Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

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

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Anik M Iktear Uddin

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources uses in the article are either interview in unreliable media too closely associated with the subject or just passing mention. Some are routine coverage of his client’s cases where he briefs on the case. Rht bd (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Rht bd (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anik M. Iktear Uddin, Anik Iktear Uddin, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talkmen--at the very least we need a G4 and/or G5 check here. --Finngall ^talk 20:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you start an AfD? This case falls under speedy deletion. First, initiate a CheckUser and establish whether it is the same account, and then apply a speedy deletion tag. This article has already been recreated 6–7 times under different titles, so it should be removed quickly JonnyD'costa (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just categorized this AFD as Biographical. No opinion on the article. BlaqWiedow (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marc J. Gregson

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

Fails WP:Author and is unfinished. There are no sources, and empty sections. If notability can be proven, it should be moved to Draft space and completed before publishing. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article about an individual does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Aneirinn (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Se7enNationArmy2024. I am currently gathering more editors to aid me in creating this page and making it look as professional as possible. I propose that within one week if the page remains the same quality as it does, I will remove it from the public until it achieves that quality. I am very new to editing on Wikipedia, especially with creating an entire page, and therefore I do not have the ability to do so myself. If there is a way I can edit with other users while in the article's "draft" stage, please let me know. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Wikishocka. Wikishocka (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Chanchlani (Actor)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material:

[...] That said, it's quite likely the subject still doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, so I suggest people bring the article up for WP:AFD [...] SouthernNights (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I would go further still and title blacklist if this is closed as delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here ready to say, "Speedy delete" based on the previous deletions, but there now seems to be enough articles that discuss Ashish Chanchlani as the main subject of the articles. The articles seems to be independent (I'm not well-versed on Indian media, but the articles seem balanced and mostly neutral). If we keep this article, I suggest we remove the "Actor" from the article name. Angryapathy (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, India, and Maharashtra. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the admin who considered the article for speedy delete. I determined the article didn't qualify for speedy delete under WP:G4 b/c article was not substantially identical to the previously deleted versions. However, after declining the speedy, I dug into all the new citations in the article and I now believe that the article's subject meets notability guidelines. The new citations are from reliable sources and also provide substantial coverage of the subject. As a sidenote, I struck the comment from me added above b/c it no longer matches what I believe about this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. Non-notable roles in non-notable web series.SamBordoloi (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not aware of his work as an actor in Bollywood or Indian films. This page shows his 1 role in YouTube short film/web series. Based on which, anybody can become notable. SamBordoloi (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that YouTubers usually by default aren't notable. However, I suggest you consider checking out the web series Ekaki, which has 5 parts, one of which is over an hour long and the quality upon first glance seems movie like and releasing via YouTube must be a personal decision (if Indian cinema specifically Bollywood is hard to enter due to nepotism/groupism). Might be WP:TOOEARLY, who knows @SamBordoloi:. Wdym by non-notable role? Starring - Ashish Chanchlani, Written and Directed by Ashish Chanchlani, Producer - Ashish Chanchlani, Story & Screenplay - Ashish Chanchlani DareshMohan (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Ekaki, he fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:ACTOR clearly. Article is about the person not the webseries. Person is non-notable actor @DareshMohan that's why. SamBordoloi (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are multiple sources, but nothing that meets WP:BASIC: sources are interviews, trivial mentions, press releases, or sponsored (i.e. paid) content. For instance, The Indian Express is generally reliable for news per WP:INDIANEXP, but this piece is clearly not reliable or independent, apart from the fact that it is a short text that doesn't provide significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the four AfD discussions linked above, there is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. At User:Bonadea/Long_term_disruption#Ashish_Chanchlani there is a (probably not complete) list of titles that have been used to get around previous deletion discussions and salting. --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Adminstartors/Editors involved in the salting haven't been notified. Retro music11 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per long term disruption as seen in the list User:Bonadea/Long_term_disruption#Ashish_Chanchlani by bonadea. Most sources cited fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and their use to determine WP:GNG must be done with caution. Retro music11 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, And so the buck stops (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, and People. Retro music11 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There is no indication that the sources in the article establish notability that is needed for an article as stated in the general notability guideline. This title and other variations should be salted so as to prevent yet another recreation. Aneirinn (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

F. W. Basedow

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

There is no indication from this article that it meets the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Many references refer to people other than the subject. It seems as if this individual was a run-of-the-mill pastor. It reads like an obituary and this website is not a memorial. Aneirinn (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Cameroon, Germany, and Switzerland. Aneirinn (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
keep The name Basedow comes up in discussions about the proliferation of Lutheran sects/denominations in South Australia. Not earth-shattering stuff but an attempt by one modest editor to improve coverage of the topic. Doug butler (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not about the name Basedow but is about one singular individual with the surname. Notability is not inherited. Aneirinn (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yaffa Ben-Ari

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

BLP sourced entirely to one archived post on the subject's social media and a dead link to an Israeli government website. Absolutely no evidence of meeting notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Japan, and Israel. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Karlan

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is highly promotional and, at the very least, I believe it should be merged with Professionals in the City. The only sections about the titular person are the early life and early career sections. This exact issue was raised before in 2011, but discussion closed with no concensus. The appearance of unsourced personal information, such as exact date of birth and location of birth, give the appearance that those contributing are close to the article's subject. The promotional nature of the Professionals in the City section has remained, but been hidden by the use of a long paragraph instead of many short ones. Harryb7 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Harryb7 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article in Washington Post and this article in Boston magazine are focused on him. Other cited sources are enough to meet WP:BASIC, which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. GarciaH1978 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The WaPo article, though extensive, has no bearing on WP:BASIC as it is technically not a secondary source. It does not provide "thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event", as demanded by WP:SECONDARY. Intead, it is primarily a firsthand report/account of time a reporter has spent with the subject and others, with passages such as: "By 7:15, two men with name tags were drinking beer at the bar. One, handsome and smoking Parliaments, said it was his first Pros in the City event. He had Googled "New Year's Eve" and "singles" and wound up on Karlan's Web site". The quasi-secondary details which are present read almost as if WP:SPONSORED: the sections "Who is this bon vivant? He works at home alone. He shuns phone calls. His roommate is a cat." and "The room was silent. His employees are instructed to call only in emergencies. E-mail gives him more control, he said." are clearly not designed to provide any meaningful biographical detail about the subject, but give him an air of mystery. It is for this reason that, in my view, it is a primary source.

The Boston article is not, as you say, focused on the subject: it is the events by his company which is discussed, and even then not in isolation but in comparison with a competing venture.

I would be interested to see if the other cited sources you mention are in-depth enough, without the drawbacks of those discussed, to meet any notability criteria - I haven't had time to look at every single possible option but have not found anything suitable yet. Multiple independent sources are not enough to demonstrate notability if they are all trivial, as "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" is also in WP:BASIC.

I'm also unsure as to why you bring up WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article is not a mess, and I think the cleanup edits which occurred today make the argument for deletion/merging even stronger in this regard. They clarified that the only "good, eventually sourcable" content present in the article, not directly related to Professionals in the City and its events, is a brief bio of the subject's academic and short legal careers. There also does not seem to be any information on the internet which can be added to flesh out the page with regard to the subject as a person.

