting. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt this promotional BLP that does not pass GNG to avoid wasting any more of editors' time. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: it's unusual to see a GA here, though GA status is not itself a bar to deletion (we have deleted Featured Articles in the past). Both the nominator and reviewer are experienced editors: pinging It is a wonderful world and buidhe (I had misread the signature on the comments above!). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @UndercoverClassicist: I'm surprised at how quickly this went GA. It was created November 23. It was GA listed November 25. Two days. I've never seen it happen so fast in my entire time on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh; I don't see anything odd there. I'll usually nominate an article for GA when I feel it's "finished", and for a short article like this one I can completely imagine "finishing" it (at least to GA standard) in a day or two. I certainly can't see that the GA nom was anything other than thorough: it seems well within the standards usually set at GAN. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The quick rise from draft to article to speedy deletion candidate to GA does raise eyebrows. There was a brief discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 36#Need AfC review before GAN can be started where it becomes apparent that, even before the article creator promoted their own draft to article-space, they were planning to immediately nominate it for GA. I have occasionally seen immediate reviews of new GA nominations but it's rare; more often they languish for months. The biggest thing I'm surprised to see unadressed in the GA review is why the two very recent AfD delete outcomes don't immediately disqualify it as GA under the stability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because I disagree that most the sources can be discounted due to them being regurgitations of his blog or academic research. Firstly, academic research being reported on by media contributes to its notability – it means there is secondary interest in his work. Secondly, the sources containing direct quotes from Gilbertson's blog or Instagram contain large amounts of factual reporting on his work, which makes up more of the content in these articles than quotes from his social media. I would not be opposed to removing the fact about the 144 of 196 country high points, though it could stay as it is attributed to Gilbertson already and covered in an independent source. Some other things I think are misleading about this nomination are:
As noted in those discussions, the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article" – The article has been entirely rewritten and a bunch of independent sources published after those discussions took place have been added
The FKT profile does not carry "significant weight on the article". It is used as a primary source in addition to the secondary source directly before it, which also verifies all the information in the sentence
The Times article is never mentioned, even though it seems like the strongest source in the article (though note I am unable to access it to verify that it has no issues).
The record for the 100 mountains has an independent source which directly supports the claim. This means it is notable and is not WP:FLUFF. IAWW (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's old news that was available during the first two rounds of AfDs. @Rsjaffe and Star Mississippi:, are you guys able to review old deleted versions? I would like to know if citations now are substantially different since then and became available that would make him notable now but not then. Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can check that for yourself just by checking the publication dates on the currently cited sources. (t · c) buIdhe 19:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the references in the last deleted version of this page title:
  1. "North America". web.mit.edu. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  2. "Billigreisen und geschmierte Polizisten – die Abenteuer der Kletter-Zwillinge". Tages-Anzeiger (in German). 2022-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  3. "Country Highpoints. Bracia jako pierwsi chcą zdobyć najwyższe szczyty górskie w 196 krajach | National Geographic". www.national-geographic.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  4. Southern, Keiran (2022-11-02). "Twin peaks: brothers Matthew and Eric Gilbertson rewrite mountain record books". www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  5. "Eric Gilbertson, PhD". Seattle University. Retrieved 2025-01-02.
  6. Milne, Keeley (2023-08-09). "Oregon's Jason Hardrath obliterates Rocky Mountain Grand Slam FKT". Canadian Running Magazine. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  7. "Beta and Brews: Winter FA of Hard Mox with Eric Gilbertson". The Mountaineers. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  8. "Zwillinge wollen höchste Punkte in allen Ländern der Welt erreichen". Süddeutsche.de (in German). 2022-11-09. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  9. Ghosh, Souparno. "Alumni have summitted the highest points of every North American country". The Tech. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  10. "Billigreisen und geschmierte Polizisten – die Abenteuer der Kletter-Zwillinge". Tages-Anzeiger (in German). 2022-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  11. "Wolt-bud besteg verdens farligste bjerg og var tæt på katastrofe: Pludseligt regnede det med tunge sten og iltflasker | fyens.dk". fyens.dk (in Danish). 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  12. "The Line: Global Ambition — American Alpine Club". American Alpine Club. 2024-08-21. Retrieved 2024-09-10.
  13. "فرواع..أعلى قمة سعودية". arriyadiyah.com (in Arabic). Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  14. "A Tale of Two Peaks - Destination KSA". 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  15. "Newsday - Twin peaks: Brothers' mission to climb every national highpoint - BBC Sounds". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  16. "Mount Rainier is shrinking and now has a new summit". The Seattle Times. 2024-10-06. Retrieved 2024-11-30.
  17. "Rainier Is Shorter Than We All Thought". Seattle Met. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls I don't have the on wiki bandwidth to assess the sources right now, but I've undeleted the history for you and any other interested editors to review and assess. cc @Rsjaffe Star Mississippi 19:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Tissier

[edit]
Marcel Tissier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourced only to database entries. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Comeau

[edit]
Joe Comeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source in article is Discogs; a search on Google doesn't result in any independent, in-depth, and reliable sources monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mazen Kalassina

[edit]
Mazen Kalassina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources in the article are sponsored or featured posts about a single event and do not meet WP:RS standard and WP:1E also apply. A WP:BEFORE produced nothing convincing towards notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadiq Isu

[edit]
Sadiq Isu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's sources are mostly press statements and announcements about a company he founded that give him trivial mentions. A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing to pass notability. It fails WP:BIO. Ednabrenze (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Klein

[edit]
Ethan Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP has some serious sourcing issues which lead me to believe Klein is not independently notable of H3H3.

  • Ref 1 is marked on the cite plugin as a blog, of which the archived page is viewable here. In The Know is currently down, however their about us can be viewed here.
  • Ref 2 is a primary source from their YouTube podcast.
  • Ref 3 is for a specific incident. Dexerto is marginally reliable but this article has nothing about Klein personally and so doesn't contribute to WP:SIGCOV.
  • Ref 4 is a student publication website.
  • Ref 7 is from Distractify and cannot be used for BLPs per WP:DISTRACTIFY. It is completely unreliable.
  • Ref 8 is also unreliable, with MEAWW being a clickbait tabloid website. The specific author of the article used is from self-described pop culture enthusiast.
  • Ref 9, 10, 13-15 and 19 are all from YT.
  • Ref 16 is from Metro and is unreliable per WP:METRO.
  • Ref 19 appears to be broken. Wayback Machine returned no results for archived copies and the URL in the reflist goes to another website. This seems to be a possible dud.

That leaves us with a few sources that can be used for an article. Ref 5 is fine, though Business Insider is MREL. Ref 6 is about a specific event, but The Jerusalem Post is reliable. Ref 11 is also fine by the looks of it and has substantial information about Klein. Ref 12 is from Intelligencer, and whilst reliable, it is about a specific occurrence. Ref 17 is from Tubefilter, which claims to be trustworthy within the creator sphere—the article is unfortunately not very long. Finally, ref 20 is from Yahoo! News and is about Trisha Paytas' appearance on an episode of the H3 Podcast.

I did a WP:BEFORE search and dug up some usable sources, but they don't provide much:

  • A short one paragraph article from Yahoo! Life.
  • There is one paragraph about Klein in this Fast Company article about a Reddit feud.

Altogether, this leaves 2 substantial sources from Business Insider and MEL. Tubefilter, Yahoo! Life and Fast Company also have information about Klein, but it is not as much.

WP:NBASIC requires 'multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.' It could be argued Klein just about has this, I did also find a few articles from Sportskeeda and The Sun, but these are both unreliable—deprecated in the latter case.

Once all the unreliable sources are taken out, what is already a very short article would have barely anything left, only being made up by 4-5 reliable sources and the remaining sources being primary.

I think that a redirect to H3H3Productions is appropriate here. If more articles can be found to establish notability, I would of course welcome that. (Apologies for the length, I wanted to make sure I presented the full picture.)

The above is based on this revision. 11WB (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donut Operator

[edit]
Donut Operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page only has one secondary source that is both reliable and has WP:SIGCOV of subject. The rest of the sources are either one of those or neither. For further avoidance of doubt, page also fails WP:ENT. UppercutPawnch (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie LaBarge

[edit]
Bernie LaBarge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article from the start has been extensively edited by its subject, very clearly reflected in a highly promotional/casual/nostalgic tone, admitted to be taken from the subject's own website, which is a blatant WP:COI violation Shredlordsupreme (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep per quick search finding two mentions in Billboard, a mention in the Spokane Chronicle, an entry in the Canadian Pop Music Encyclopedia, and a music review in the Canadian Press. As there are already two reliable sources mentioned in the article, he might be notable. Nighfidelity (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Gupta

[edit]
Prateek Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to simply be a news story, seems not well-written, difficult to identify the subject of the article. Does not seem to meet any standard for having an article. aaronneallucas (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it’s one of the biggest news of corruption done by police officer. We agree that this might not be written in a right way. But I disagree that it should be deleted.
please suggest some edits, I guess photograph of sting operation must be there ~2025-39096-20 (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets's Keep it with proper research & edits Pride4uster (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arland D. Williams Jr.

[edit]
Arland D. Williams Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Only notable for contribution to the Air Florida Flight 90 event. His actions can be covered on the event page. Suggest a redirect and/or limited merge to that page as an WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you fail life. Gfkysasap ~2025-35117-72 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Bernal

[edit]
Camila Bernal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real claim to notability, no sourcing found about her work on TV to establish notability. PROD challenged, so we're here. Star Mississippi 20:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlo Bâse

[edit]
Jarlo Bâse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSINGER; virtually none of the WP:RS references pass WP:GNG, while some that do are not WP:RS (see WP:LIONHEARTV), or is ABS-CBN, which owns the label Star Records which signed the singer, making it WP:PRIMARY. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Grijalva

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ruben Grijalva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject was involved in notable events, but most coverage is incidental to those events rather than about him. No significant, independent sourcing focused on the subject himself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, as appointed agency leadership does not confer notability without independent in-depth coverage Mooonswimmer 16:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phan Văn Bàn

[edit]
Phan Văn Bàn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Half the content in this brief bio isn’t even about the subject. He was a prisoner for a long time in Vietnam, but I don’t think that alone makes him notable. I don’t think there is enough here to pass WP:BASIC. Mccapra (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Ross

[edit]
Coral Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable per WP:POLITICIAN; people with the same offices as Ross do not have an article for them; and the sources do not seem to justify their notability either. (Primary source, user-generated) The Kora Person (come say hi!) 07:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose while on its own being mayor of a local council is not notable, Coral Ross has received a significant award and has made contributions in a specific field that is covered by multiple independent and reliable sources (as per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG). These are included in the article but more can be added if required. Takerlamar (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Kishori

[edit]
Jaya Kishori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Motivational speaker who has a lot of paid placements and WP:NEWSORGINDIA but nothing in-depth about her. Most of the coverage is her giving advice or churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - None of those awards are any notable. Anyone wanting to keep the article must show a few sources that pass WP:GNG. Koshuri (あ!) 11:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NBASIC as these awards are not notable. Her coverage entirely comes from WP:RSNOI sources which are unreliable for establishing notability for they exhibit all the issues mentioned there. Zalaraz (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we were to dispute the notability of the other awards in the article, the National Creators Award seems notable to me. It's been covered in a TOI article that doesn't come under the jurisdiction of WP:RSNOI since it's in the 'Gadget News' section. You're right to point out that there seems to be a lot of coverage from WP:RSNOI on her, but I wouldn't say that her coverage is entirely made up of this. I'm open to discussion, however. At worst, I'd vote for Draftify but I do think this article has the potential to be improved. Why delete when there's potential for improvement? Katiedevi (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would object to draftifying as it would likely just wind up right back in the mainspace after a few weeks or months and we will be right back here at AfD. If there was a chance to save it, then I would support it, but WP:OVERCOME applies here as there simply isn't anything for notability. Even the award you say "seems notable" isn't. It was established in 2024 and you pointed out one reference. I highly doubt it would meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TOI source absolutely comes under RSNOI, it has generic bylines and also WP:TIMESOFINDIA. Zalaraz (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The only coverage I could find of her in RS is a gossipy bunfight about her carrying a Dior bag, which is WP:BLP1E at best. The rest is interviews, and tame interviews dressed up as articles. Wikishovel (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Laginha

[edit]
Pedro Laginha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NACTOR fail. Google has no hits on any news source. Fermiboson (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radford Sechrist

[edit]
Radford Sechrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. This was returned to mainspace immediately after I sent it to draft with the following rationale: "". This is a WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BIO failure. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Creating editor returned this to draft as an out of process move during this discussion, I feel we should interpret that as a request to return to draft. Indeed Draftify is an acceptable ATD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello sorry for late comment:This‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌ page should not be deleted quickly (CSD) because it complies with the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and the specific notability guidelines for creative professionals (WP:CREATOR and WP:FILMMAKER). Radford Sechrist is the creator, showrunner, and executive producer of the critically acclaimed Netflix animated series Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts. The series has been the subject of substantial, non-trivial coverage, by a number of independent and reliable sources, such as Animation Magazine, Screen Rant, and The A.V. Club, which is a testament to the public interest and impact far beyond the routine reporting. In addition, his long-term career in feature animation as a Story Artist and Head of Story on big studio productions, like How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Wish Dragon, moves him to be a notable creative in the animation ‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌industry. Winter (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jaredryandloneria This is a full seven day WP:AFD discussion, during which you are welcome to edit the article in order to demonstrate by excellence of referencing that the subject should be retained. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Humphreys