I warmly invite further opinions on this matter. Harryb7 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ceirion Dewar

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Being a bishop in a small religious group isn't enough to establish notability, and I'm not sure that the article provides significant coverage; mostly primary sources, some of limited reliability (media appearances). The only in-depth coverage is the sky news article. Can maybe direct to the Confessing Anglican Church's article. ScottyNolan (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. ScottyNolan (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Wales. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Elísio de Figueiredo

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. The 1 source is primary. I cannot verify he was actually a Government minister. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Angola. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fionn Petch

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

The article is unsourced (the "Bio" reference is for somebody else). His site claims he won a couple of translation awards of uncertain notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, Germany, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. No SIGCOV in RS. References are mainly his own site [1], the publishing house where he works [2], an non-notable interview [3], a contribution in ~~non-notable~~ magazines [4] [5] and similar others. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on deletion: the article and sourcing are woeful, but the Valle-Inclán Prize and the magazines Granta and Words Without Borders are definitely notable. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kadri Bistrica

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO, non notable personality, previously deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadri Bistrica hence, tried WP:G4 but rejected, since article at time of deletion is not identical as this. Also, google search finds nothing, but page describes as notable fighter during world war. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Albania, and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vullnetari: Gscholar shows three sources in another language (Albanian?) and he seems to have school named after him, but I cant' determine if those are RS or not. I merge would at least mention this person; then anyone with the urge to do so can create a fork and expand it as needed. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Garvita Sadhwani

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR; lacks significant independent coverage and relies on routine media mentions. Niaki101 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Niaki101 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think she does pass WP:NACTOR with her roles in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai and Mahadev & Sons but I am not sure about WP:GNG tho ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is narrower than GNG, if they meet NACTOR, they meet GNG. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, I really don't know if there are any drawbacks of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG in the article. I am sorry I made an article when I should have made her draft, actually I was trying to create a draft only but somehow after I submitted the Draft:Jabb Zodiacs Met I got some notification and when I typed Garvita Sadhwani I directly came to the article page. I did not know I was creating an article. I am sorry. ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has since been blocked indefinitely for UPE. No opinion on the article, beyond the creator's apparent request to draftify. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article got reviewed and Garvita seems to meet WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG so no need to draftify I guess? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai and Mahadev & Sons. Initially, I was doubtful about both of these. But after I went through multiple articles and reviews about both these series, I'm confirmed that her roles are significant in both of them. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Wuhua

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

I am not quite sure about the subject’s notability. He may have engaged in public activities, but being the founder of an education service and having a role in a minor political party would not by themselves make him notable per WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. Plus, while I AGF, I am also doubtful about the reliability of the cited news agencies. For example, Shanghai Jing'an appears to be a regional government portal, which I do not think can establish his notability as a secondary source. In that sense, the subject may also fail WP:GNG. (There was also an account whose only apparent purpose was to engage with articles related to him and remove the tags, while the creator has very few contributions and only reappeared to create the article, which makes me suspect a COI.) Htanaungg (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Education, and China. Htanaungg (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Of the six sources, 2 mentioned the subject once (1, 3), 2 were about the subject's company, not him (4, 5), 2 seem to pass WP:SIGCOV but I cannot make any assessment about WP:RS due to the language barrier. A search for additional sources did not yield results. Vegantics (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marc J. Susser

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Per WP:NAMBASSADOR, ambassadors are not presumed to be notable, and there is no WP:SIGCOV that suggests Susser is "worthy of notice." Redirect to Office of the Historian as WP:ATD. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neal K. Shah

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

Does not meet WP:NBASIC or WP:GNG. Existing sources do not have WP:SIGCOV or are written by his company. WP:BEFORE didn't find anything else. Created by a single-purpose account. Was previously draftified by Pythoncoder, moved back to mainspace with minor changes. InfernoHues (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Medicine, and United States of America. InfernoHues (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: North Carolina and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTPROMO. By far the creator's most-edited page — will warn them about COI. This was draftified for a reason, but the creator didn't listen to my warning. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CareYaya Health Technologies, with which he shares overlapping notability. The articles are stronger together. I note that the company page is also up for deletion. Klbrain (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Retro music11 (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana Inamdar (socialist)

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

Lack of good sources with indepth coverage about this person. Sources have passing mentions, have generic byline, but not enough to show WP:NBIO is met. Ravensfire (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Ravensfire (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
del insufficient coverage. --Altenmann >talk 22:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NPOL. Svartner (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Mirzayev

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

Promotional résumé lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet WP:BASIC. It has been recognised that ambassadors are not inherently notable and must meet notability requirements. Mentions in news articles or blogs, government sources and his own LinkedIn are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Indonesia, and Azerbaijan. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i found only minor, routine, or press release like mentions. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] etc Rainsage (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Schultz Greenberg

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

Currently has 2 sources. College athletes need more than that. I couldn't find any more coverage with a simple Google search, so seems to fail WP:NATHLETE. Mariamnei (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Women. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG [17][18][19][20] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the GNG through multiple pieces of significant coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ramses Cleland

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

Diplomat with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. Perhaps someone can dig up coverage available in Twi? JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bilateral relations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Preetha Krishna

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

The subject don't have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most sources cited are either affiliated with the subject, Profiles, passing mentions, or paid articles(ANI). Kimumuhi (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kimumuhi (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. The article has 31 references. Amongst those are TheEdge Malayasia, The Chalk Board Mag, Hans News Service, TimesNow News, The Hans India, The Hollywood Reporter, TED, Options, Naver.com Japan, The Times of India, Penguin Books Australia, Huffingtonpost, ANI News, ED Times, Business News, Gobal Prime News, Sports Mint, Business Standard India, The Hindu, Indian Kanoon, Atria Books and Simon and Schuster. Strong keeep. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gereon K. This article has the bones, it just needs the meat. JTZegers (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some major sources detailed analysis: 1. The Edge Malaysia, interview, 2. References No. 2 Podcast, 3. The Hans India, interview, 4. HuffPost, author profile, 5. The Hans India, promotional article, 6. Hollywood Reporter, passing mentioned, 7. The Edge Malaysia, interview, 8. ANI, paid article, 9. ED Times, Brand Voice, paid article, 10. Business News This Week, Page not found and Unreliable source, 11.globalprimenews.com, Unreliable source Kimumuhi (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Denton

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

Nomination 1 line stub created over 20 years ago. No indication that subject meets |GNG requirements. A search reveals trivial or routine mentions only. An invisible comment on the page suggests other possible sources but none appear to be reliable sources for the purpose of GNG. Would not be accepted today. WP:WWIN Mme Maigret (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:GNG. JTZegers (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is far from a 1 line stub. This was an ample article until a few weeks ago when someone removed over 10K bytes of data. I think we are looking at the wrong version to determine GNG. Especially because that TNT removed all of the lists of publications. I am going to look for reviews, and this could possibly reach NAUTH. I can find references to him in books and articles, but don't know if notability can be reached as comics artists rarely are written about. Lamona (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Mallick

AfDs for this article:

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

She does not appear to have a major role in any notable film. The references provided do not adequately establish notability. Fails WP:NACTRESS. Girdi45 (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Girdi45 (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagaddhatri (TV series), the only notable production to which she contributed. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagaddhatri (TV series) as an ATD-R, her only notable work. WP:TOOSOON to have a page now. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony-Claret Onwutalobi

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

No notability. 1. He does not pass WP:NPOL, as a) he ran in a local council election, not state or federal, b) he was not actually elected. 2. Thus, falls back on WP:BIO/WP:GNG. I have assessed the references already in the article, as well as others I discovered in my WP:BEFORE and have determined he does not meet this criteria. 1. [21] is not WP:SIGCOV 2. [22] is also not WP:SIGCOV as it is an (semi-)automated inclusion in a mass database 3. [23] is a WP:SPS 4. [24] isn't WP:INDEPENDENT 5. [25] is an automated database listing and not WP:SIGCOV, and RSN discussions about this website also indicate it might be a WP:SPS / non-WP:INDEPENDENT - it is on helsinki.academic.edu, the page for his university. 6. [26] also isn't WP:INDEPENDENT 7. [27] isn't SIGCOV and arguably non-WP:INDEPENDENT as its from the town he was born in, which seems to post short exerts regularly about people from the town. I also note this page was previously deleted under a different name, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onwutalobi Anthony-Claret MolecularPilot _Talk 05:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. MolecularPilot _Talk 05:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Nigeria. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL obviously. The election part is even deceptive since the author refused to mention whether or not his candidacy was successful or not, even though the latter appears to be the case. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the election hasn't happened yet (they're on 7 May) so this is an obvious case of WP:PROMO. Even if elected, this article wouldn't pass WP:NPOL. Orange sticker (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Orange sticker Ah, thank you. I couldn't even comprehend certain things from the article, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that this has also been tagged (not by me or the nominator) as being LLM-generated. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, delete! JTZegers (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, because it was created with an OAICITE that got removed in Diff/1348481638, a relatively large rewrite just over 5 minutes after the article was created. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article was created with an OAICITE. Also agree with it being WP:PROMO and not meeting WP:NPOL for now. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG and the council is at a low level below county level.Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Aarya