[edit]
Stacey Humphreys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:1EVENT applies. Appears to fail WP:CRIME. Nothing about this case is particularly notable or will be long-lasting. Not every executed person in the U.S. needs an article, as has previously been discussed. Inexpiable (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it’s not as notable, I think it’s fair that he gets an article since he appears to be the only one in Georgia to be getting an execution this year like with Jessie Hoffman and Lance Shockley did if it’s a state that doesn’t do executions often like Florida is doing this year. Also, it has almost 40 sources, so I agree effort was put into it. Bluehawkking (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jessie Hoffman is notable since he was the first in Louisiana since 2010 and the first Louisiana inmate executed by nitrogen hypoxia.Lance Shockley however is not notable and shouldn't have been written. Dashing24 (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because user think not all death row inmates shouldn't get articles doesn't mean that article that was put a lot of work in should be deleted.This is clearly biased nomination, article is fine to stay.14:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-38610-14 (talk)
Comment: Not a valid keep vote. Anonymous user whose only edit is on this afd is highly suspicious. Inexpiable (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users can have their own opinions on matters ~2025-38610-14 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He may not be executed, and even if he is, why is him being the only person to be executed in Georgia in 2025 noteworthy? What relevance does 48 executions in 1 year have to this particular individual though. Inexpiable (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being bitter ~2025-35179-87 (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if there is any sort of comment here I wish to say as the creator, I forgot to include this part of info in the article, which is the allegation of juror misconduct that the U.S. Supreme Court looked through in the appeal. Apparently one of the jurors was a survivor of an attack by a convicted murderer, and she voted for the death penalty even though the others initially wanted life without parole, and she reportedly stated she would not change her vote and hoped the jury could provide a unanimous recommendation for the death sentence. Humphreys raised this fact in his grounds of appeal but the majority of judges dismissed his appeal and claims. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Stacey Humphreys doesn't satisfy the notability criteria howeber since the article is fairly well-written it can be kept. However, the trend of publishing an article for every death row offender isn't appropriate e.g. many of the 2025 articles are completely unnecessary e.g. Wendell Grissom, Lance Shockley, etc. Dashing24 (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dashing24: Well exactly. This is really what I was getting at with this nomination. For 2026, this trend of creating articles for every executed person really needs to stop. Just because an execution doesn't occur in Florida or Texas doesn't make it notable and care needs to be taken going forward, this is something you really need to understand @NelsonLee20042020:. Inexpiable (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone outs effort and time in making good well sourced articles what problem do you have? ~2025-35179-87 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Inexpiable, @Dashing24, thank you, you brought up very valid points. I will do my best to better myself with the choice of articles and cases. I am actually hesitant to go forward with some of the cases that I thought notable enough for standalone articles (eg. Triple murderers David Pittman and Curtis Windom, plus the rapist-killer Norman Grim of Florida) given the particularly heinous nature, aftermath and coverage of their crimes, because like you said we cannot congest the page with too much articles. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make all this articles (im not saying you should) to be well sourced and well made why not have them ~2025-38610-14 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG). There is significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that addresses the subject directly and in detail. The coverage is not limited to a single event but spans over a period of time (investigation, trial, and subsequent analysis), which distinguishes it from WP:TOOSOON or routine news reporting. Pantsoffski (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The case wasn't notable crime, and Stanley himself suddenly had an article when the execution date was set in december. Now, from 2024-2025, it seems that every criminal executed has an article, even though some, like Wendell Grimsom, weren't notable crime at the time.~2025-39525-68 (talk)

Juan Carlos Rabbat

[edit]
Juan Carlos Rabbat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems with promotional style and many primary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC Pridemanty (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's both promotional and AI-generated ("According to public information from the group and business media...")
Few sources contain significant coverage of Rabbat, and even fewer are independent & reliable aesurias (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – after substantial expansion and reorganization the article now clearly satisfies WP:GNG. The subject is not just a routine officeholder but the founder and long-time rector of Siglo 21 University, which multiple independent media reports (Infobae, El Comercio, Radio El Trébol/Ámbito Biz, etc.) describe as the private university with the largest number of students in Argentina, and he has been the focus of repeated, in-depth coverage over more than a decade. The current version is built primarily on independent, reliable sources such as Infobae (2025 feature on the university’s model and scale), El Comercio (profile of the institution as the largest private university), La Voz del Interior (2011 business profile, 2018 interview on poverty and education, 2019 article on Capabilia), Punto a Punto (Empresario del Año 2018 and a 2025 strategy interview), Reporte Asia (extended biographical sketch), Virtual Educa (independent academic profile), Infonegocios (on R’Evolution Education Group) and others, with any necessary primary or institutional sources confined to straightforward, non-controversial facts. The article now follows a standard biographical structure (early life, academic career, entrepreneurial activity, public service and awards), his roles are described precisely (founder and president, and former rector of Siglo 21 University), and claims such as the “largest private university” characterisation are explicitly attributed to those third-party sources rather than stated in Wikipedia’s voice. The awards section has also been expanded from a single item to four documented distinctions, each supported by neutral third-party coverage (La Voz del Interior, Fundación E+E, Punto a Punto, Government of San Juan). In this sourced and restructured state the subject has clear, non-trivial, independent coverage over time, so a keep outcome is appropriate.

Elritmodelos80 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert W. Hilchey

[edit]
Albert W. Hilchey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscus Illenfeld

[edit]
Franciscus Illenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blakk Rasta

[edit]
Blakk Rasta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of this artist's reliable coverage seems to come from one song. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:SINGER. SpragueThomsontalk 01:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lunz

[edit]
Christopher Lunz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CRIMINAL, his crimes were only covered by local newspapers and are certianly not "historic". Dozens of low-profile criminals appear on local newspapers for murder every day, which is why notability standards for criminals is higher than GNG. A repeat offender appearing on the local news twice for WP:ROUTINE crimes is WP:ROTM ("random Florida man got arrested a second time in our county!") and scarcely does anything to help one achieve notability. V. S. Video (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources say he is a serial killer, they only say that he described himself as such [8][9]. Claiming to be something that could make someone notable and actually being such thing is quite different. V. S. Video (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Sommerlath

[edit]
Alice Sommerlath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sommerlath was not a public figure and I see no evidence that she has attracted enough media attention to be considered notable by our standards. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Edington

[edit]
Jonathon Edington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. Also fails WP:CRIMINAL, since this is not an historic event. No evidence of this passing NEVENT either, it was only briefly covered by the media in 2006. V. S. Video (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per rationale of nominator. And possibly even WP:BLPCRIME. We need to be careful when writing about people accused of crime. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Val Van Den Broek

[edit]
Val Van Den Broek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. At best they've received coverage for a single event when they were censured for behavior, but there's not enough to suggest continued coverage or notability. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly referenced BLP; mayor of a city of 30,000 people. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ekkehard of Huysburg

[edit]
Ekkehard of Huysburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2006. I was unable to verify this content. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's too bad these are offline. It's hard to assess without seeing the sources and knowing the extent of the coverage in them and what they say. Our article looks to be a translation of the German wiki page. If someone on the English wiki hasn't actually confirmed that veracity of the German article (ie looked at sources covering the topic) I don't think we can keep it.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:AGF means we can translate articles from other Wikipedias without verifying the sources ourselves. If the article is a translation, we could just port the citations over. Srnec (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Edmonds (media consultant)

[edit]
Tom Edmonds (media consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a political consultant, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for political consultants. There are statements here that would probably be valid notability claims if they were referenced properly and expanded upon with more detail, but nothing at all that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability -- but in its current state this is completely unreferenced, and reviewing its history it has only ever previously contained primary sources (e.g. the self-published websites of companies and organizations he's been directly affiliated with, and a WorldCat directory entry) that are not support for notability, and there has never, ever been even one single solitary WP:GNG-worthy third-party reliable source in the article whatsoever, all the way back to its creation in 2010.
As I'm not an expert on American political backroom strategists, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody is able to find the necessary kind of sourcing to demonstrate that he would pass GNG on his media coverage, but the article can't stand without the GNG-worthy sourcing that's never been in it.
It's also undergone more than one round of "advertorialism by temp accounts getting reverted by established editors" editwarring in the past week and a bit, so I strongly suspect conflict of interest editing by somebody directly associated with the subject. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brahui Confederacy

[edit]
Brahui Confederacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire article relies on a single unreliable source. It also faces issues of WP:POVPUSHING, WP:OR and WP:NOTABILITY, and appears to be content fork of Khanate of Kalat. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete I agree, if the content is covered on another page then it should be a redirect, any knew info can be added to the Khanate of Kalaf page if there is enough evidence (which this page certainly doesn’t have), I suggest a redirect to the proper page. Perhaps even a warning for the original creator who needs to understand that one source cannot be used. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnan Vasant

[edit]
Krishnan Vasant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A draft of this article was declined and just two days later this is created directly in the main space. A conflict of interest is declared on the draft but that has nothing to do with this nomination. The subject fails WP:NBIO per WP:BEFORE. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ednabrenze Please review your nomination comment, the article is a WP:BIO. AlphaCore talk 14:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir he has done 15 films. you can check all of his films once on wikipedia and then decide.
He played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work please check his films once sir Prasadpaturi (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cardwell

[edit]
Peter Cardwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacking sources and WP:BEFORE turns out nothing to pass WP:GNG or any other criteria. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Duffy (songwriter)

[edit]
Simon Duffy (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by an extensive, long-term WP:UPE/promo ring intent on promoting Josh Simons and things related to Josh Simons. We don't have WP:GNG here - just a WP:REFBOMB. asilvering (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Beamon

[edit]
Rocky Beamon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low-profile criminal that fails WP:PERP. He appeared in some local newspapers in 2019 due to a murder conviction. Other than that, a single local newspaper reported on a previous conviction of his in 2005, which counts as a WP:ROUTINE crime report and does little to help him climb his way out of WP:BIO1E. Dozens of criminals appear on local newspapers for murder every day, which is why our standards for criminals is higher than just GNG. V. S. Video (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Anderson (screenwriter)

[edit]
Gregory Anderson (screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no evidence of notability upon a search for sources. Out of the article's two existing sources, one does not go in-depth into the subject as a person, and one is a primary source as the subject's alma mater. He seems to fail WP:AUTHOR as well. TheInevitables (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Mayer

[edit]
Roman Mayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NBIO fail. All provided sources are non-RS/primary and Google reviews no extra sources. Fermiboson (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your feedback.
I used a lot of primary sources for this page, such as the company's own website and the government website, tourist websites of this location. Montreux in Swizerland.
The Mayer business is notable as first jewelry and watch dealer, predating most of today's famous Swiss watch brands. the business has a 140 year history and is still existing today. - maybe the artickle needs editing. it could go in a draftily for review? Adamsecretxx (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback can be sought through Articles for Creation. This is Articles for Deletion so the discussion is not going to focus on how to improve the article, but on whether to keep it in Wikipedia. Lamona (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least get it out of mainspace with a draftify and subsequent use of Articles for Creation. What I find with searching are stores that advertise the watches for sale and tourist guides listing the Mayer stores in Switzerland. It's not clear to me whether this is intended as an article about the business or about the person, but I do not find sufficient sources for either. I do note that one of the sources in the article provides significant information about Otto Mayer, and it is possible that enough could be found for an article about him. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Gal

[edit]
Alon Gal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Various breaches he supposedly uncovered were done as part of his company work, which already has an article. I would suggest redirecting this bio here, but maybe he is indeed the notable person and the company article should be deleted instead. Or both are indeed notable subjects. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hudson Rock. All the sources are related to the data breach or company, and I can find no reliable SIGCOV about him specifically. The company isn't too big itself, so being a C-suite there without further independent SIGCOV isn't enough for a standalone article. HurricaneZetaC 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting! gidonb (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Riese Lassen

[edit]
Christian Riese Lassen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of GNG or NARTIST. Most sources either don't mention the artist or only do so in passing mention. The one source that (according to the article) doesn't explicitly mentions the fact that the subject is not mentioned elsewhere. Fermiboson (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - All 5 10 refs cover the artist by name in several sentences; stating that they 'don't mention the artist' is demonstrably false. The Takashi Kashima ref is focused on the artist and has 6+ pages on him. Christian Riese Lassen was also a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador in 1998 for the International Year of the Ocean, though I am still searching for good RS coverage of this.Dialectric (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an entire book published in Japan focused on his work and its reception. - Essays on works and reception of Lassen in Japan June 2013 by Film Art (Tokyo). Yuki Harada editor. [10]Dialectric (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, this seems like a set of essays about his work? Without the full book it can't be definitely said if it counts toward notability, but it might be a good source if it's not just an essay collection. HurricaneZetaC 21:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What policy page are you looking at that suggests that a book of essays on an artist, published by an established Japanese publisher does not count towards notability?Dialectric (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a Japanese-language biography written by Yuki Harada published by Chuokoron-Shinsha [11] (ISBN978-4-12-005724-3).and there is a review of the biography in bunshun [12] (in Japanese). Dialectric (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Takashi Kashima ref (ref 1) in turn references several articles on Lassen published in Japan's largest newspapers including The Asahi Shimbun (April 18, 1997, Fukui edition, p. 15)(June 5, 1997, evening edition, p. 14) and the Sankei Shimbun (June 2, 1997, evening edition, p. 11) which constitute significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first source is the only one that seems to have a good form of SIGCOV. The second one simply talks about his homes and the third one has glowing language and seems to be some sort of advertisement (might be wrong here). The fourth one mentions that his painting was stolen, but nothing about him (this one too). The fifth one does have coverage, but it's also regular coverage of an incident that is fairly common for news to cover. At first, the Google Books and Newspapers.com hits seemed promising, but nearly all of them are paid ads that just have glowing praise with no help towards building notability. As for the Goodwill Ambassador, it's mentioned a lot in Google searches, but I don't think that alone is enough for automatic notability. HurricaneZetaC 18:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: I searched up his name in Japanese (I believe it's クリスチャン・ラッセン) and most of the results cited/included that biography book above, so I believe that could be usable as a source if the contents are accessible. Additional Japanese source I found: [13], but I'm not sure it's reliable. The Japanese Wikipedia page isn't too promising in terms of sources either. HurricaneZetaC 21:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No listing in the Getty ULAN [14], the NY Post article (not a RS anyway) [15] covers some aspect the artist, but we just don't have enough to show notability. The one good source mentioned in the comments above isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That NY Post article just quotes from his website anyway, so it's not usable even as a non-RS to count towards notability. Also, I had no idea that he made that image. HurricaneZetaC 21:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was what I was trying to show, I guess I didn't really explain it. Artist was only covered in a non-RS, that was all I found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the last vote/recommendation was made, 5 new RS references have been added including a Los Angeles Times article and a full-length biography book published in Japan.Dialectric (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Erben

[edit]
Hermann Erben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To the extent this person has any notability at all, it is that he was a friend of Errol Flynn, and even that tenuous claim to notability only exists due to allegations in a 1980 biography by Charles Higham that Flynn was a Nazi spy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errol_Flynn#Charles_Higham_biography Higham is not even mentioned in this article, which is otherwise a hodgepodge of unsourced claims concerning the subject.