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

The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR as there is a lack of significant independent, reliable coverage. The article relies on routine mentions and does not demonstrate notability as an actress. Mexico's Claudia (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC) striking nomination statement by a confirmed blockeed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, and India. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails in GNG owing to the lack of SIGCOV. Fails in WP:NACTOR too. Significant roles in the first and third film but the films are not notable. They don't have any reviews and fail in WP:NFILM themselves. So, someone can bring them to the AFD too. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ACTOR and WP:SIGCOV and as explained by nominator .SamBordoloi (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject does not meet WP:BIO. She has only supporting roles in regional films with no significant independent RS coverage about her specifically.Goodboyjj (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Singh Narula

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

The subject does not meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. There is insufficient significant independent coverage in reliable sources, and the article appears to rely on routine mentions and primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexico's Claudia (talk • contribs) 03:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC) Striking nomination statement from a confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Film, Music, and India. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find it to be meeting any of the criterions of WP:MUSICBIO. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE : It fails under WP:SINGER. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mollah Obayedullah Baki

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

The person in question doesn't appear to be notable. The two sources cited appear to be passing mentions, and a web search only reveals unreliable or primary sources (e.g. Facebook or random websites). TheAuroraBorealis (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Bangladesh. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ANYBIO. Received the highest civilian award - Independence Award from Government of Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject person Independence Award recipient. The award is highest state award by the government of Bangladesh. --SatnaamIN (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Kouhkan

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

Created by user blocked for persistent addition of unsourced content, this topic does not meet WP:GNG, also confirmed by google search (not to be confused with Hossein Rajaei Rizi) WonderCanada (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WonderCanada (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not familiar with the sourcing in this article, but if it supports the claims currently in the article, then the subject meets WP:NPOL as a member of a national parliament. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jawed Iqbal (cartoonist)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. I cannot find any credible source mentioning this cartoonist. The only three sources mentioned on this article make bypass mention of him. A simple Google search of him mainly shows his Facebook posts while his Instagram account has only 357 followers. Clearly a non-notable person. Pakhpalaw (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Visual arts, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Salamis

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

This subject does not enjoy in-depth, substantial coverage by unrelated third-party reliable sources (fails WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO). This article was previously deleted through PROD, refunded and re-PRODed without significant improvement, and de-PRODed as previously PRODed. JFHJr (㊟) 16:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, Greece, and Canada. JFHJr (㊟) 16:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found sigcov surrounding his 107th birthday and obit in The Gazette, presumably more I can't access in French Quebecois newspapers. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Found this French encyclopedia entry, not sure if it's reliable but it's bibliography has stuff that looks like it could be decent. And here is the CBC reporting on his death and 105th birthday. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 1brianm7. The encyclopedia entry probably can be considered reliable as it is published by the Centre d'histoire de Montréal. It also cites two articles from La Presse and a paper, "Greek immigration to Québec: The process and the settlement". Kelob2678 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yoram Elron

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

Deprodded on the grounds the subject is Israeli and should not be prodded on that basis. BLP with absolutely no secondary sources and almost completely unverified. No evidence of meeting WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Israel, and Bulgaria. AusLondonder (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel). Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. The coverage I could find about Elron is WP:ROUTINE about his appointments or normal ambassadorial duties, not about him personally, so he does not meet WP:NBIO. Redirecting to a page focusing on Israel's relationship with a single country would not reflect the extent of his career, so redirectig to the the main ministry page makes sense. Longhornsg (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given he is not mentioned in that article a redirect is pointless and does not comply with WP:POFR. AusLondonder (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a requirement listed in the guideline. Elron is a plausible search term, anyway. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is the guideline on the purpose of redirects not relevant? What is the point of redirecting to an article that doesn't mention the subject? A reader will be left frankly confused. AusLondonder (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only primary sources provided. No inherent notability in being Israeli or an ambassador. Fails WP:BIO. Oppose redirect. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible alternative search term. I Deprodded because "Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial topics. Anything to do with Israel is controversial. Please don't feed our critics." Bearian (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been consensus that PROD cannot apply to Israeli topics or other contentious topics and I honestly think that's a ridiculous proposition. AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Bo Thant Zin

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

I assume that winning first prize in a competition organised by CRPH is not enough to make the subject notable. The article is also not yet ready to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, as it still lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Htanaungg (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, and Myanmar. Htanaungg (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NAUTHOR, GNG, or ANYBIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. There was unresolved confusion about the book, Stars Not Free from Darkness or Stars that cannot escape the darkness, along with Little Umbrellas in the Rain, neither of which appear to have attracted much attention. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Alexander (merchandise manager)

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

Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NCRIME. While the 2015 Paris attacks are an obviously significant event, he did not play any significant role in it other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time; a tragedy, but not what we cover. He was the merchandise manager for a notable band but was never covered for this until he was murdered. He was one of hundreds of victims. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I would say that the amount of coverage Alexander's death in particular received, as well as the work of the Nick Alexander Music Trust charity and several events put on in his memory that have also received coverage, justifies the article's existence. Miklogfeather (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not per WP:BIO1E and WP:NCRIME. He only got coverage for dying in an incident where dozens of people died. He did not play a significant role in the event and he isn't notable as a merchandise manager. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL or possibly redirect to November 2015 Paris attacks#Casualties, where he is briefly mentioned, albeit not by name. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Kozhokina

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

This retired tennis player doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. My before searches in English and Russian only turn up databases and passing mentions. I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination if someone can find the required standard of coverage but what currently is attributed to the article, and what I could find, are well below the threshold. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Sports, Tennis, and Russia. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches also turned up little about this player. There is also a similar lack of coverage on the corresponding wikis. As such, the WP:GNG is not met here. Let'srun (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vendula Pizingerová

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

I had doubts about the subject’s notability, though I would be glad if the credibility of the award she received, the Order of Laurels, could be established. The “Life” section is about her family and includes nothing about her career, which I have been unable to verify through a quick search. Most of the available coverage concerns childbirth and reports about her and her husband. (I also checked the WiR redlist but could not find her name there; please point me to it if it does exist.) Htanaungg (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Czech Republic. Htanaungg (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was in the WiR redlist from 2-9 April and subsequently created. C 679 17:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she was on the Women in Red redlist, but the entry disappeared after I created the article. I have also added a source for the Order of Laurels award and expanded the article with sourced information about her work with the Kapka naděje Foundation Fund MonikaKubasakova (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MonikaKubasakova: You can certainly make this comment as a keep !vote. ^^ I will also wait to hear other editors’ opinions on the matter. Thanks. Htanaungg (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Tafolla

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Delaware. Theroadislong (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local-level politician: fails WP:NPOL. —Serial Number 54129^{(wake up Fortuna)} 08:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming delete !vote quandoquidem WP:NPOL. —Serial Number 54129^{(wake up Fortuna)} 07:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was declined as a draft by a reviewer. Author was advised to discuss at the Teahouse but chose to move the draft boldly into article space. The question isn't whether the subject passes political notability but whether he passes general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The subject meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) through multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are several articles from independent publications (including Chester County Press, Vista Today, and Impacto Media) that go beyond routine mentions and discuss the subject’s election, background, and role in local government. One source provides an in-depth profile, while others cover the historical significance of the election, including the subject becoming the youngest council member in Kennett Square history and receiving a record vote total. This constitutes non-trivial coverage as required by WP:GNG.

While some editors have cited WP:NPOLITICIAN, that guideline does not require national or high-level office, nor does it override GNG. Instead, it complements GNG by recognizing that elected officials may be notable when supported by significant independent coverage. In this case, the subject’s elected status combined with multiple sources discussing their background and historic election meets that standard.

The sources are independent of the subject and are not limited to primary or self-published material. When taken together, they establish notability under WP:GNG. Therefore, the article should be kept.
These are the sources:

https://www.dailylocal.com/2025/11/11/holliday-juan-tafolla-youngest-elected-official-in-kennett-history/

https://www.dailylocal.com/2026/01/11/juan-luis-tafolla-makes-history-as-youngest-ever-on-kennett-square-council/

http://www.chestercounty.com/2026/02/04/562587/kennett-square-s-youngest-ever-council-member-digs-into-the-business-of-the-borough

https://www.impactomedia.com/nacion/tu_eliges/juan-tafolla-makes-history-in-kennett-square-pennsylvania/

https://vista.today/2025/12/juan-tafolla-kennett-square/

http://www.chestercounty.com/2023/07/18/441656/kennett-square-borough-welcomes-new-police-officer-a-junior-council-member

http://www.chestercounty.com/2024/07/10/497799/kennett-square-junior-council-member-reports-on-mexican-excursion

https://elpueblonews.org/news/interview-with-kennett-borough-council-candidates-juan-tafolla-and-hilda-matos/

https://vista.today/2025/12/juan-tafolla-kennett-square/

TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the subject “fails WP:NPOLITICIAN” is not, by itself, a valid basis for deletion. WP:NPOL is a supplementary guideline and does not override the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). Even if a subject does not meet specific criteria under WP:NPOL, notability can still be established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, which is present here. Wikipedia policy is clear that GNG is the primary standard, and subjects may be notable regardless of office level when supported by sustained, non-trivial coverage.

Furthermore, the subject is not a routine local candidate but an elected official who has received continued coverage across multiple independent outlets. Sources document a historic election, including the subject becoming one of the youngest elected officials in Pennsylvania, along with follow-up reporting on governance and community impact. Kennett Square itself has broader regional recognition as the “Mushroom Capital of the World,” contributing to sustained media attention on its local leadership. While each case is evaluated independently, other local officials in nearby municipalities—such as West Chester Mayor Lilian DeBaptiste, who has a Wikipedia article—demonstrate that local-level officeholders can meet notability when supported by sufficient coverage. Note that Both of them use the same sources, In this case, the depth, breadth, and continuity of sources satisfy WP:GNG;

therefore, the article should be kept. TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't use AI to communicate here. Theroadislong (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No AI, here just supporting my case with facts and google searching/research. TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong- If you are going to remove my arguments, please state the facts why you believe my comments where AI generated. Not just mark it. The rules on here are to make statements like Robert did, not hide behind WP:NPOLITICIAN two word comments comments TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was collapsed by Fortuna imperatrix mundi, not removed. GPTZero considers it to be AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:NPOL as a local politician and the vast majority of coverage is highly localised and not nearly enough to demonstrate significant coverage at the standard required to show enduring notability. I would also add that the debate over GNG is against a context where the coverage and notability is derived from the political office and an event per WP:BLP1E (i.e. the subject's election), hence why WP:SNG and the BLP policies become key here as a tool to uphold best practice and community consensus when taking these points into account - this is a standard applied to every AfD of this nature I've previously encountered. Greenleader(2) (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis Vassili

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

This article has not had any inline citations since its creation in 2007. Some of the links listed at the end are just primary sources or unreliable. Does not meet WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, and Greece. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written BLP article based on unreliable coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WP:BEFORE does not turn up any reliable sourcing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This CV-resumé of an artist teacher is lacking in inline citations, having only a list of external links consisting of primary sources and blogs (Tumblr, Blogspot and Wordpress). Nothing indicates that they meet WP:NARTIST, nor WP:NPROF, nor WP:GNG. I tried to improve it back in 2017, but could not find reliable sources then, and cannot now. It should not be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Albright

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

This subject appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO for lack of coverage that isn't WP:PRIMARY. Alternative metrics at WP:NAUTHOR look the same. This subject's comments in the capacity of a press officer and in the context of other topics don't accrete any notability to the subject. Fails WP:42. JFHJr (㊟) 00:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, Religion, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Canada. JFHJr (㊟) 00:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly because it fails WP:GOLDENRULE and searches made on the internet mostly indicate lack of any major coverage. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 02:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Raisen

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources are essentially AllMusic and Genius. There are no secondary sources.

The argument regarding fame boils down to "producing tracks for more famous artists," which in itself is insufficient within the framework of WP:MUSICBIO. The article is simply a list of authors disguised as an encyclopedia article, which is precisely what WP:NOTDIR is for.

Strongly reminiscent of WP:TOOSOON. Pololo1320 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Arts, Music, Business, Popular culture, United States of America, and North America. Pololo1320 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete lack of sigcov, seems to be a target of disruptive edits on the subject's behalf judging by history over the past several years. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer 💬(they/she) 20:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the links are Genius, All Music, or something of the sort--Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there’s no WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the basic standard of notability for Wikipedia. StarShineNeutral (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV, doesn't meet GNG or NMUSIC. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV with lack of coverage and secondary sources. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This happens to a lot of producers and studio hands on WP, which is unfortunate but we still need material to build an encyclopedic article. Mr. Raisen has appeared in many lists of credits as a behind-the-scenes guy for other people's works, but he has no significant coverage of his career in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:SIGCOV with a lack of coverage AML KING (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, fails WP:MUSICBIO.Knitsozark (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I echo what the DELETE voters above have said. Subject is not notable. Goodboyjj (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Existing sources do not prove notability. If new sources emerge, I will be happy to reconsider. ScottyNolan (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Klabunde

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

I think it fails WP:GNG, as the article mainly relies on primary or routine sources. I couldn't find significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources providing more in-depth info about him => passing mentions in event materials do not establish notability. ScottyNolan (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. ScottyNolan (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Korea and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Retro music11 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search mainly returns his own social media page. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satori (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication that the biographical article meets our standards for notability for biographies. Aneirinn (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rehtee Begum

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

Claimant for oldest person ever. Article based on one source and there is no biographical information. Easily fails WP:GNG EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Mythology, COVID-19, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only coverage is about her being administered the Covid vaccine as a 124 year old but there's no official verification regarding her age. That's it, there's nothing else. Zero WP:SIGCOV and not even close to meeting WP:GNG. BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article with potential. There seem to be judgements going on purely based on current article status, which according WP:ARTN is not decisive for deletion. Has the required WP:BEFORE search been performed and what were the results? At least in Germany news magazines have reported as well, like here, here, and here, while the case also been taken up in books published by reliable/academic publishers in The People of India (2022), Biopolitics and Healing in a Mass Milieu (2024), Geropolitics (2023), showing some continued attention. Daranios (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be classic a case of WP:NOTBLP1E and the article now is nothing but WP:PSEUDO. The problem is that in all the news articles and books, the only tangible information about her is that she is a 124 year old woman from Baramulla, India who got her COVID jab. Is only this thing enough to warrant a BIO on Wikipedia, considering the high bars of ANYBIO and GNG? At least if her age was officially verified, that would have been a different scenario since she would have been the oldest supercentenarian recorded. Please rectify me if I have missed any source which has more information about her than that single factoid. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have to correct myself: Geropolitics seems to be an essay within Biopolitics, so they are only one source. I cannot see them fully, but what I can see is that the sources have at least little more to say than just her age: Biopolitics gives her religion and more details around her age verification. The People of India discusses her relevance as an example of the "Old Woman" type of Indian(?) culture. (German news sources repeat Indian ones with "...the woman tolerated her first dose of the coronavirus vaccine well. "We visited her again after the vaccination and she is doing very well," Dr. Tajamul Malik told Bild. A neighbor told the Indian news agency ANI: "In my 48 years of life, I have rarely seen her sick."", but I am not sure if this is relevant.) More important is that the cited essays ask us to cover persons who have only received attention in sources in connection with one event should be covered in the article of that event. But here the person is the event, i.e. her extraordinary age. So this is not a classic case of WP:NOTBLP1E. Rather, Rehtee Begum is famous only for one fact, like a sportsperson who has set one world record but has no other achievements. Now if you suggest to rearrange the article and the argumentation to say that the event is the discovery of possibly the oldest supercentenarian, and cover Rehtee Begum within the article on that event, that would be totally fine with me (although renaming it to something more complicated just to apply the right batch of policies seems a bit bureaucratic to me). But that would be fixing a problem through normal editing, we would not need deletion. Absent an article of an event, applying WP:NOTBLP1E is a non sequitur. Daranios (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! I agree that renaming it to something else would be unnecessary bureaucracy. But her exact age hasn't been officially verified. The claim of 124 years comes from her ration card, which can have inaccuracies, given her age and the usual lack of proper documentation for common people during that time. So she is a WP:MILL supercentenarian with no official age verification. If everyone agrees that despite having unofficial facts, just having coverage is enough to warrant an article in this case, I don't have any prejudice against saving the page. So I'll WP:DTS here. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of the cases described at WP:MILL do remotely fit here. Global coverage, and being taken up by academic/book sources is not run-of-the-mill. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BhikhariInformer@Daranios The only coverage related to Begum is that she receive a vaccine at the alleged age of 124. I haven't found any information about her life besides for getting the vaccine, which is what the other sources that I can access discuss. EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@EaglesFan37: See my comment on the sources. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Lots of longevity claims get some sporadic news coverage, and the coverage she received was WP:ROUTINE. Most longevity claims do not have wikipedia articles unless there is extensive coverage, which there isn't for Begum. EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios. There is more to expand the article. Azuredivay (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~2026-21450-46 (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom's initial statement and with BhikhariInformer. My findings confirm this. There are a handful of articles essentially regurgitating the same incredible claim. The sources used are not generally reliable but even if they were, the coverage is too scant. The passing reference in two books published a year or two after the "event" do not expand on her biography and do not constitute in depth, substantive, ongoing coverage. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, lacks significant coverage. The only thing reliably known about her is that she took a COVID vaccine. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nasiruddin Patwary