Merger to Errol Flynn is not warranted as the Flynn article already has more than enough detail on that subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will Stancil

[edit]
Will Stancil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are entirely about losing a local political campaign and being the victim of a harassment campaign. Fails WP:NPOL, and per WP:AVOIDVICTIM we should not make articles like this. Also usage of several sources disallowed on politics, e.g. Rolling Stone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the author of the page, Stancil has received notable coverage about his takes, as shown in the references. More could be added, but he has had significant coverage in reputable sources before his political campaign. Examples:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-is-the-public-down-on-the-economy-ft-will-stancil/id1390384827?i=1000637921316
https://www.businessinsider.com/recession-outlook-economy-good-inflation-jobs-wages-2023-12
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/18/democrats-less-boring-emotional-reaction-00033382
https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/will-stancil-repetitive-and-annoying-and-influential-player-american-politics
I think he gets enough notability as a public intellectual, and I have tried to avoid undue weight on the recent AI generated show. The article is a stub, and could be improved, but he meets notability criteria. Calwatch (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all opinion pieces, him being quoted with no sourcing about him (so not sigcov) or local news. Every piece of sigcov is about him being bullied on Twitter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References #2 and #3 already in the article (Intelligencer and Slate) sufficient for passing the WP:GNG. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is just a further explanation of WP:BLP1E which doesn't apply here for a multitude of reasons. Katzrockso (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AVOIDVICTIM is not that, it is the rule that "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization", and so we should not include detail that is of that nature. Stancil has only ever received coverage for being bullied on Twitter (as both of the sources you note are about). This entire article is a WP:BLP issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that someone has received abuse in no way "participat[es] in or prolong[s]" victimization. It is quite simple to reduce the proportion of material focused on the abuse he has received in the article and this would suffice in assuaging any concern you might have (even if we accept the proposition that AV applies here). Am I to understand your position that bullying/harassment shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia because it reproduces the victimization? Katzrockso (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an entire article about someone being a harassment victim does contribute to their harassment.
Yes, if it involves specific BLPs of people solely covered for being harassment victims. For example we do not even mention the name of the person Kiwi Farms is named after, because that is contributing to that person's harassment, even though it is noted in RS, because WP:AVOIDVICTIM. People like this who have received coverage solely for being harassed by the internet have regularly had their articles deleted/draftified. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Stancil is a public intellectual who has had his opinions both published by major publications like Politico and examined by other RS like Slate and New York Magazine. The harassment (such as it is) is mostly related to his public positions, and not some immutable characteristic like his race or sexual orientation. Calwatch (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call him an intellectual and the sources that examine his views are within the context of the campaign against him. The Slate article title begins "The Most Harassed Guy on X", and the rest of it is an interview. What the harassment is because of is irrelevant, nothing in AVOIDVICTIM says it should only be about identity-based harassment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stancil is obviously an intellectual — of the liberal-pundit type. I also think it's misguided to try to justify disappearing him from WP as something implicit for 'his own good' (you keep citing, unconvincingly, WP:AVOIDVICTIM)...joepaT 19:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Intellectual", I do not see how he obviously matches the definition (unless everyone with a masters degree is an intellectual, which I do not believe to be the case). It is not for anyone's good or ill, I have no personal feelings on the man, it is for compliance with WP:BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An intellectual of the liberal-pundit type, like Will, is a public performer who packages ideas for political impact and media consumption, while someone with a master’s degree is usually just a private professional with specialized training and no obligation (or platform) to translate that knowledge into partisan narrative. Despite his own substantial academic training, Will as the pundit-intellectual is defined by visibility, rhetorical packaging, and tribal signaling rather than pure scholarly depth.joepaT 19:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...according to who? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources in the article says "the region's most prolific public intellectual on social media". https://mspmag.com/arts-and-culture/in-conversation-with-will-stancil/ Calwatch (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking about what the rest of that whole statement was from (saying he is "defined by visibility, rhetorical packaging, and tribal signaling rather than pure scholarly depth" what?). Intellectual just means 'intelligent person', so yes, I am not surprised that you can find a source that calls him one, but that's something of an opinionated statement. And we likely aren't going to convince each other, so it's best not going in circles. I stand by my opinion and you stand by yours and it is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom? According to Intellectual#Public_intellectual! joepaT 21:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking how you came to conclude that Stancil as an individual is "defined by visibility, rhetorical packaging, and tribal signaling rather than pure scholarly depth". PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I mean, just read the quote I reference below, where Stancil is quite clearly described as a liberal pundit comparable to Chris Hayes in influence. joepaT 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Would you please explain, citing the appropriate WP policies/parameters, why the subject "isn't notable." Thank you! joepaT 05:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You expect too much quality. Irregardless, I am concurring with PARAKANYAA. Not every failed politician is worthy of being on Wikipedia. Raync (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes appears to be a nonprofit newsroom Yes The profile is significant coverage ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes profile, lots of biographical information ✔ Yes
Yes Yes says its an alt-weekly Yes This is an interview, but the preview and the interview questions, I believe, show notability and independent coverage. (See essay WP:INTERVIEWS) ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Slate doesn't have a strong consensus in reliable sources noticeboard, but seems OK to me Yes First two paragraphs before the interview are significant coverage, as well as some of the questions. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes ~ Three sentences about subject, but most of it is about the AI-generated show ~ Partial
No Same author as the Minnesota Reformer profile Yes Seems reliable? ~ Yes things that happened, but not very in-depth ✘ No
Yes Yes No This seems like passing coverage and not very much in-depth discussion of the subject ✘ No
Yes Yes No Purely an interview ✘ No
Yes No WP:SPECTATOR No Mostly about Grok and the AI show. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Keep: Being notable for trolling Twitter is a dubious honor (says I, writing online at AfD). Nevertheless, I believe it meets WP:GNG. Source assessment table is above. A couple of facts emerge: noted for popularizing "vibecession" (US economy) in 2022, being a Twitter warrior, running for office, and being a target of harassment. That's more points for notability than any one thing in WP:BLP1E. WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't say articles should be removed; instead, it says to be judicious and not necessarily include every detail. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ MacDougald, Park (6 November 2024). "JD Vance: prince of the MAGA movement". UnHerd. Paul Marshall. Archived from the original on 6 November 2025. Retrieved 3 December 2025. A handful of liberal pundits, including MSNBC's Chris Hayes and the newly minted lolcow Will Stancil, have pointed to these connections as evidence that Vance himself is a budding authoritarian, or that his brain has simply been "pickled", in Hayes's words.

Madeline Pendleton

[edit]
Madeline Pendleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability and neutrality for four months, since September. Fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and WP:AUTHOR: Tunnel Vision clothing does not stand out commercially among other businesses since its foundation in 2014, and her only book has not won any awards or been included in bestselling lists. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a failed verification tag accordingly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source appears to have been cut from the book. It's still listed in Google Books, but in the copy I purchased later after writing the article has it removed from the same page. Considering there haven't been any significant new sources for the individual and this one has been removed, I don't oppose deletion unless someone wants to come in and do more research. Illinois2011 (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 18:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle F. Henry (Dermatologist)

[edit]
Michelle F. Henry (Dermatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dermatologist. No reliable, significant, notable coverage. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I got my person from the WikiProject Women in Red. She is a distinguished dermatologist who has published over 30 peer-reivewed article and has made a major influence in skin-of-color work. She is also a clinical instructor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College where she teaches her practice to college students. She has also been featured in major media outlets such as Coveteur and self magazine. What do you suggest is missing in order for her to be "notable"? ~2025-37859-60 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage about her, not her simply offering ideas on things, or a simple listing of where the person works, what they've done over their career. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wendela de Graeff

[edit]
Wendela de Graeff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NBIO on multiple counts. First, I should point out that I tried to refactor it in the past given the article author is known for crosswiki hoaxing/promotion of his questionable family tree that I also denoted on my user subpage. I acknowledge this article might be entirely suitable for WP:PROD but on crosswiki experience AfDs of his articles were always somewhat messy.

Article currently uses a few reliable sources (Dutch national biography dictionary) and books for which I assume their reliability, but could not assess them properly as they're inaccessible to me. Based off the sources Wendela is known mostly for her marriage to Willem Schrijver, which IMHO is the reason Donald1972 made the article. The marriage alone does not satisfy WP:GNG per WP:NOTINHERITED. Wendela also fails WP:ANYBIO by lacking a standalone entry in a national biographical dictionary (although as said, she's trivially mentioned a few times). Last, after scanning available sources I conclude Wendela also fails WP:NBASIC as there is no significant coverage. A09|(talk) 22:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*delete I found nothing about her, and to pass WP:ANYBIO I tried to find as much as I could, but she does not have her own standalone lemma (entry) in standard Dutch biographical dictionaries like the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek (NNBW) or Van der Aa. In 17th-century biographical dictionaries, women were rarely given their own entries unless they were writers, royalty, or involved in a major scandal. Instead, she was “hidden” inside the entries of her father or husband. Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC) Changed to cmt below. Hteiktinhein (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am made suspicious about this nom by the removal, with a very dubious explanation, of a significant part of her claim to notability, by the nom some months ago. This was the portrait of her included in a major painting by Rembrandt (Jacob Blessing the Sons of Joseph (Rembrandt)), who changed the usual iconography of the subject to include her. What does the fat catalogue of the 2014-2015 major exhibition "Late Rembrandt" in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam have to say about her? And other Rembrandt scholarship. I've re-added the pic to the article. At the least, more could be added to the long article on her father, and the shorter one on her second husband. That a woman from such a top family in Calvinist Amsterdam had a child outside marriage, and still was able to marry a different patrician man can't be that common, and I would be rather amazed if it has not been covered in the blizzard of feminist scholarship over the very well-documwented Amsterdam elite in recent decades. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, is having sources about her being married to someone and a picture of hers enough for notability? I still believe pretty much everything could be mentioned in the picture article. A09|(talk) 12:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am willing to reconsider my vote above if other editors support the point raised by Johnbod. I am still not fully convinced that she is significant enough. Thanks. Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found that her portrait is discussed by a scholar in this book: pp. 163–164. This scholarly work re-examines Rembrandt’s art by exploring his relationship with the Jewish community in Amsterdam during the 1650s. Wendela de Graeff appears in the context of interpreting the painting as a "portrait historié" (a portrait in which real individuals are depicted as historical or biblical figures), and she is identified with Asenath. Based on this, she seems significant enough to meet notability as a historical figure.Hteiktinhein (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm with Johnbod on this one. The referencing is somewhat piecemeal, but as a historical figure with no BLP concerns, and with the enduring interest in her portrait, I think it is reasonable to keep under the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A cursory search of Google Books and archive.org reveals dozens of books that mention her, as early as 1885 and as recently as 2025. True enough, a number of these do not delve deep into her life. But there's enough there, and enough of the sources are viewable only either in snippet form or if one reads Dutch, that it's reasonable to believe we're looking at the tip of the iceberg rather than its full mass. Johnbod, for example, makes the good point that her life was intriguing, and likely interesting to contemporary scholarship—and, lo and behold, Gary Schwartz's Rembrandt: His Life, His Paintings, terms her "the black sheep of [the] family", and discusses how her marriages helped establish alliances with non-Calvinists. Meanwhile, much as A09 describes her historical record as being "trivially mentioned a few times" due to her marriage to Willem Schrijver, this ignores what she brought to the table: Schwartz actually spins it the other way, saying that de Graeff's connections (and gold) brought Schrijver into "the brother-in-law business". Finally, the removal by the nominator of de Graeff's depiction in a major portrait by no less than Rembrandt—a portrait, incidentally, which Schwartz interprets as being all about de Graeff's money and who would get to inherit it—is enough to raise an eyebrow. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Usernameunique: I'd just like to point out that you've misattributed a quote by the nominator, A09, to me, which pinged me back here. I believe this is a simple mix-up due to me being one who did deletion sorting for this discussion. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 18:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, GhostOfDanGurney. You're entirely right, I meant to ping A09; I was reading usernames off the wikicode and mixed it up. I'll edit my comment above for the sake of clarity. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. I admire the in-depth keep votes, hats off to you for the research. A09|(talk) 19:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Begums