AfDs for this article:

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

A discussion at AfD in May 2025 was closed as delete. I can't see new evidence of WP:GNG, so would like feedback on current notability. I'm not sure why the Talk page doesn't have a link to the first deletion discussion? Lijil (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Lijil (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are lots of interviews, and the rest of the coverage isn't enough. He had eggs thrown at him [28] and was sued [29], otherwise, coverage is interviews. I don't see notability/NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough sources; insufficient evidence of notability. BlueStaticHorse (talk)(they/them) 13:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rht bd (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Became viral on social media during his election campaign for political rivalry with a heavyweight candidate. But in terms of WP:SIGCOV, he is not enough notable. Rht bd (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable before the election campaign due to his involvement in the students' movement and National Citizen Party Jaunpurzada (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Citizen Party#Organisation: As an WP:ATD-R. See also: WP:IGNORINGATD and WP:RCHEAP... I'm leaning towards Keep as well... — Raihanur (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: weak keep: kinda notable after the election rivalry with Mirza Abbas. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 15:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interviews added. I probably would have nominated this article around 2024 myself. But, as a "heavy-weight" MP candidate I think the subject of the article has notability on it's own. Greatder (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see the number of reports BDnews has him tagged to here, TBSnews article list here, these may still not be notable. If, indepth coverage isn't found, in which case, Sarjis Alam should also be considered for deletion. Greatder (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. His district is described as one of the most observed during the election, and while he lost, he received 45% of votes, only 5% less than his opponent. Analysis of his campaign has also received coverage in the press as stated above[30][31]. Defamation lawsuit is an example of coverage he received outside of the campaign[32]. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

delete we do not write articles about losing candidates. Otherwse no coverage to infer other kind of notablity. --Altenmann >talk 23:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

David Farley (businessman)

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

Similar to the reason I left in my nomination of deletion for Raissa Butkowski, the subject will not be notable if he is not successful and should not have an article at this time in accordance with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT, and currently fails WP:POLITICIAN. Whether Mr. Farley will be successful at the upcoming election is unclear, and it is not a decision for Wikipedia per WP:CRYSTAL, and thus, this article should be deleted or draftified. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 03:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Australia. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 03:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a political candidate. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOL. WWGB (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. No significant coverage has been provided in the citations outside of the standard ballot information. RipplingRiver (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a WP:BEFORE check yields several sources dating back at least to 2009 (see this and this, with a lot of coverage around his 2013 resignation from AACo (this is representative). The question is whether or not thit coverage is simply WP:ROTM or WP:SIGCOV. schetm (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The above citations read more as WP:ROTM and only really provide sourcing for his resignation, rather than proving notability. Sending it back to drafts until the election would be a good choice too. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Xhignesse

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

Could not find any WP:RS to establish WP:NAUTHOR, and no sources are cited in the article. Wisenerd (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Belgium. Wisenerd (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also read the article in Walon which is longer but also cites few sources. Wisenerd (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has an entry in the Dictionary of Walloons (as cited in his article on Dutch wiki), meeting WP:ANYBIO. Sources are very likely to exist that prove notability. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, the dictionary also cites his sources. His biography is also included on this site, which is related to the Belgian Ministry of Culture, so I consider it an RS. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. The page needs to be improved even as a stub, but I have found enough SIGCOV to pass the WP:BLP threshold. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwar Kamal Azizi

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Mehru13 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mehru13 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent sources. Fails NPOL. Rht bd (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Jagwara

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

Unclear if there's enough to meet WP:NBIO KH-1 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, Artificial intelligence, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I personally consider a page notable if there are enough unbiased sources to provide a view on the person, where every fact that isn't inherently obvious has a citation. I think that the article needs a good deal of reworking, deletion of unnecessary paragraphs, etc., but it does, I think, meet standards. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I earlier opened up a topic instead, but allow me reshare here. I suggest we keep the article but polish it. My opinion is quite personal as an African, having one head an Ai entity in a country affiliated to UN, means he must be notable and worth recognition. Phionanoma20 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep-though my additional searching have yet to find enough SIGCOV sources asides from the ones already in the article, did find the subject being mentioned by cross checking within the wiki see Category:Artificial intelligence researchers and ISBAT University. So likely more can be found. Not opposed to Draftify.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see one full article about him, but it isn't enough to cover the content of the page. Unfortunately, the page was created by account "ericjagwara" and other information was added by an SPA who appears to be related to the company. The company itself might eventually be notable, but it hasn't gotten there yet. Lamona (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Raissa Butkowski

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

The article fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines of politicians, noting that while she is a candidate for an upcoming election, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT are core policies which would protest her notability. Should Ms. Butkowski not win the seat (which is a likely scenario per opinion polling, notwithstanding WP:CRYSTAL), she will not be notable. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 11:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Australia. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 11:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-we can always recreate the article if the subject does win the elections.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 Farrer by-election for now. Moondragon21 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tiv (illustrator)

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

This article is about an illustrator whose notability is not sufficiently demonstrated.

I have conducted a search in accordance with WP:BEFORE, using Google and Google News to identify independent and reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. However, I was unable to find substantial in-depth coverage beyond routine mentions.

While Tiv is credited as an illustrator for several manga works, including Masamune-kun’s Revenge, the available sources are largely primary or affiliated sources, such as publisher pages or database listings. These sources do not provide meaningful independent analysis or discussion of the subject’s career or impact.

The article mainly consists of a list of works, which is insufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia standards.

Therefore, the subject appears to fail the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG), as there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

For these reasons, I propose that the article be deleted. (I used AI to translate the above text from Korean to English, but the thoughts are mine) Koeunchae04 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Anime and manga, and Korea. Koeunchae04 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NCREATIVE#3 as co-creator of Masamune-kun's Revenge, and as character design drafter for Idol Incidents and Two Car, as verified by ANN articles; and potentially NCREATIVE#4b due to her exhibition at Pixiv WAEN Gallery. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Miraclepine. Dream Focus 21:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mkrtich Mazmanian

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

This page is just a first-person autobiography LevisAquae (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia, Arts, and People. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this information is un-sourced as well.

Localwerewolfenjoyer (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article but sources exist for GNG: 1, 2. If the article is true that Mazmanyan has won "State Prize of the Republic of Armenia..., the BIAF International Award in Lebanon, and the prestigious Grand Prix at the New York International Exhibition" then that would meet WP:ARTIST. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the page desperately needs more sourcing but he is a prominent Armebian sculptor who per Lollipoplollipoplollipop has won a state prize for his work which definitely meets WP:NARTIST Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like this diff is where the autobiography got added, as well as a website in plain text? It also seems like the person who added it has a potential WP:COI, because of their name? Before these revisions, it seems like an article that just needs some more sourcing, detail, and length. Perf27 ^{My talk page} 02:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced CV. WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything much except a puffed up biography on the Dalloul Art Foundation website. No museums or in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Nothing to support the exhaustive lists of "works" and "exhibitions""--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely unsourced resume-like list of works and shows. The above mentioned awards are unsourced, and the so- called prestigious Grand Prix at the New York International Exhibition mentioned above is a non-existent award. Maybe Lollypoplollypop meant ArtExpo, as his resume shows he was in ArtExpo, which is a 3-day long pay-to-play art fair where artists and/or their galleries can rent booth space. A search of his name and the BIAF award came up cold, and apparently BIAF is another non-notable art-fair type event except without an exhibition attached. The vast majority of the exhibitions are art fairs, and the two museum shows do not specify if they are group or solo shows. One of these museums is inside a church, and a search of his name on the website of the other one, the Sursock Museum, comes up with no results. As to the State Prize, a search was unsuccessful. I'm sure he's respected for his skillful figurative sculptures, however he not meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prinstone Ben

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

I narrowly rescued this article from deletion by means of a BLP PROD because it had no sources. Upon further review, I could only find one reliable news source covering him (The New Indian Express), but even that article only documents a small part of Prinstone Ben's life. We don't know his birthdate, the place where he grew up, even who his parents are/were. Given these considerable gaps in our knowledge, I conclude that this article ought to be deleted. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diocese of South Kerala of the Church of South India as an WP:ATD. He was appointed in March, so more coverage is likely to appear, but so far, we don't have enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES; bishops in Anglican Communion churches like the CSI are generally found to be notable. Additional biographical material available here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the New Indian Express piece and the above source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The main issue here is that the article is incomplete, not that the person is non-notable. There are now multiple independent reliable sources about his election and taking charge as the seventh Bishop of the CSI South Kerala Diocese.(1, 2, 3, 4) Since he is a bishop in the Church of South India, which is part of a major Christian denomination in the Anglican Communion, he is generally notable enough for Wiki. The article definitely needs better sourcing, expansion, and probably a title correction, but that is a reason to improve it, not delete it.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination reason is weak on Wikipedia grounds. Missing biographical detail is not a deletion criterion. An article is not deleted because we do not yet know the subject’s parents, childhood details, or full life story. The real question is whether the subject is notable and verifiable. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These all are about an announcement of his appointment. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diocese of South Kerala of the Church of South India I googled and I cannot find any secondary sources that would even be close to BLP requirements--so I think that Redirect is really the only AtD at the moment.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Celina Sharma

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources are promotional, being interviews and PR articles. Source analysis:

Source 1 - Clash - is an interview.
Source 2 - Bong Mines Entertainment is a paid/promotional site
Source 3 - Hindustan Times is trivial coverage of her reaction to criticism and gives no indication on subject's notability
Source 4 - Tone Deaf - is again an interview and with no WP:SIGCOV.
Source 5 - BBC Media Centre - Trivial One-word mention of the subject

The article is a PROMO with no indication of the subject's notability as a musician. Does not satisfy any criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN. Retro music11 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, India, United Kingdom, and Australia. Retro music11 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in GNG as well as WP:NMUSICIAN. In addditional searches, all I could find are interviews. The ones which are not, are just TRIVIAL mentions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC
Will come back to this but leaning keep as it likely passes WP:BASIC, which trumps WP:NMUSICIAN. Also see there is no mention of a WP:BEFORE search. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're the article creator. I understand that you'll lean towards a keep.

However, since you've created this one, you'll know that out of the 5 sources, 3 are interviews and do not add to WP:GNG. Source 2 - Bong Mines Entertainement is a Paid website, lacking journalistic coverage and cannot be used to verify claims. Source 5 - BBC Media Centre - a one-word mention about the subject and nothing to establish notability. With 3 Interviews, 1 TRIVIAL Mention, 1 PAID Website (used thrice as reference) and No WP:RS, how does this subject pass WP:NBASIC?

Article has been created based on sources that are WP:CHURNALISM . There's no WP:RS to establish a WP:GNG pass. A WP:BEFORE has been considered. There's nothing more that can be fixed via normal editing. There were some vague claims supported by non-reliable sources which I fixed. In fact, there are some more.

Current sources don't even give a WP:V. Look at the nature of those sources - It's basically the subject talking about herself in those sources, and those sources are being used for a BLP that serves as a PROMO for the subject. Retro music11 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If a WP:BEFORE search has been considered, you should stay where you looked: Which search engines? Which country codes and languages? Any other databases in Wikipedia Library? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're the article creator and this BLP included a claim stating "her single "We Are One" was the India national cricket team's anthem in the Cricket World Cup", which is a WP:SYNTH. Which search engines? Which country codes and languages? Any other databases in Wikipedia Library? did you look at before adding the claim to Wikipedia. Additionally, my previous question remains unanswered- How does the subject pass WP:NBASIC and WP:NMUSICIAN with interviews and WP:CHURNALISM not amounting to WP:SIGCOV.

I considered a WP:BEFORE, only to find more advertorials that don't add to the subject's notability. Retro music11 (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Cielquiparle Since you're the only contributor to this article, I want to bring to your notice that you had added a claim that "her single "We Are One" was the India national cricket team's anthem in the Cricket World Cup" - this claim was supported by a paid website Bong Mines Entertainment. This claim cannot be validated elsewhere, not even on the Cricket World Cup Official website. I've removed it for or now, at least till a valid source can be found. Owing to a lack of WP:RS, I suspected that to be WP:SYNTH. The reason I'm critical about paid media is that there's a strong possibility of BLPs ending up in WP:HOAX. Retro music11 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting User:CNMall41 to please help this discussion with an accurate source analysis/ Or please cross examine the source analysis that I've made in the nomination. Thanks. Retro music11 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is not allowed at AfD! WP:CANVASSING If you do post a notice it should be in public WikiProject Talk pages that are open to more people, not just people you think will agree with you. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is source analysis provided by an independent/ uninvolved editor who is an active participant at AFDs WP:CANVASSING ? In fact, I've requested a cross -examination of the analysis that I've provided earlier. What makes you think that this contributor will agree with me? Having said that, source analysis by any independent editor other than the creator of the article is welcomed. Retro music11 (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I forgot I had even created this article and am not that attached to it. But I do reject blanket statements like "interviews don't count". In general I would agree that Q&A interviews where almost all of the text is word-for-word quoting the subject usually doesn't count toward notability. But feature articles where the subject is quoted can count toward WP:BASIC or even WP:GNG if they include objective assessment by a journalist who is independent of the subject. I do think the "We Are One" claim is strange but I think I must have found the claim somewhere else and was looking for a source for it and somehow backed into this article. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refrain from commenting on whether you forgot about creating this article. All I can conclude is that the article was hastily created and bypassed the standard AFC process. Other editors thereby could not verify whether the article meets WP:GNG, WP:N and whether the subject passes WP:NMUSICIAN. I'm glad at least we can discuss it now, at this stage if not earlier, unfortunately. I don't dispute your recommended course of action, as it's obvious that being the creator, you'll lean towards a keep. It has also come to my attention that when you created the article, you added that she was of English, Maltese, Indian and some other heritage. But now that has been re-written to South-Asian heritage. That was another WP:SYTH that I was suspecting. However, sorted as of now till further source analysis.

Feature articles counting towards WP:GNG is also a blanket statement, especially when the nature/ content of the article is TRIVIAL/ADVERTORIAL/OR PAID. And interviews are not-independent of the subject. In this case, interviews is all that we have for fact-checking. I see that you've re-written the article now. I hope an uninvolved independent contributor will aid this discussion in a neutral source analysis. Retro music11 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Improving the article at AfD is allowed and encouraged per WP:HEY. I have removed a couple of sources and claims you flagged as problematic. Please remember to assume good faith per WP:AGF. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even with those new sources added, the subject does not pass a single criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN. The article serves as a PROMO for the subject, a musician. I fail to understand, how it add's to encyclopaedic value.

Please also remember to WP:AGF and wait for a source analysis from an uninvolved editor without a COI. Retro music11 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis by nominator, following newly added sources by the article creator, who's also the sole contributor to adding information on this BLP:

1 - Interview (subject talking about herself) and the source is cited 5 times for fact-checking
2 - Interview / PR
3 - TRIVIAL mention about the subject not amounting to WP:SIGCOV. Article is about Celebrity singing coach David Jaanz
4 - Unbylined Media Release - TRIVIAL mention about the subject joining a new talent agency in 2024
5 - Non WP:RS - A Private Limited Company Tabloid
6 - Trivia - ONE-WORD mention about the subject, not adding to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV
7 - Clash - Bylined release announcement
8 - WP:NEWSORGINDIA - Her reaction to criticism. Nothing to indicate notability or a WP:MUSICIAN pass
9 - TRIVIAL mention, can be use to confirm that her release exists. No WP:SIGCOV or notability indicated.
10 - Vevo Streaming Link
11 - About her label and nothing in-depth about the subject.