[edit]
Battle of Begums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is based on very poor sources which mentions the topic as trivially. Rest of the article is an original research/possible hoax. Rht bd (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palizzolo Gravina

[edit]
Palizzolo Gravina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

possibly but though the book is widely used as a reference don’t see any in depth coverage of it to warrant an article with the book as a subject. Mccapra (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: Perhaps a merge to Kingdom of Sicily? I would imagine his history would be covering that period of history, the notable families of that kindom (ie the heraldry/families that ran the kingdom) and would be highly pertinent there.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe refactor as book article, maybe delete. I don't think there's enough here to be worth merging anywhere else; I'm not convinced it would really be WP:DUE at the suggested merge targets. But I did some hunting and the best I found was:
    • "Symbols of Urban Identity in Sicily: Transformations and Hybridizations of Civic Heraldry", with five sentences on him, one analyzing the book Palizzolo Gravina displayed a philological and symbolic sensitivity rare for the period: the author did not merely catalog coats of arms but interpreted their historical sources, formal transformations, and cultural foundations, thereby contributing to the formation of a distinct Sicilian heraldic science and another describing him as an internationally known heraldist (plus some biographical and bibliographical details)
    • According to this non-sigcov list of publications "of interest to demonology", there was a 1972 facsimile reprint of the original, which is the kind of thing that suggests (but does not prove) book notability
Mainly, I find a considerable number of citations to the book (dozens and dozens, all the way up to the present). I think the best "keep" argument would be WP:NBOOK#3 on the basis of Gravina's status as a reference in heraldry, and re-factoring the article to be a book article. I feel lukewarm on the book's notability but would be willing to do the refactor if that seems best. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galindo Garcés

[edit]
Galindo Garcés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2004. This might be better covered at García Galíndez per WP:NOPAGE. I would suggest a merge, but it's unreferenced... So maybe delete is best?4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article remains unsourced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezar Wikina

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ebenezar Wikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability criteria. Sources give only trivial mentions of subject. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Nihon

[edit]
Stephanie Nihon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability concerns from the previous AfD still appear to be relevant. Pinging Timtrent. Janhrach (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Bizarrely, there are a large number of weird promotional articles in obscure publications about Nihon, many of which are not impartial or written independently of the subject - "churnalism", as Timtrent describes above. With this said, I do think this article about her from Elle (magazine) in conjunction with the Nassau Guardian would be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV in ordinary circumstances. However, the broader picture context is clearly that there are a lot of paid promotional articles about this person being generated online, and the Elle Canada article has that disclaimer at the bottom. With that in mind, lean delete. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 05:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article relies only on independent, reliable secondary sources. The existence of unrelated paid or PR press online does not negate the fact that the subject has received significant independent coverage, and only those reliable sources were used. Per WP:GNG notability is determined by the presence of in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources, not by whether promotional material exists elsewhere on the internet.

In addition, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability for creative professionals (WP:CREATIVE). Criteria 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). She is the creator of Goombay Kids, a nationally recognized Bahamian children’s TV series that has received sustained coverage in multiple independent news outlets and reportedly has had a notable cultural impact within the Bahamas as per the sources. Creating a widely covered, award recognized, and nationally broadcast series satisfies the standard for significant creative contribution under WP:CREATIVE.

Looking at policy, the presence of reliable independent sources demonstrating impact and recognition is what matters for notability. Those sources are already reflected in the article. Therefore the concern about paid press none of which is used here should not outweigh substantial independent coverage that meets GNG. Adnankhanakay (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tasfique Haque Nafew

[edit]
Tasfique Haque Nafew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Seems like a splendid person, involved in all sorts of admirable volunteer work, but the sources cited that mention him do so only in passing, and in a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find any significant coverage of him in English or Bangla. Posed photo taken by article creator and unsourced claims about his early life suggest a conflict of interest. His bio by same editor has been speedy deleted twice at Bangla WP, yesterday and today. Wikishovel (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject of this article has received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent national newspapers of Bangladesh (such as The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, Jugantor, Daily Ittefaq).
1. Coverage regarding COVID-19 Oxygen Service: https://www.thedailystar.net/country/news/covid-19-pandemic-volunteers-set-isolation-centre-poor-patients-1919577
2. Coverage regarding Flood Response leadership: https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/district/5vp3ccg7hf
3. Coverage regarding Voluntary Paddy Harvesting: https://www.jugantor.com/tp-bangla-face/178343
These sources establish notability per WP:GNG. The article is well-referenced and I am open to improving it further rather than deletion. Istiak ahomed (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Istiak ahomed (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
The article is indeed well referenced, and the sources you cite are reliable. But as explained at Wikipedia's guidelines on significant coverage, the sources would need to address the topic directly and in detail to show notability. None of the three articles are about him: the first two quote him, and the third mentions him in passing. Can you find any reliable sources which are actually about Tasfique Haque? I tried, but couldn't find any. Wikishovel (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaima Rahman

[edit]
Zaima Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to WP:BIO, for a person to have a separate article, there must be WP:SIGCOV in independent, third-party reliable sources. Most of the sources used in the article are about the National Prayer Breakfast. Besides that, I haven’t seen any detailed coverage of personal or professional achievements, and the sources are mainly family-centric, such as news like “whose daughter/granddaughter.” In this case, such one-dimensional, event-based coverage is not enough to create a separate biography.

According to WP:1E, if a person is discussed in the media because of a single event, their information should be kept in the article about that event, not in a separate article. From what I’ve seen, the sources in the article are centered around a specific visit in 2025, and beyond that, there is very little independent discussion about Zaima. So this falls under WP:1E.

According to WP:BIOFAMILY, “being a relative of a notable person alone does not make someone notable.” Such information is usually kept in the family article or in the article of the notable person.

Therefore, I think this page should be deleted and Zaima’s information could be added to the Majumder–Zia family article. Emdad Tafsir   ◀ Talk ▶ 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article subject (she) was a subject of national controversy, per /Career section, as a result of the controversy a former minister had to resign, so obviously a notable topic. Also she is one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, such as recent coverage 1 and 2. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tanbiruzzaman, I have read the career section. The claim that she is notable because “a former minister had to resign” is not supported by the citations. Murad Hasan’s resignation resulted from multiple controversies, including derogatory remarks about Islamic scholars and an actress, alongside the comment involving Zaima Rahman. Reliable coverage makes clear that the resignation was not caused by the subject (Zaima) personally, and she was not the main focus of the controversy.
    Moreover, the cited sources in the article are about the minister’s conduct and resignation, not about Zaima Rahman herself. They do not provide the significant, independent, in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON.
    Per WP:BLP1E, a person mentioned incidentally in a short-lived, event-based news cycle does not gain notability. Being referenced in someone else’s scandal without substantial biographical coverage does not justify a standalone biography. Emdad Tafsir   ◀ Talk ▶ 16:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You got misleading. read the section and cited sources again. However, this is not the only event I mentioned, you also mentioned about another event in main nomination, that is National Prayer Breakfast, and she is obviously one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, per my comment above, and I have searched on google (you can also try a query) there are lot more can be added. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete shows no notability. Mehedi Abedin 03:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not place for personal promotion. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    True, Wikipedia is not for personal promotion, so we should remove promotional content from this article to make it suitable for Wikipedia standards. Zaima Rahman is an important figure in Bangladeshi politics because she is mentioned various times in the Bangladesh political landscape. Additionally, she is the daughter of Tarique Rahman and the granddaughter of Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia. I believe we need to consider these points to improve the article's standard rather than delete it. Iftekharrr (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are some sources that provide WP:significant coverage. I'm not familiar with the sources and I'd like other editors to weigh in on their quality. If they are independent and reliable, then this article could pass the letter of the guideline of WP:BIO while being sustained over time. However, the coverage is limited to speculation about future endeavors, and is centered around two appearances. I'm not sure that the subject feels notable.
  • United News of Bangladesh (UNB) 2025-02-03 and 2025-11-23 have multiple biographical details, that address the subject directly and in detail including education, residence. Speculation about her future role in the BNP. Mostly keyed off of two appearances.
  • Ittefaq 2025-02 article on subject's potential role in the future of the BNP (political party)
  • Kaler Kantho editorial? 2025-11 with biographical information
—🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of sources about Zaima Rahman that are reliable, neutral, and not promotional. Iftekharrr (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article must be kept as she is part of the most important political dynasties in a country and has a potential to be a future leader there. There is high interest in this person and therefore this page must NOT be deleted. Nabikh (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep : per above Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many reliable sources mention her, but their depth of coverage of her (as opposed to her family - notability is not inherited) is very shallow. Nor does Tanbiruzzaman's claim that she's obviously notable stand up to close scrutiny, as Emdad Tafsir has already explained. She may be a "regularly discussed topic in Bangladesh" and their may be "tons of sources" but they're similar in nature to, "What is known about that brunette who has been seen standing next to [insert name of famous actor]. Are they related? Is she an actress? Does she want to be an actress?" Their breathless gossip about social media is not the stuff that notability is made of. If she enters politics, the question can be reevaluated once she gets elected to something. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donal Morphy

[edit]
Donal Morphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO with insufficient sigcov in reliable sources. As an ATD this should be redirected to Morphy Richards. Ultraodan (T, C) 12:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. Still no !votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Hoyos

[edit]
Alfredo Hoyos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sourcing is mostly routine event-driven or closely associated with the subject (device brands, clinics, organizational pages etc etc), which does not establish significant, independent coverage (WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:INDEPENDENT). The article itself carries lots of maintenance tags: conflict of interest, promotional/puffery wording, heavy reliance on sources closely associated with the subject, and unclear notability—consistent with WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS concerns. IMHO, this requires independent sourcing that demonstrates encyclopedic significance and such sourcing is not demonstrated here (WP:BLP). Recommend delete. Bocanegris (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination: Delete
I am nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet the notability requirements for a biography of a living person and reads primarily as promotional material rather than an encyclopedic entry.
1. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG (No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources)
The subject does not appear to have received substantial, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources.
Most citations derive from:
clinic websites
commercial medical-spa pages
industry marketing blogs
affiliated organizations
press releases or advertorial-style content
These do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for establishing notability. There is a lack of high-quality journalism, academic sources, or independent profiles that would demonstrate encyclopedic significance.
2. Violates WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMO (Promotional tone and purpose)
The article reads like a marketing or personal branding biography rather than a neutral resource.
Examples include subjective and promotional phrasing such as:
“dramatic and desirable results”
“refined techniques”
“innovative methods”
This language, combined with reliance on self-interested sources, gives the article a clear promotional slant inconsistent with neutral point of view.
3. Use of branded/proprietary terminology without independent verification
The article heavily emphasizes proprietary procedures such as “High Definition Liposculpture” and similar branded techniques.
There is no independent medical literature or peer-reviewed research cited to verify the significance or scientific validity of these claims.
This contributes to the impression that the article promotes a commercial technique rather than documenting independently recognized medical contributions.
4. Unbalanced coverage and lack of independent analysis
The article presents only positive information and omits critical coverage, independent evaluation, or broader context within the medical field.
This imbalance violates WP:NPOV and further supports the conclusion that the article serves promotional purposes.
5. Source quality issues (violates WP:RS and WP:V)
Several citations come from:
the subject’s own affiliates
industry promotional outlets
commercial clinics
non-editorialized web content
Such sources do not meet the reliability standards required for biographies of living persons.
Conclusion
Because the article lacks the independent sourcing needed for notability, contains promotional tone and content, relies heavily on non-reliable and self-published sources, and fails to provide neutral or balanced coverage, it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
I recommend deletion. ~2025-36200-16 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on exactly how to vote but I agree since this article doesn't seem notable TheBronzeHexagon (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today is my first day as a Wikipedia editor! I also vote for deletion. If this person invented new procedures, why are the patents not discussed, why are the procedures not discussed? Kevin Ryan Tao (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but a mere WP:ADVERT. Borgenland (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerkula Blama

[edit]
Kerkula Blama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. A draft of the article was declined twice by WP:WPAFC editors, and the page creator moved the draft to mainspace after two failed submissions. The subject of the article is the founder of Geez Liberia, a non-notable platform. The awards he's won are also non-notable. Some of the article's sources are not independent of the subject.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are the first two sources not independent of the subject? @Versace1608 Katzrockso (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Let me make these few points to address the ones you’ve made on notability and sources for the article on Kerkula Blama. The subject in question has received coverage from multiple independent and reliable news outlets, including FrontPage Africa, The New Dawn, News Ghana and Liberian Observer. These sources and other notable sources show that the subject has received significant coverage independent of his own platform, which meets the General notability guideline.
Also, while some awards may be local or regional, they are covered in independent media reports, which surely establishes third-party recognition. Notability does not require international awards; coverage by independent media is sufficient. Earlier drafts submitted to WP:AFC were revised based on previous feedback. Also, moving a draft to the mainspace after revisions, while ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s policies, is permissible. The current article includes references that are independent and shows independent coverage, which was lacking in the earlier submissions. The article has been fully updated to prioritize coverage from independent sources over self published or affiliated platforms. Independent coverage shows that the subject is recognized outside of his own initiatives.
Responding to your concern @Katzrockso about why the first two articles not independent of the subject, let me say that firstly they are independent of the subject and that is because they are notable third-party news outlets. The subject or his platform is in no way affiliated to neither of those sources and those articles were written by independent journalists reporting on his life, work and contributions to the digital media and entertainment space of Liberia. Those two sources provide in-depth coverage that is very independent of the subject which supports the article’s claims and helps establish notability under the General notability guideline.
Therefore in lights of all these, I respectfully suggest that the article merits retention for any further improvement where necessary instead of deletion. I also do welcome guidance from editors on any remaining gaps to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards. MichaelMorris96 (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears the AfD tagging issue was procedural rather than aubstantive. The article had already undergone review, and the reviweing editor saw that it met the requirement for retention but probably forgot to the close the AfD or the appropriate closure template. Because the discussion was not formally closed, the bot correctly re-tagged the page. At this point the solution is simply to have and administrator/moderator or experienced AfD editor properly closed the discussion with the correft template, reflecting the consensus that the article meets notability guidelines. This would prevent further automatic relisting. I am noting this so the process can move forward cleany and in line with AfD procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMorris96 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is false. This particular AFD discussion was not closed and consensus has not been reached to keep the article. I don't think the subject is notable to have a separate article. Hopefully other experience editors can participate in this AFD before it is closed.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Thanks for the clarification. Just to note, while it is or might be correct that the previous AfD was not formally closed, editors participating in this discussion are still expected to provide policy-based reasons, such as failure to meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, or concerns about sourcing, when asserting that a subject is not notable. Simply stating that the subject is “not notable” without referring to the irrelevant notability guidelines does not give other editors a basis of evaluating the argument for consensus. And quickly my mention of the editor who removed the AfD template without closing the discussion @Vanamonde93, redirected a previous article [[22]] related to the subject after an AfD discussion and subsequent consensus on that article proved that it did not meet the eligibility requirements to have a separate article and should be redirected to this current subject Kerkula Blama. Edit history showed that @Versace1608has also made some crucial changes and tweaks to this subject, making improvement to the article. If there are specific concerns about the independent, reliable sources cited in the article, it would be helpful to outline them so the discussion can move forward constructively and in line with AfD standards for consensus. I definitely welcome further input from experienced additional editors, but a policy-based assessment of the sources for this subject would help ensure a productive and well-grounded consensus. MichaelMorris96 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are independent coverage from reliable outlets that provides significant secondary sourcing that meets WP:GNG. The subject has verifiable, independently reported recognition and awards establishing sufficient notability for a standalone article. MichaelMorris96 (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I unbolded your duplicative !vote, MichaelMorris96, as you can only !vote once as you did above.Katzrockso (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction @Katzrockso, it was just to emphasize my stance on why this article should be retained as there is no substantial reason for its nomination for deletion. MichaelMorris96 (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royalnasty

[edit]
Royalnasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are not WP:RS as they are sponsored or featured posts and they are written possible by a single individual. See these[23][24] and here[25][26] are all promotional efforts. Ednabrenze (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to weigh in but is anyone else getting a weird vibe from the random appearances of multiple Uganda-based editors, all of whom are writing in a similar style and voting Keep?...... aesurias (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: none of the Keep comments provide policy based argument why this article should be kept and the tone of the last two keep above sound similar. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first and third keep arguments are not policy-based. The second one is, but does not actually provide any links to any of the alleged coverage, so it is not particularly convincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be good to know more about the existing Nigerian sources + whether they are considered reliable or useful for establishing notability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The nominator is judging based on comments. However, Royalnasty's sources are reliable, not promotional. More sources have been added, and they still provide significant coverage. I suggest going through it again. Añtonīo (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability rules because there are several independent and reliable news sources that give clear and meaningful coverage. Some small blogs repeat the same stories (which is common), but there is still enough original reporting from good sources to show notability. A Google News search also shows many independent results, for example:

This shows the subject is notable enough for inclusion. --BusyEditor (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are all promotional WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Not a notable individual. 🄻🄰 14:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to the WP:RSNG list of generally-reliable sources for Nigeria-related information, all the sources cited in the article are reliable except Champion News. The first link quoted by the nom, which is clearly flagged "Featured" seems to have been removed from the article. I'm not sure why the nom stated that the others are sponsored or featured as I'm not seeing any evidence of that. There's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the article IMHO.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Although some of the sources appear to come from generally reliable Nigerian media outlets, the individual articles do not provide independent or substantive coverage. Several lack identifiable bylines, were published within the same short period, and present the subject in a routine or promotional manner. This pattern suggests non-independent or coordinated coverage, which does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Without genuinely independent, in-depth reporting, the subject does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability at this time.

Comment - This user Ojoxxtee just joined Wikipedia 3 days ago. And he has already known about articles. He is voting delete with no much experience. He didn't even add his name. Antonio (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I voted delete because the sources appear promotional and do not meet WP:RS requirements. I am new, so I welcome guidance from experienced editors. – Ojoxxtee Ojoxxtee (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojoxxtee:As a new user who joined 3 days ago, how do you know if articles are promotional or not?? Antonio Ousman (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Antonio Ousman There’s no need to argue for keeping material that appears promotional. The sources used contain promotional language, and that’s why the page was challenged. My comments are based on content policy (WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO), not on personal issues. Let’s keep the discussion focused on policy rather than individuals. Ojoxxtee (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply me humanly not AI generated. Antonio Ousman (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Antonio Ousman either you like it or not this paid promotional article you just created will be deleted, because Wikipedia here is not social media where you can advertise. It’s clear the sources are not fully independent, some don’t have Journalist name. No further arguments for this please. Ojoxxtee (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay..why not try and delete it yourself, I think you should still undergo some training on how to edit Wikipedia..not just opening a user account and do as your feelings tell..we’ve had other experienced editors on this issue..nobody is going against your opinion and your given reason..drop it and watch how it’s handled accordingly in the discussion.Thanks Bhetyic3 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ojoxxtee, I see your account is new and I dought if you have personally created any Wikipedia article before to be able to comprehend the efforts that go into creating one. A secondary, reliable source can as well have promotional tone content about a topic and that can't not nullify the fact that it is reliable that one of the resoures we don't copy pest but refer to that info to write a non promotional article. In this particular case there are enough source about the topic as per the guidelines, only 2-3 reliable sources are needed for topic to meet notability. MichealKal (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Bhide

[edit]
Radhika Bhide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Reality show contestant (not winner), nothing charting, and nothing seen for touring or released under major record label. CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to share my side as the person who started the article.
I don’t have any connection with Radhika Bhide — no paid work, no personal link. I just help some independent artists with their online visibility for free sometimes.
Regarding notability:
Even though she is not the winner of the show, she has received a lot of independent media coverage recently. Her performances on I-Popstar (Season 1) went viral, and multiple well-known outlets covered her songs and interviews: Maharashtra Times, NDTV Marathi, Loksatta, Lokmat, Saam TV, ABP Majha, Lokshahi News, JustShowBiz, etc. These are all organic, non-sponsored articles.
She may not have charted or been signed to a major label yet, but the amount of independent coverage she has received suggests she meets general notability, not just the musician-specific criteria. If anything needs fixing or cleanup, I’m happy to work on it. Aditya Jagdhane (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If she has not charted or released music under a major label, how would she pass WP:NMUSICIAN? As far as the COI, you were asked about that on your talk page. If we can continue the conversation there it would better as this page is a discussion about notability, not editor conduct. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources in Marathi would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 2, won't translate via Google Translate, but it has many instagram posts, so I"m assuming it's not an extensive source. Source 8 says it was written by AI when I translate it, so, that's no good. I'm going withe a !delete unless we can get better sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient evidence of notability. I'd have supported a redirect to the article about the reality show or season she appeared on, but it doesn't seem either exist. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion has included enough disagreement that a little additional commentary would help this more clearly have a quorum and consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Lown

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Misty Lown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO, i literally don't see a single secondary source about this person -- in the club bumping that 13:57, 19 November 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. Byers-Dent, Katie (2003-03-31). "Dance, dance, dance. For Misty Lown, teaching dance is more than just a business; it's a passion". La Crosse Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "For Lown, dancing as a child gave her a network of friends, grace and confidence. However, it also gave her something else, too. Starting at the age of 3 in ballet, Lown was put in dance to help correct a club foot she had as a child. She has been teaching for 12 years and made dance her occupation and her life. Lown has a degree in Spanish and a master's degree in education - not the tools often needed to run a business. To her, the biggest challenge was navigating the ins and outs of the business world. ... At the same time, Lown also is busy raising a family, She and her husband, Mitch, have two children, Isabella, 2 years old, and Mason, 4 weeks old. In her spare time, Lown likes to read, travel and complete home-improvement projects, including the house her family recently moved into."

    2. Erickson, Randy (2016-08-01). "Dance guru Misty Lown's new book a big splash in a life full of accomplishment". La Crosse Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The article notes: "Teaching dance always attracted Misty Lown — she was leading her own classes when she was 16, having started dancing at 3. But she thought dancing professionally was her true calling, and a dream that was within her grasp. As a college student at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Lown was accepted into a prestigious year-long training program with the acclaimed Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater in New York City. “I thought, ‘This is going to be my life,’” Lown said. Before going to New York City, though, Lown went to Madison to see a performance by the Alvin Ailey troupe. ... Over time, Lown’s classroom grew. In 1998, barely into her 20s, she opened a dance studio, Misty’s Dance Unlimited, in a brand new building in Onalaska. Nine years later, she built a bigger home that now has 800 students. ... She recalled when she was about 11 and her father, Paul Averill, lost his job as a truck driver. ... Her mother, Sandy Averill, had the same kind of can-do attitude"

    3. Livingston, Jennifer (2013-11-01). "In Search Of...the inspiring Misty Lown". WKBT-DT. Archived from the original on 2014-03-14. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The article notes: "When you watch Misty Lown teach, you can't help but see her passion. ... And as owner of one of the biggest dance studios in the state, ... Misty married her high school sweetheart and today she is the mother of five. ... And her other job, the job of teaching and mentoring 750 kids, that is the place where she can now embrace her past, to help guide their future."

    4. Foss, Jessie (August–September 2011). "The Classroom is her stage: In dance and in life, Misty Lown reaches out to others" (PDF). CRW Magazine. Coulee Region Communications. pp. 13–14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-02-02. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The article notes: "Lown’s drive stems in part from a hand up she was given when first starting out. Lown reigned as Miss La Crosse/Oktoberfest when she was 21 years old, the same time Deak Swanson was Festmaster. The two spent time riding a float together, and it was then Lown told Swanson of her dream to open her own dance studio. Swanson went on to give Lown a job while she was still in college, then bought land for and built Lown’s first studio. She began Misty’s Dance Unlimited in 1998. ... Lown began dancing as a 3-year-old who suffered from asthma and a club foot. She praises ballet as a therapeutic way to help straighten her turned-in foot. She continued dancing and began teaching at 16, a passion that continued when she went on to college at UW-La Crosse."

    5. Erickson, Randy (2018-03-06). "Misty's Dance Unlimited project in Onalaska gets $240,000 state grant". La Crosse Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The article notes: "With the new Misty’s Dance Unlimited building taking shape across the street, dance studio owner Misty Lown was joined by several dozen others in celebrating one of the things that made the new $3 million facility possible: a $240,000 state grant. The 21,190-square-foot building, scheduled to open on June 15, will be the third home for Misty’s Dance Unlimited, all three of them in Onalaska. For her third building, Lown wrote a grant application that the city of Onalaska agreed to be part of, seeking funding help from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp.’s Community Development Investment Grant program."

    6. Erickson, Randy (2017-10-04). "Misty Lown unveils new performance arts building project in Onalaska". La Crosse Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The article notes: "The building will provide space where Lown and others can offer training for the 199 dance studios in the United States, Canada, Aruba and the United Arab Emirates that are affiliates through Lown’s More Than Just Great Dance organization. Lown started the organization five years ago and has traveled extensively to help dance studio owners be more effective both at running their businesses and at focusing their efforts on using dance to help mold great kids."

    7. Marks, Andrea (March 2018). "A Refuse for dancer wellness: In a small Wisconsin town, Misty Lown has built a program that prioritizes mental health among dancers". Dance Teacher. Vol. 40, no. 3. pp. 42–46. EBSCOhost 1‌2‌7‌8‌8‌9‌2‌1‌9‌. Archived from the original on 2025-03-28. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The article notes: "Misty Lown remembers what it's like to struggle mentally and emotionally during adolescence. Her parents divorced and faced financial difficulties when she was in high school, at which point she started making destructive decisions like skipping school, and she deveoped an eating disorder. ... She credits a librarian at her school for taking interest in her as a person and making her feel like she mattered. ... Because of her personal experience, Lown, who now owns Misty's Dance Unlimited in Onalaska, Wisconsin, puts dancers' mental well-being first. ... When considering restructuring, she polled parents on ways to improve the program. She decided to upend and remake her studio's schedule of 200 weekly classes to make everyone less stressed-out. This means she gave up some revenue. Monday nights used to be a popular night for young children's classes, with 150 to 200 students attending classes. But it was the night the parents of older dancers preferred for rehearsals, so Lown took the financial hit and moved rehearsals to a single three-hour block on Mondays."