The only reliable source available is Source #7 Clash - an announcement about her release. However, a single WP:RS isn't enough for WP:GNG. Regardless of the number of sources involved, their nature/content should be taken into consideration, none of which indicate that the subject passes WP:NMUSICIAN. And we're not a platform for PROMO. Having said that, I've requested independent source analysis from interested editors since the beginning of this discussion. Note to closing administrator : The keep comes from the article creator. Retro music11 (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO#3 with a platinum record confirmed by this reliable source. The subject also has charted several times in both the UK and New Zealand, both nationally and in specialty charts, and all compliant with WP:SUITCHARTS. I have not done a full review of the further sources, but a quick look does indicate some usable coverage from which can be used. ResonantDis_tortion 19:28, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline states musicians "may" be notable if they have a platinum record or chart. Notability is not inherent for these. Stating it "does indicate" is fine until it is at AfD. Can you show the significant coverage (bylined, non-churnalism) supporting the claim of notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ResonantDistortion You've added unsourced information on the article page that her single titled "Use Me" charted at 13. Where did you get this data from? Since this data is devoid a WP:RS, I'm considering it a WP:SYNTH or even a WP:HOAX as of now. Your keep is solely based on those chart positions, ignoring that the benchmark for notability is WP:GNG which needs SIGCOV in sources independent of the subject. You've also stated that you have not yet reviewed the sources. Then why do you lean towards keep, without source analysis?

I also want to add to this discussion that, while this article was created, and just before nominating it for deletion, there was another False claim that "Her EP went viral, with over 5 billion views on TikTok and 300 million organic streams". Similarly, even that couldn't be verified elsewhere on certified databases. However, it was added anyway to a BLP. Retro music11 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 There's no official database source till now to confirm the platinum sales. @ResonantDistortion Clash and articles aren't official databases for record certifications. Perhaps such and similarly conclusions on this particularly page have been coming from self-aligned interviews. Inspite of earlier proved concerns of WP:SYNTH, why are we still not looking at reliable sources to confirm those claims? Retro music11 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was for ResonantDistortion. You have replied multiple times after someone comments or votes. I would recommend stepping away and letting the discussion run. Your contention has been made and adding to it with walls of texts is not going to help it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator, @Retro music11, in this diff, has removed content fully cited to the reliable sources Music Week, Clash (magazine), and the Official Charts Company. For the record, the sources are [33], [34], and [35]. @Retro music11, can you please confirm if you have a WP:COI on this subject? ResonantDis_tortion 22:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mislead the discussion. I've adressed you on the talk page, I've left an editing summary as well, still you chose to selectively skip that. You've not replied to me there but chose to place false allegations on me. Retro music11 (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ResonantDistortion Regarding COI, absolutely not because I did not add an unsourced claim like you did, you added "Her single "Use Me" charted at 13." Why did you add this? Did you have a COI while adding this claim? Retro music11 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for confirming. If you looked at the citations I added, and also listed above, you will clearly see why I added "Use Me". I will now provide the link again: [36]. ResonantDis_tortion 22:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And again, your provided link does not show "Use Me". Please tell us where did you get that information from? Retro music11 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Use Me" is clearly listed under the heading "Official British Asian Music Chart", with a peak position of #13. If you need guidance on how to use the Official Charts Company database correctly, please let me know. I am reinserting "killer", "Use Me", and the double platinum single; all verified by reliable sources. I have also identified and added further charting per [37]. Please cease removing cited content to enable as good assessment of the subject as possible. ResonantDis_tortion 07:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Providing clarification to [User:ResonantDistortion|ResonantDistortion]] allegation - Since this article has been nominated, I the nominator, Retro music11 has removed the following claims for reasons as below. Every editor on this discussion can have a look:

1 - "her single "We Are One" was the India national cricket team's anthem in the Cricket World Cup" - Reason: FALSE CLAIM WP:HOAX
2 - The EP went viral, with over 5 billion views on TikTok and 300 million organic streams - Reason: FALSE CLAIM WP:HOAX
3 - "Use Me" charted at 13 added by ResonantDistortion- I removed this because it was unsourced - Reason: UNSOURCED CLAIM
4 - She is platinum-certified argued by ResonantDistortion- : Reason Claim cannot be verified on official databases and even though Clash is a WP:RS, it's not a sales certifying authority
5 - Paid press release - Reason Non-WP:RS
6- Sources that don't talk about the subject/ Or sources that are reliable but irrelevant to verify claims for this subject or mention claims about some other subject
7 - Someone else's discography added as main release for this subject by and source cited at that time mentioned her as an aid.

And ResonantDistortion is now questioning whether I have a COI. Does that imply ResonantDistortion had a COI while adding some of the above (3.4,7)? And did ResonantDistortion have a COI while voting - Keep and also at the same time stating "But I've not gone through the sources". I never alleged that they had a COI but this just goes to show where some of the WP:SYNTH in this article is coming from. The contributions lack explanation but the intention of the one who rectifies the error is at question. And ResonantDistortion still has the courtesy to question my intent. Retro music11 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly advise the nominator to read WP:BLUDGEON. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails SIGCOV and GNG. Just a pack of lies and misinformation to make this person appear notable. SamBordoloi (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite - there are reliable sources verifying the subject meets both WP:MUSICBIO criteria #2 and #3. ResonantDis_tortion 12:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have admitted above of not doing a full review of the sources. Please be assured that I have done this job sincerely. Based on guidelines, this person fails WP:SIGCOV and GNG. Based on paid media and interviews, anybody can become notable. SamBordoloi (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC which is the bare minimum for biographies and arguably also meets WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in CLASH magazine: two articles including an article about Celina Sharma's collaboration with Stonebwoy and Ivorian Doll on "Lights Down", as well as a feature article (even if part of the article is a Q&A interview, which doesn't count toward notability, the introduction includes 6 paragraphs written in the journalist's own voice). There is also an article in Hindustan Times about Celina Sharma's song in the Marvel film The Eternals, which balances both the criticism of the song by fans for "not being Bollywood enough" as well as Sharma's defense of the song. Coverage in reliable sources per Cite Unseen spans 2020 to 2023, including the early recognition by the BBC Asian Network Future Sounds list and the music chart lists of her singles (on Official Charts and Aotearoa Music Charts), showing WP:SUSTAINED interest in the artist's music during this period. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In view of the above keep made by Cielquiparle, who's also the Article creator and after taking into consideration the improvements they've made thereafter, below is the source assessment table including the newly added sources :

Source assessment table prepared by User:Retro music11
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.clashmusic.com/features/in-conversation-celina-sharma/	Interview/Q&A (Used 5 times for validating claims on this article	statements made by the subject, fails verification	interview	✘ No
https://themusic.com.au/features/meet-celina-sharma-a-rising-star-teasing-her-debut-ep-with-a-new-single-her-wrongs/BR27GRgbGh0/05-07-21	Interview	Statements not independent of the subject, cannot be used for fact-checking	promotional interview	✘ No
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/north-shore/celebrity-singing-coach-david-jaanz-searching-for-budding-the-voice-and-x-factor-stars-at-new-sydney-studio/news-story/835af9a3bec979991e395a58c6b3b908	Statements made by the subject's coach, not a journalistic coverage which is entirely independent of the subject		Trivial mention, the article's main subject is Vocal Coach David Jaanz	✘ No
https://indiantelevision.com/mam/dharma-cornerstone-agencys-music-division-onboards-new-talents/	Media release by subject's talent agency		Trivial mentionl	✘ No
https://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_27th_july_2024			contributor must clarify which page	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/latestnews/2020-asian-network-future-sounds	not related to the subject, mentions 10 emerging artist, and this subject isn't one among them			✘ No
https://www.clashmusic.com/news/celina-sharma-stonebwoy-ivorian-doll-team-up-on-lights-down/	upcoming release promotion, mentioning check out their dazzling video		announcent about subject's release	✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/music/eternals-singer-celina-sharma-reacts-to-criticism-against-nach-mera-hero-says-it-s-a-hollywood-movie-101636194331533.html	article on subject's reaction	Likely WP:NEWSORGINDIA		✘ No
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CA766790729&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=fa757880			3 sentences	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/sep/25/were-asked-are-your-parents-ok-with-it-girls-like-you-on-trying-to-be-the-first-big-british-asian-girl-band	article about British Asian Girl Band		1 word, literally 'One Word Mention' about the subject, why is this even added as a source?	✘ 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}}.