    8. "Misty's Dance Unlimited Owner Brings Experiences with Success to Other Dance Studios". WXOW. 2014-10-08. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The article notes: "Misty Lown, Owner and Founder of Misty's Dance Unlimited, is back in the dance studio in Onalaska after delivering the keynote speech at the Come Together Dance Convention in Queensland, Australia. ... Lown founded Misty's Dance Unlimited seventeen years ago. ... Lown has also worked with dance studios in New York City and Los Angeles."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Misty Lown to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People proposed deletions

[edit]

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


Academics and educators

[edit]

Taketoshi Minato

[edit]
Taketoshi Minato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chemist/material scientist working with scanning probes who has made a good start, but it is WP:TOOSOON, he does not pass WP:NPROF yet. His citations are h=37, ~4K total which are below notable, this is a medium-high citation area (where I have overlap but no COI). Three of his four highest citation papers are larger team efforts where he is one of many. The other where he is 1st author (247 cites) is on rutile [110] which is a popular surface (e.g. Ulrike Diebold). All his awards are junior, nothing senior enough. His citations are ~350/year so it will be some time before he will pass WP:NPROF. Delete for now; I suggest the originator can consider resubmitting via AfC in 3-4 years. PROD was contested by IP without explanation, so now AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McIntyre

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kate McIntyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see this passing WP:GNG, winning an award is no guarantee for inclusion on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Flannery O'Connor Award for Short Fiction is arguably the most prestigious/notable award for short fiction in the English language, and many of their winners are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages, as you can see from the list of awardees. More recent ones do not necessarily have yet, because different point of their careers. The solution here is probably to flesh out her page rather than delete it? Feel free to jump in. Jenny8lee (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep or draftify per above. at worst it's not ready. Oreocooke (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. My advice for delete still stands under WP:Too soon and the need for multiple sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: Unless this is the same person [28], I don't find coverage about this author. The award is likely notable, but one source isn't enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this might be WP:TOOSOON. I did go back and forth on this a bit because arguably she meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO, given the significance of the award. But in those circumstances, one would expect there to be more critical attention of her work, and there simply isn't enough out there. I've found a couple of reviews in minor journals: the Colorado Review and Split Rock Review, and the book also received a Kansas Notable Book Award... but that's all I can track down. If she publishes another book, perhaps that'll give enough for an article. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Y'know, not only isn't there particular coverage about the subject, the article on this purportedly very important award is entirely sourced through either primary sources or casual mentions. If it indeed is "arguably the most prestigious/notable award for short fiction in the English language," one would expect several seriously reliable sources saying so, as well as mention for the same in the article. I realize this isn't an AfD for the award's article, but if winning this award is the sole claim of notability for the subject -- otherwise, we're just looking at an A7 speedy -- it would behoove any keep proponent to see that the award meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Ravenswing 01:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravenswing: Good point about the award, actually. It doesn't appear to have anything like the coverage of the Commonwealth Short Story Prize or the Nebula Award for Best Short Story, just to name a couple of indisputably notable short fiction awards off the top of my head. Incidentally, Kate McIntyre's collection was longlisted for the PEN/Robert W. Bingham Prize; I don't think that adds anything to her notability, but that prize itself also looks more notable than the Flannery O'Connor award. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - only 12 years out from her PhD, associate professor, and her award, while significant, is the only thing in her favor for passing PROF. Likely a case of TOO Soon, so please don't salt it. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misaki Ohta

[edit]
Misaki Ohta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student doing a 2 years program in physics, no evidence that as yet they are doing a PhD. They have 3 papers, but that means little. Claim that he is a visual artist, but no evidence provided for a pass of WP:CREATIVE. Some minor coverage based upon a claimed high IQ. Fails almost everything in WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT, many years from WP:NPROF. In my opinion this is very much what should never have been created by a novice SPA directly in main. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above. fails. Oreocooke (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Social media, the university website... That's about all I can pull up. Sourcing in the article isn't enough to show notability; a list of publications, primary sourcing. Doesn't seem to bass PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rashi Jain

[edit]
Rashi Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PhD student who found a surprising spiral galaxy in James Webb Space Telescope images, paper published Nov 10 2O25 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451689. Notability is not inherited: her notability has to be demonstrated independent of this work. Current page has several minor news articles that mention her, not in depth WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SUSTAINED. If the work in the paper gets peer recognition, major awards, heavy citations etc then perhaps her work can meet WP:NPROF and/or WP:GNG. That will take time (years). Ldm1954 (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the same originator recently created the page Alaknanda Galaxy on the work.Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Eric Gilbertson (climber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the third nomination for deletion in a little over a year with successful deletions on October 19, 2024 and January 4, 2025. As noted in those discussions, the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The article relies on several primary sources plus some media sources. The media appears to be reliable at a glance but the vast majority of these are not independent of the subject (WP:GNG) and are instead involving interviews with Gilbertson himself or directly quoting his blog/social media profiles.

Examples of especially problematic sources carrying significant weight on the article are self-entered data on websites, this and this which largely contain direct quotes from Gilbertson's blog or Instagram, and this and this which largely regurgitate Gilbertson's findings that he (et al) had published in one of two academic papers. Most of the rest are interviews done with Gilbertson, which are also not independent of the subject.

Many of the sources on the article could be useful if sufficient independent coverage can be found but a web searches do not seem to offer any sources that don't stem from specialist interviews, the blog, social media, or the short bio on the Seattle University website. Gilbertson could indeed become notable at some point in the future, but for now this is not the case.

Finally, the article includes a lot of trivia to WP:FLUFF it up, such as that Gilbertson has climbed 144 of 196 country high points (according to Gilbertson), that he holds the fastest known climb for the tallest 100 mountains in various U.S. states (again self reported). DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Kentucky, and Washington. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, and Geography. Graywalls (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep As you can see from the sources cited in the article, there is a mountain of independent coverage. I'd agree if you were just referring to churnalism, but plenty of the sources are clearly not that. the interpretation that sources should be excluded from GNG if they are "specialist" or quote the subject in the article is not supported by policy or practice. Many of the sources additionally quote other people, showing that they cannot not just be repeating what gilbertson tells them. The most thorough sources imo are [30][31][32] and I would keep the article even if there was no other coverage.
    Some of the claims in the nomination also show a lack of understanding of the topic—for example, FKTs are independently verified. (t · c) buIdhe 18:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The FKT "verification" process is to simply a review of self reported data as described on their website. Their disclaimer reads "We are unable to definitively verify the accuracy of every FKT submitted." DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the FKT website supports notability given that it's a database entry, but their verification process is rigorous and FKTs often generate media coverage and sponsorships. It's not accurate to describe it as a self report as you claimed. (t · c) buIdhe 18:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simply responding to your claim that I have a lack of understanding of the source material. If you have another resource that shows more rigorous verification of FKT claims then sure, but based on what's described on the linked website I am not convinced this is beyond self-reporting. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt this promotional BLP that does not pass GNG to avoid wasting any more of editors' time. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: it's unusual to see a GA here, though GA status is not itself a bar to deletion (we have deleted Featured Articles in the past). Both the nominator and reviewer are experienced editors: pinging It is a wonderful world and buidhe (I had misread the signature on the comments above!). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @UndercoverClassicist: I'm surprised at how quickly this went GA. It was created November 23. It was GA listed November 25. Two days. I've never seen it happen so fast in my entire time on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh; I don't see anything odd there. I'll usually nominate an article for GA when I feel it's "finished", and for a short article like this one I can completely imagine "finishing" it (at least to GA standard) in a day or two. I certainly can't see that the GA nom was anything other than thorough: it seems well within the standards usually set at GAN. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The quick rise from draft to article to speedy deletion candidate to GA does raise eyebrows. There was a brief discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 36#Need AfC review before GAN can be started where it becomes apparent that, even before the article creator promoted their own draft to article-space, they were planning to immediately nominate it for GA. I have occasionally seen immediate reviews of new GA nominations but it's rare; more often they languish for months. The biggest thing I'm surprised to see unadressed in the GA review is why the two very recent AfD delete outcomes don't immediately disqualify it as GA under the stability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because I disagree that most the sources can be discounted due to them being regurgitations of his blog or academic research. Firstly, academic research being reported on by media contributes to its notability – it means there is secondary interest in his work. Secondly, the sources containing direct quotes from Gilbertson's blog or Instagram contain large amounts of factual reporting on his work, which makes up more of the content in these articles than quotes from his social media. I would not be opposed to removing the fact about the 144 of 196 country high points, though it could stay as it is attributed to Gilbertson already and covered in an independent source. Some other things I think are misleading about this nomination are:
As noted in those discussions, the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article" – The article has been entirely rewritten and a bunch of independent sources published after those discussions took place have been added
The FKT profile does not carry "significant weight on the article". It is used as a primary source in addition to the secondary source directly before it, which also verifies all the information in the sentence
The Times article is never mentioned, even though it seems like the strongest source in the article (though note I am unable to access it to verify that it has no issues).
The record for the 100 mountains has an independent source which directly supports the claim. This means it is notable and is not WP:FLUFF. IAWW (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's old news that was available during the first two rounds of AfDs. @Rsjaffe and Star Mississippi:, are you guys able to review old deleted versions? I would like to know if citations now are substantially different since then and became available that would make him notable now but not then. Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can check that for yourself just by checking the publication dates on the currently cited sources. (t · c) buIdhe 19:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the references in the last deleted version of this page title:
  1. "North America". web.mit.edu. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  2. "Billigreisen und geschmierte Polizisten – die Abenteuer der Kletter-Zwillinge". Tages-Anzeiger (in German). 2022-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  3. "Country Highpoints. Bracia jako pierwsi chcą zdobyć najwyższe szczyty górskie w 196 krajach | National Geographic". www.national-geographic.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  4. Southern, Keiran (2022-11-02). "Twin peaks: brothers Matthew and Eric Gilbertson rewrite mountain record books". www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  5. "Eric Gilbertson, PhD". Seattle University. Retrieved 2025-01-02.
  6. Milne, Keeley (2023-08-09). "Oregon's Jason Hardrath obliterates Rocky Mountain Grand Slam FKT". Canadian Running Magazine. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  7. "Beta and Brews: Winter FA of Hard Mox with Eric Gilbertson". The Mountaineers. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  8. "Zwillinge wollen höchste Punkte in allen Ländern der Welt erreichen". Süddeutsche.de (in German). 2022-11-09. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  9. Ghosh, Souparno. "Alumni have summitted the highest points of every North American country". The Tech. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  10. "Billigreisen und geschmierte Polizisten – die Abenteuer der Kletter-Zwillinge". Tages-Anzeiger (in German). 2022-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  11. "Wolt-bud besteg verdens farligste bjerg og var tæt på katastrofe: Pludseligt regnede det med tunge sten og iltflasker | fyens.dk". fyens.dk (in Danish). 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  12. "The Line: Global Ambition — American Alpine Club". American Alpine Club. 2024-08-21. Retrieved 2024-09-10.
  13. "فرواع..أعلى قمة سعودية". arriyadiyah.com (in Arabic). Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  14. "A Tale of Two Peaks - Destination KSA". 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  15. "Newsday - Twin peaks: Brothers' mission to climb every national highpoint - BBC Sounds". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  16. "Mount Rainier is shrinking and now has a new summit". The Seattle Times. 2024-10-06. Retrieved 2024-11-30.
  17. "Rainier Is Shorter Than We All Thought". Seattle Met. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls I don't have the on wiki bandwidth to assess the sources right now, but I've undeleted the history for you and any other interested editors to review and assess. cc @Rsjaffe Star Mississippi 19:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Gupta

[edit]
Prateek Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to simply be a news story, seems not well-written, difficult to identify the subject of the article. Does not seem to meet any standard for having an article. aaronneallucas (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it’s one of the biggest news of corruption done by police officer. We agree that this might not be written in a right way. But I disagree that it should be deleted.
please suggest some edits, I guess photograph of sting operation must be there ~2025-39096-20 (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets's Keep it with proper research & edits Pride4uster (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Phillips

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Katherine Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable / WP:SOAP relic. 18 years ago when this was a current news event there was perhaps some case for this person being a smidgen notable but even then there was an AfD raised on the same grounds ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Nazareth F. da Silva

[edit]
Maria Nazareth F. da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet notability standards. The listed sources seem to establish the accomplishments without justifying the notability/impact of the accomplishments. The page itself certainly does not make any case for notability. --Vinceren (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Simons

[edit]
Laurent Simons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PhD physicist whose only claim to notability is that he got a PhD in quantum mechanics at 15 this November. This is not that young, the record is (probably) held by Karl Witte (PhD @ 12 or 13) who is notable both because his father wrote a book about him, and because of what he himself achieved. Page fails WP:NPROF, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON with none of the sources more than "look at him, he is young". We are a conservative encyclopedia of topics and people with established notability, lets wait to see if he fulfills his promise and becomes a notable academic. PROD was contested by an IP so now we go to AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Rabbat

[edit]
Juan Carlos Rabbat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems with promotional style and many primary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC Pridemanty (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's both promotional and AI-generated ("According to public information from the group and business media...")
Few sources contain significant coverage of Rabbat, and even fewer are independent & reliable aesurias (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – after substantial expansion and reorganization the article now clearly satisfies WP:GNG. The subject is not just a routine officeholder but the founder and long-time rector of Siglo 21 University, which multiple independent media reports (Infobae, El Comercio, Radio El Trébol/Ámbito Biz, etc.) describe as the private university with the largest number of students in Argentina, and he has been the focus of repeated, in-depth coverage over more than a decade. The current version is built primarily on independent, reliable sources such as Infobae (2025 feature on the university’s model and scale), El Comercio (profile of the institution as the largest private university), La Voz del Interior (2011 business profile, 2018 interview on poverty and education, 2019 article on Capabilia), Punto a Punto (Empresario del Año 2018 and a 2025 strategy interview), Reporte Asia (extended biographical sketch), Virtual Educa (independent academic profile), Infonegocios (on R’Evolution Education Group) and others, with any necessary primary or institutional sources confined to straightforward, non-controversial facts. The article now follows a standard biographical structure (early life, academic career, entrepreneurial activity, public service and awards), his roles are described precisely (founder and president, and former rector of Siglo 21 University), and claims such as the “largest private university” characterisation are explicitly attributed to those third-party sources rather than stated in Wikipedia’s voice. The awards section has also been expanded from a single item to four documented distinctions, each supported by neutral third-party coverage (La Voz del Interior, Fundación E+E, Punto a Punto, Government of San Juan). In this sourced and restructured state the subject has clear, non-trivial, independent coverage over time, so a keep outcome is appropriate.

Elritmodelos80 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee Hoffman

[edit]
David Lee Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do see a few sources about him, but they almost all seem to focus on his research facility, "The Last Resort." Several blogs pop up and some others about him, but there isn't a whole lot else. I'm seeking comment for if we think the person alone merits the notability he has in relation to "The Last Resort" or if this person is not notable, and is only receiving coverage for one event or inheriting it from the Last Resort. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Patrick Mackenzie

[edit]
Charles Patrick Mackenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only 1 article links to this. Fails WP:PROF and more generally WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Blanco Ferro

[edit]
Andrés Blanco Ferro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:BIO. No significant coverage found in a WP:BEFORE search from reliable, independent sources. His career seems to have got off to a fine start, and he's had routine coverage from his local newspaper La Región about his company, but the coverage available from RS is just passing mentions. There's also rather a lof of what appears to be paid placement in unreliable sources like deradios.com. Conflict of interest is evident from article creator's repeated uploads of selfies and social media photos as "own work", and laser focus on Blanco Ferro, with a few articles already deleted on obscure awards that he's received: see also WP:Articles for deletion/Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (Spain), Order of Defence Merit (Cliponie) and Wikinews:Five Galicians Making Significant Contributions to Artificial Intelligence. Wikishovel (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Märt Kruus

[edit]
Märt Kruus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per current article, not notable scientist. Fails WP:GNG Estopedist1 (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Blackwell

[edit]
Pam Blackwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose that this article be deleted under the General Notability Guideline. The article does not demonstrate that Pam Blackwell meets the standard of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Rationale

Insufficient independent sourcing The article does not cite any reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial biographical coverage of the subject. The only reference is to an archived webpage of her own professional organization, which is a self published primary source. Self published sources cannot establish notability (Wikipedia, 2024a).

No significant coverage showing enduring notability There are no books, newspaper articles, academic publications about her, or other independent sources that examine her career or influence in depth. Routine mentions or listings do not satisfy notability under the General Notability Guideline (Wikipedia, 2024b).

Promotional tone and reliance on primary claims Much of the article repeats claims taken from the subject’s own organizations, teaching materials, or institutional affiliations. Without independent verification, these claims cannot demonstrate notability. Promotion based on unverified or primary material does not qualify a subject for a standalone biography (Wikipedia, 2024c).

Lack of independent verification of achievements Items such as an NEA Fellowship, her novels, her meditation institute, and her roles in psychological or spiritual organizations are mentioned in passing but are not supported with independent sources that confirm their significance. Without independent sources establishing the importance of these accomplishments, the subject does not meet inclusion criteria.

Does not meet notability for authors, academics, or educators Notability guidelines for authors and academics require multiple, independent, secondary sources providing in depth discussion of the subject’s work and influence (Wikipedia, 2024d). These are not present.

Because the article does not provide significant, independent coverage that demonstrates notability, relies almost entirely on primary or self published claims, and does not meet the standards for biographies of authors, educators, or academics, it should be deleted.

References

Wikipedia. (2024a). Reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Wikipedia. (2024b). Notability guideline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

Wikipedia. (2024c). Autobiography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography

Wikipedia. (2024d). Notability (academics). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) Michael-Moates (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write your deletion nominations with an LLM. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA - I am not using an LLM. I have a Google Doc template that I use and I plug and play the right pieces of information that are applicable. Remember to "Wikipedia:Assume good faith" without evidence to the contrary. Using a template for people who are neurodivergent such as myself to help expedite processes and make sure that my submissions are compliant is not against the rules. I use this plug and play google doc to make sure I am compliant with Wikipedia rules as I don't always remember everything. Michael-Moates (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NACADEMIC. The claims about her made in the article just don't ring true. If you check the Library of Congress link, she seems to be the source there. This seems to have no verifiable sourcing. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her books are published by Onyx Press of Salt Lake City which, judging from [36] and the last archived copy I can find [37], is Blackwell herself under a different name. Being self-published is not in itself evidence of non-notability, but unless there are independent and reliably published reviews of her books (significantly less likely for self-published books) she is not going to be notable through them. I strongly suspect that her teaching activities are similarly a one-person operation, again unlikely to have independent reliable and in-depth coverage, we have no evidence of such coverage, and there is little to nothing else in the article that looks like a claim of notability. See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Southern University on a for-profit institute from which she claims to have a doctorate. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could potentially meet NAUTH but her works are published by a press that has published few books beyond her own, so it is not independent of her. Her college degree is from a for-profit private school. I don't find anything substantial about her in newspapers, Google or Scholar. Lamona (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more: I do not find her listed as a fellow on the NEA page. I do not find any mention of her in any of the Sacred Hoop sites (of which there are many). Being an associate member of Sandplay is just a paid professional membership, so zero in the notability count. She is listed as the principal/contact of the Morning Star Project in the nonprofit locator but the group seems to be defunct and I haven't found other information. Although the Western Sandplay site was supposedly archived, the wayback machine does not have it so there's no way to confirm that reference. The article says she is a director, but no proof. I did find a reference for the musical and added that. I do conclude that we cannot meet BLP requirements. Lamona (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under WP:NAUTHOR. I did a deeper search for coverage of her writing and I think there's enough:
She certainly appears to be an author with a niche, but the inclusion in two different books about Mormon literature pushes it over the line for me for notability. Incidentally, the Daily Herald book review also says she got an NEA fellowship in the 80s. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't change the fact that the books are self-published as The Deseret News states: EPHRAIM'S SEED, by Pam Blackwell; self-published; 397 pages. The policy page on using self-published works also says this about self-published works and notability: Self-published sources are seldom useful for demonstrating the notability of any subject. I don't know the answer to this but I think it's best to try to establish notability outside of the self-published books. Lamona (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the reviews of her books/play are not self-published, they are normal newspaper reviews & academic coverage. In other words, I'm not saying we use the books as sources to prove Blackwell is notable; I'm saying the sources about the books prove the books/play are notable, and an author with multiple NBOOK passes typically passes WP:NAUTHOR#3 for their body of work. A self-published book can meet WP:NBOOK, it's just rarer, and I think this is one of those cases. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn By this argument, any restaurant, hotel, artist, etc that gets a review by a critic would be considered to be notable. So if 2 food critics review a small restaurant and write an editorial about it... that makes the restaurant notable? Docmoates (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert regarding the notability expectations for restaurants (WP:NCORP?), but the SNG for written works is WP:NBOOK, which states that a book is considered notable if it has has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include [...] reviews. From there, WP:NAUTHOR allows someone to be considered notable for their body of work, provided that such work [has] been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Identifying multiple works that each have multiple reviews is thus a conventional way of demonstrating the notability of an author. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To spell out my underlying logic from the top: NAUTHOR makes persons notable if they have a significant or well-known work or collective body of work; unusually, this SNG criterion does not require coverage of the person, only of that "work or collective body of work". There is certainly ambiguity in how to interpret "significant or well-known", but a common standard is "at least notable", and the more works there are the less "significant" each one needs to be. To evaluate NAUTHOR, therefore, I tally up how many individually notable works they have, ie how many pass NBOOK; for that, the simplest path is to provide two reviews per work. Generally, if there's only one notable work we have an article on just the work and discuss the author there as "background", while if there are 3+ dissimilar works an author bio is warranted (for navigational reasons if nothing else). With exactly two notable works, things can shake out in a few different ways, generally influenced by the organizational principles of WP:PAGEDECIDE. I hope this overview better clarifies the process of applying reviews → notable works → notable author. It is standard for AfDs on authors.
Returning to Blackwell specifically: I argue that there are two notable "works": her Millennial series of novels (for which I found three reviews and a scholarly book chapter) and her play (for which I found three reviews and a scholarly anthology). We could just have two individual articles about the novel series and the play without a bio article. But I think it makes more sense to have just the author bio, with a section for each of her two notable works. Hence, I suggest keeping this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]


Actors and filmmakers

[edit]

Gino Roque IV

[edit]
Gino Roque IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most references are from ABS-CBN, which is his employer, failing WP:PRIMARY. Some references are indeed third party, but are of the WP:PROMOTIONAL type. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kevin Biol

[edit]
Ryan Kevin Biol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most references are from GMA Integrated News, which is his employer, failing WP:PRIMARY. Some are not WP:RS as per WP:LIONHEARTV. Some references are indeed third party, but are of the WP:PROMOTIONAL type. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arvic Tan

[edit]
Arvic Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most references are from GMA Integrated News and ABS-CBN News, which are his employers, failing WP:PRIMARY. Some references are indeed third party, do not provide WP:GNG coverage. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sy

[edit]
Ryan Sy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most references are from GMA Integrated News, which is his employer, or are WP:INTERVIEWs, failing WP:PRIMARY. Some references are indeed third party, but are of the WP:PROMOTIONAL type. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mega64 episodes

[edit]
List of Mega64 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is little more than a WP:NOTPLOT violation, consisting solely of overly-lengthy plot summaries and no encyclopaedic material. Given these were DVDs/Public Access TV I don't think there's a likelihood of encyclopaedic material being added (airing dates, viewership etc) so should be removed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Anglim

[edit]
Philip Anglim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article subject does not appear to meet notability criteria. The only source currently cited (which predates most of the information in the article) is a 1979 profile in People. The only other reliable, independent, secondary sources I came across that contained substantial coverage of the subject were a 1979 profile in The New York Times and a 1980 audio interview hosted on the archivist website California Revealed. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marion McCorry

[edit]
Marion McCorry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article subject does not appear to meet notability requirements.

The first existing reference is just a list of alumni published by HB Studio, where the subject studied acting and currently works. The second existing reference, also published by HB Studio, is an instructor profile (which is basically just a list of the subject's acting credits). The third existing reference is a 2012 article in Backstage that briefly profiles the subject along with other actors.

There appears to be no other substantial coverage of the subject by secondary, independent sources. All I'm seeing are various database and wiki entries. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Otis (actor)

[edit]
James Otis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I mean no disrespect to the late subject of this article, but it does not appear he meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. The only citation in the article is the obituary presumably authorized for publication by his family. As for sources available elsewhere, I'm coming across little more than entries on IMDB and various fan wikis. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At present, this contains one source which does not meet WP:GNG. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriy Saharyan

[edit]
Valeriy Saharyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP that is refbombed with links that I don’t believe demonstrate the notability of the subject. The production house he founded is possibly notable but this biography is so poor I think we’re in TNT territory. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Laginha

[edit]
Pedro Laginha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NACTOR fail. Google has no hits on any news source. Fermiboson (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radford Sechrist

[edit]
Radford Sechrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. This was returned to mainspace immediately after I sent it to draft with the following rationale: "". This is a WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BIO failure. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Creating editor returned this to draft as an out of process move during this discussion, I feel we should interpret that as a request to return to draft. Indeed Draftify is an acceptable ATD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello sorry for late comment:This‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌ page should not be deleted quickly (CSD) because it complies with the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and the specific notability guidelines for creative professionals (WP:CREATOR and WP:FILMMAKER). Radford Sechrist is the creator, showrunner, and executive producer of the critically acclaimed Netflix animated series Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts. The series has been the subject of substantial, non-trivial coverage, by a number of independent and reliable sources, such as Animation Magazine, Screen Rant, and The A.V. Club, which is a testament to the public interest and impact far beyond the routine reporting. In addition, his long-term career in feature animation as a Story Artist and Head of Story on big studio productions, like How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Wish Dragon, moves him to be a notable creative in the animation ‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌industry. Winter (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jaredryandloneria This is a full seven day WP:AFD discussion, during which you are welcome to edit the article in order to demonstrate by excellence of referencing that the subject should be retained. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Edmonds (media consultant)

[edit]
Tom Edmonds (media consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a political consultant, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for political consultants. There are statements here that would probably be valid notability claims if they were referenced properly and expanded upon with more detail, but nothing at all that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability -- but in its current state this is completely unreferenced, and reviewing its history it has only ever previously contained primary sources (e.g. the self-published websites of companies and organizations he's been directly affiliated with, and a WorldCat directory entry) that are not support for notability, and there has never, ever been even one single solitary WP:GNG-worthy third-party reliable source in the article whatsoever, all the way back to its creation in 2010.
As I'm not an expert on American political backroom strategists, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody is able to find the necessary kind of sourcing to demonstrate that he would pass GNG on his media coverage, but the article can't stand without the GNG-worthy sourcing that's never been in it.
It's also undergone more than one round of "advertorialism by temp accounts getting reverted by established editors" editwarring in the past week and a bit, so I strongly suspect conflict of interest editing by somebody directly associated with the subject. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PaniPuri

[edit]
PaniPuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NFILM as per the sources cited, i also looked up for any independent significant coverage but failed to find any. Pizza on Pineapple (Let's eat🍕) 14:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnan Vasant

[edit]
Krishnan Vasant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A draft of this article was declined and just two days later this is created directly in the main space. A conflict of interest is declared on the draft but that has nothing to do with this nomination. The subject fails WP:NBIO per WP:BEFORE. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ednabrenze Please review your nomination comment, the article is a WP:BIO. AlphaCore talk 14:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir he has done 15 films. you can check all of his films once on wikipedia and then decide.
He played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work please check his films once sir Prasadpaturi (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rameez Shaikh

[edit]
Rameez Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON for student filmmaker with one short film that has received awards at minor film festivals. Does not pass WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Seems to be a small local newspaper with not much I could find. Yes Almost the entire article is about him. ? Unknown
Yes Yes The Navhind Times is a fairly large regional newspaper. No Only one mention that he was the director of the film. ✘ No
While Goa19News seems to exist, it is a small news organization from its YouTube page so I'm not sure about it's reliability. The website is down, so I can't access the source. ? Unknown
Yes No The website of ITS Goa says it is a "blog-based website" and it seems to host AI-generated articles and images, which both give me pause on its reliability. No Only two mentions about him and nothing about him personally within the source. ✘ No
Yes No Per above. No Only one mention about him being the secretary of the event. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Gregory Anderson (screenwriter)

[edit]
Gregory Anderson (screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no evidence of notability upon a search for sources. Out of the article's two existing sources, one does not go in-depth into the subject as a person, and one is a primary source as the subject's alma mater. He seems to fail WP:AUTHOR as well. TheInevitables (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Johnson

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Katrina Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The existing sources used on the page are either dead links or do not seem like the most quality, reliable sources. I asked for help with finding more sources on this page back in January and it seems like no one else was able to find anymore. I just did a search myself and was unable to find sources. Therefore, this page fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Nihon

[edit]
Stephanie Nihon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability concerns from the previous AfD still appear to be relevant. Pinging Timtrent. Janhrach (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Bizarrely, there are a large number of weird promotional articles in obscure publications about Nihon, many of which are not impartial or written independently of the subject - "churnalism", as Timtrent describes above. With this said, I do think this article about her from Elle (magazine) in conjunction with the Nassau Guardian would be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV in ordinary circumstances. However, the broader picture context is clearly that there are a lot of paid promotional articles about this person being generated online, and the Elle Canada article has that disclaimer at the bottom. With that in mind, lean delete. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 05:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article relies only on independent, reliable secondary sources. The existence of unrelated paid or PR press online does not negate the fact that the subject has received significant independent coverage, and only those reliable sources were used. Per WP:GNG notability is determined by the presence of in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources, not by whether promotional material exists elsewhere on the internet.

In addition, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability for creative professionals (WP:CREATIVE). Criteria 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). She is the creator of Goombay Kids, a nationally recognized Bahamian children’s TV series that has received sustained coverage in multiple independent news outlets and reportedly has had a notable cultural impact within the Bahamas as per the sources. Creating a widely covered, award recognized, and nationally broadcast series satisfies the standard for significant creative contribution under WP:CREATIVE.

Looking at policy, the presence of reliable independent sources demonstrating impact and recognition is what matters for notability. Those sources are already reflected in the article. Therefore the concern about paid press none of which is used here should not outweigh substantial independent coverage that meets GNG. Adnankhanakay (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royalnasty

[edit]
Royalnasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are not WP:RS as they are sponsored or featured posts and they are written possible by a single individual. See these[40][41] and here[42][43] are all promotional efforts. Ednabrenze (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to weigh in but is anyone else getting a weird vibe from the random appearances of multiple Uganda-based editors, all of whom are writing in a similar style and voting Keep?...... aesurias (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: none of the Keep comments provide policy based argument why this article should be kept and the tone of the last two keep above sound similar. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first and third keep arguments are not policy-based. The second one is, but does not actually provide any links to any of the alleged coverage, so it is not particularly convincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be good to know more about the existing Nigerian sources + whether they are considered reliable or useful for establishing notability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The nominator is judging based on comments. However, Royalnasty's sources are reliable, not promotional. More sources have been added, and they still provide significant coverage. I suggest going through it again. Añtonīo (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability rules because there are several independent and reliable news sources that give clear and meaningful coverage. Some small blogs repeat the same stories (which is common), but there is still enough original reporting from good sources to show notability. A Google News search also shows many independent results, for example:

This shows the subject is notable enough for inclusion. --BusyEditor (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are all promotional WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Not a notable individual. 🄻🄰 14:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to the WP:RSNG list of generally-reliable sources for Nigeria-related information, all the sources cited in the article are reliable except Champion News. The first link quoted by the nom, which is clearly flagged "Featured" seems to have been removed from the article. I'm not sure why the nom stated that the others are sponsored or featured as I'm not seeing any evidence of that. There's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the article IMHO.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Although some of the sources appear to come from generally reliable Nigerian media outlets, the individual articles do not provide independent or substantive coverage. Several lack identifiable bylines, were published within the same short period, and present the subject in a routine or promotional manner. This pattern suggests non-independent or coordinated coverage, which does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Without genuinely independent, in-depth reporting, the subject does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability at this time.

Comment - This user Ojoxxtee just joined Wikipedia 3 days ago. And he has already known about articles. He is voting delete with no much experience. He didn't even add his name. Antonio (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I voted delete because the sources appear promotional and do not meet WP:RS requirements. I am new, so I welcome guidance from experienced editors. – Ojoxxtee Ojoxxtee (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojoxxtee:As a new user who joined 3 days ago, how do you know if articles are promotional or not?? Antonio Ousman (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Antonio Ousman There’s no need to argue for keeping material that appears promotional. The sources used contain promotional language, and that’s why the page was challenged. My comments are based on content policy (WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO), not on personal issues. Let’s keep the discussion focused on policy rather than individuals. Ojoxxtee (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply me humanly not AI generated. Antonio Ousman (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Antonio Ousman either you like it or not this paid promotional article you just created will be deleted, because Wikipedia here is not social media where you can advertise. It’s clear the sources are not fully independent, some don’t have Journalist name. No further arguments for this please. Ojoxxtee (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay..why not try and delete it yourself, I think you should still undergo some training on how to edit Wikipedia..not just opening a user account and do as your feelings tell..we’ve had other experienced editors on this issue..nobody is going against your opinion and your given reason..drop it and watch how it’s handled accordingly in the discussion.Thanks Bhetyic3 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ojoxxtee, I see your account is new and I dought if you have personally created any Wikipedia article before to be able to comprehend the efforts that go into creating one. A secondary, reliable source can as well have promotional tone content about a topic and that can't not nullify the fact that it is reliable that one of the resoures we don't copy pest but refer to that info to write a non promotional article. In this particular case there are enough source about the topic as per the guidelines, only 2-3 reliable sources are needed for topic to meet notability. MichealKal (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Tunç

[edit]
Mu Tunç (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. WP:REFBOMB and violation of WP:COI. All of the sources are promotional. Independent and reliable sources are needed for passing GNG. Kadı Message 21:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Özdemir, Gülçin, Berceste (2019) Türkiye'de Bağımsız Sinemaya Dair Tartışmalar Istanbul. Nobel Bilimsel Eserler ISBN 6056928764 may be acceptable, but only this source is not adequate for keeping this article too. Kadı Message 21:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination misrepresents the sources and appears to be the continuation of a personal content dispute related to BLP issues, which is specifically not a valid reason for deletion (see WP:BLPDELETE). AfD is not the appropriate venue for resolving disagreements about content.
The claim that “all sources are promotional” is factually incorrect. The subject is covered by multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources, including:
Academic publication: Özdemir & Berceste (2019), Türkiye’de Bağımsız Sinemaya Dair Tartışmalar, Nobel Bilimsel Eserler, ISBN 6056928764
(Academic sources by definition are NOT promotional and fully meet WP:RS.)
National media profiles and interviews
Film festival coverage
Cultural journalism
Independent industry commentary
These satisfy WP:GNG through significant, independent coverage over multiple years.
The article clearly meets the notability standards for creative professionals (WP:GNG, WP:NART, WP:BIO).
Deletion is not justified. Andreasfromparis (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the tone and escalation of this nomination raise concerns related to Wikipedia’s guideline “Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers.”
The nomination and subsequent comments appear unnecessarily adversarial, and the use of AfD in the immediate aftermath of a BLP dispute risks discouraging constructive participation rather than resolving content concerns through normal editorial processes.
The article meets notability standards, has independent coverage, and can be improved rather than deleted.
Deletion is not appropriate. Andreasfromparis (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the points above, I would like to clarify that the article currently contains 58 independent, reliable references, including:
Major international media outlets from all around the world (Vogue US, VICE, I-D, Die Welt)
US cultural diplomacy sources (OneBeat / U.S. Cultural Department)
British, French, Australian, German, and Turkish national publications
Festival coverage across Europe and the U.S.
Cultural journalism, film criticism, and industry reporting
Academic coverage:
Türkiye’de Bağımsız Sinemaya Dair Tartışmalar, Nobel Bilimsel Eserler, ISBN 6056928764
These sources clearly fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NART, which require significant, independent, reliable coverage. Academic sources alone meet WP:RS; combined with dozens of international media sources, the subject’s notability is not in question.
The suggestion that “all sources are promotional” does not align with the actual references listed on the page, which come overwhelmingly from independent and reputable outlets worldwide.
Given the breadth and depth of coverage across multiple countries and independent organizations, the article clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards and should be retained. Andreasfromparis (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided strong opinions and described a range of sources, but it doesn't make for a particularly clear argument. A simple way to pass WP:NCREATIVE is to have multiple independently-notable works. Can you consult WP:NFILM and provide a list of 2+ works that meet the NFILM criteria, clearly stating which of the numbered criteria they meet and linking the relevant sources? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has an IMDB page: [[44]] also there is this write up: Mu Tunç’s Cinematic Ode to Istanbul’s Punk History [[45]] and this one: 1990’lar İstanbulunda punk ve “Arada”: Mu Tunç [[46]]

and this one: Underground unter Erdogan [[47]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnieszka653, IMDB is not a reliable source, and the other links that you have provided are not independent sources; those are interviews with Tunç. Kadı Message 22:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted in trwiki. Kadı Message 19:37, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page is clearly refbombed making it difficult to evaluate each one because most of these are unrelated, unreliable and unspecific to established notability, there is good piece here but an interview by itself would rarely be enough to justify a standalone article and the rest of the sources are just unusable and keeping in mind that the author of the page is continuously claiming that IMDb is a great reliable source, i believe there was no evaluation of any source at all or guidelines on WP:RS kept in mind before creating this page! I'm leaning with delete. Pizza on Pineapple (Let's eat🍕) 14:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Arada (film), a movie he directed and which may be notable[48][49][50]. I am not sure if there is a second notable movie from him, everything else he directed was short films/commercials. There are many interviews with the subject, but nothing is independent enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Marino

[edit]
Patrick Marino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Almost all sources are promotional blogs, PR-style features, or company-affiliated writeups. They repeat Marino’s business résumé but don’t provide independent, in-depth coverage about him as a subject. The only reliable sources (Variety) barely mention Marino and are focused on the film Lice, not on him personally. His notability in those articles is routine involvement as Kevin Connolly’s business partner, which falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Acrom12 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK. He has coverage in Yahoo also. I have also found these additional articles CEO World and Deadline News.Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage. The article cites several sources with substantial content about the subject, demonstrating notability beyond routine coverage. Additional reliable sources have been provided by Yolandagonzales, further strengthening the case for notability. The sources are independent of the subject and provide more than trivial mentions.Sandycubs (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and any other coverage of business ventures fail to meet WP:NBIO. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON if he goes on to make other notable films (or for that matter, if Lice is ever released). Vegantics (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not sure if any of the 3 sources mentioned above are actually notability-lending. The "Yahoo" article is actually from "The Blast" and that article reads like churnalism, as does the CEO World article (the profile for the author of that article states that she "specializes in delivering strategic content" so it's probably either a PR pitched story or a paid article). "Deadline News" allows people to submit their own articles and the one on Marino was submitted by an unknown "guest" writer. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more articles and citations. Have you checked every single one? Sandycubs (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Among the three references above, in the first article, there is a word "advertisement" to the top right of the picture. The third article is published in the category "partner posts". I agree with the !vote above that the second one reads like churnalism. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The ADVERTISEMENT on TheBlast is to indicate where the banner ads go. Every single article on the site has that. Sometimes you see banners, sometimes you dont. Also there are several more atrticles and citations, These 3 are not the only ones, so have you checked every single one?? Sandycubs (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about The Blast. I checked only the three sources mentioned by Yolandagonzales. Among others in the article, I cannot access backstage-lounge.com. The "About" page for hollywoodheat says, "If you would like to advertise on our sites or contact us for any reason, please get in touch with us here", and it has no guarantee that sponsored content would be marked[51]. I distrust mycherrypop as it has only three writers, with two of them labeled as freelance[52]. The writer who authored an article on Marino only wrote seven pieces for the outlet[53]. The situation with starstruckextreme is similar, five authors[54], with the one who wrote about Marino authoring roughly 30 pieces, only two of which were in the last year[55]. These two sites look more like the blogs of their chief editors than actual media outlets. Now, back to The Blast, I would say that it lacks significant coverage, as there are only two paragraphs about Marino with roughly 75 words[56]. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 17. (edit | history)
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete


Proposed deletions

[edit]

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Categories

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Deletion_sorting&oldid=1314561588"