And regarding this subject being platinum certified, there's still No official record available. here's a link to the database https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=Celina+Sharma#search_section with 'Result Not Found'. Retro music11 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets SNG with 8 songs that charted and a platinum certification (for which we have RS). The source analysis above is unreasonably harsh, because it dismisses independent parts of the coverage that are included prior to the interviews. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if input from additional editors can help establish a consensus. For those who already participated, you've said a lot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Naeem Khan (diplomat)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Diplomats are not inherently notable, there is no in depth coverage of this person. Mkrosman (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 21:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the depth of coverage and notability is being challenged, it is significant to note that stubs shouldn't be removed because of their size. The sources are relevant and more can be found in the future. Also I am having a hard time seeing how it fails WP:BIO. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course, no topic is "inherently notable". There does seem to be a reasonable presumption that additional sources likely exist for some topics. These still depend on following our sourcing criteria. An ambassador (Head of Mission) seems more likely to have the sourcing to advance notability than, say, a lower-ranking "chargé d'affaires a.i." Some evidence can be seen at Ambassadors of the United States or likely any of the lists. There are exceptions.

I seem to have some difficulty finding sources. It seems there is some confusion between "Ambassador" Muhammad Naeem Khan (diplomat) and H.E. Muhammad Naeem Khan, or just Naeem Khan. I hope this is just a case of location bias. Ping me if sourcing advancing notability is found. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city ^‽ 03:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Gul Akbar Zeb

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

Fails WP:BIO. Diplomats are not inherently notable, there is no in-depth coverage of this person. Referenced sources are either unreliable or primary. Mkrosman (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 21:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jahan Zeb of Swat his grandfather as an alternative to deletion. Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability aside (and there's no evidence of meeting notability requirements) the article would have to be completely rewritten to be encyclopedic as it is currently effectively a résumé. Oppose a redirect to his grandfather because that article contains no real information on him. AusLondonder (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Alhorr

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

Most sources in this article cover the organization (GORD) rather than the person himself, which does not establish personal notability per WP:BIO. فيصل (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Qatar. فيصل (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at the sources, there is coverage about Gulf Organisation for Research and Development (GORD), but not much about this individual. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that's correct. Most sources do feature the individual as a key player (being the sole founder of the organizations linked). Perhaps the discussion should be about how to make use of the latest sources and interviews featuring him, as opposed to contesting the old ones. Syedafarwazahra (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Contesting the nomination for deletion
The nominator suggests the coverage focuses primarily on the Gulf Organization for Research & Development. However, the sources confirm they meet the requirements for individual notability for the following reasons:
1. Global Thought Leadership: A review of available digital records and search results reveals a consistent pattern of his quotes, technical insights, and leadership being cited by independent entities worldwide. Many of his exclusive interviews (including CNBC and Carbon Pulse) show up on google search even though they aren't mentioned in this Wikipedia page.
2. Direct Attribution: The cited articles explicitly credit the Chairman's leading role in the projects and scientific contributions mentioned. As editors and academic writers, we maintain that these references are valid secondary sources that verify his individual impact.
3. Source Validity: These references serve to verify his significant contributions to [mention field, e.g., sustainability/climate science] and his role as a key figure in regional infrastructure developments.
FarahMatraji (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has AI been used to write this comment? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the answer is yes. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources do feature the individual as a key player (being the sole founder of the organizations linked). Perhaps the discussion should be about how to make use of the latest sources and interviews featuring him, as opposed to contesting the old ones. Syedafarwazahra (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dtqx1dEAAAAJ&hl=en Syedafarwazahra (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Torrón

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

The article seems to fail WP:GNG and is almost entirely Original Research. It is clear that Torron is a working music journalist in Uruguay, but there seems to be very little, if any, significant coverage of the man himself (the possible exception being coverage in the local news website "Montevideo Portal"). Boynamedsue (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Uruguay. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 19:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's a fair diagnosis of the problem with the article. The significant coverage is not about him as the subject. He's tangential to most of the sources, and someone synthesized them into the article's copy. Spanish Wikipedia's article on him is a little better, but seems to suffer from the same defect. If there were a few more sources specifically about him or his books, it should be kept. But based on what's here, it's hard to argue against this nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Andres Torron's books and works are referenced in various Wikipedia entries such as:

Uruguayan rock

Almendra (Almendra album)

Ruben Melogno

América Invertida (album)

Jaime Roos

Hugo Fattoruso

Alfredo Zitarrosa

Rubén Rada

~2026-21266-23 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

keep . I think the entry has reliable information and has enough secondary sources (i.e: articles about Torron and his music and books in newspapers like El Pais and La Diaria). (it is true that more can be added). And as is mentioned above Torron works are used as secondary sources in various Wikipedia entries. ArtistadeUruguay (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SIGCOV. SamBordoloi (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable SIGCOV exists. In particular, his book received favorabe review and special jury mention for Graffiti Awards. His book Mediocampo also got attention [38] or [39] --Altenmann >talk 23:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barua

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

notability concerns, and might not meet wiki guidelines. most sources lack extensive coverage, and some are advertorials Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Assam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I spent a long time before creating this article reviewing whether the subject met notability, and I only created it after concluding that the stronger independent sources provided enough non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. So I’ll try to address everything you’ve said. Firstly, you say there are “notability concerns” and that the subject “might not meet wiki guidelines.” Following WP:GNG, the we need to assess whether there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Yes “Significant coverage” is more than a trivial mention, but it says in WP:GNG it does “not require the subject to be the main topic of the source material”. When I was creating this, I noticed the better sources don’t just trivially list Paul Barua as an officeholder or mention him in passing. Most of the article and better sources discuss his own administrative decisions and initiatives across multiple years, including COVID governance in Dima Hasao, election administration after 2021 polling-booth irregularity, and later further initiatives in Charaideo. I think it is cumulative, substantive coverage of the subject as a decision-maker, and definitely not just trivial passings in most cases. You also say that “most sources lack extensive coverage.” There are many sources which do have extensive coverage of his decisions. Sources describing his actions in detail include: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 among others. Also, he is covered in national outlets such as IndiaToday, TheHindu, The Times of India so I don’t think he is just an unimportant local actor. A lot of sources do not have extensive coverage but they were not used to establish notability and most for supporting claims in the article. For “some are advertorials,” I agree that any “advertorial” sources should be removed; any I included were just trying to make the article more substantial and not a stub but happy to help source and remove them. I dont think here being cleanup issues is a reason to delete a topic that is supported by multiple reliable, independent, non-trivial sources under WP:GNG. Hence, I think it definitely passes WP:GNG. THeShavidow1 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't hold a notable position, a simple functionary. I don't see notability based on what's given, just a person doing their job, that doesn't appear much different than any other of the hundreds of such people all over the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an argument related to WP:GNG. The question is not whether Deputy Commissioner is inherently a “notable position,” or whether the subject is “a simple functionary.” Per WP:GNG, the question is whether this individual has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

Saying that he was “just doing his job” is also not a guideline-based argument per WP:GNG. Many articles are about people whose notability comes from sourced coverage of what they did in office, not that being an officeholder did automatically confer notability on him. If the sources here were limited to appointment notices, transfers, or trivial mentions, I would agree there was no case. There is far more coverage in the article that just trivial mentions and discusses his actions in depth per significant coverage.

I dont think because “hundreds of such people exist” is also a valid argument. Many such people are indeed non-notable, but some meet GNG because of the extent and substance of the independent coverage. In this case, the argument for notability is based on the sourcing, not because he is a minor officeholder. THeShavidow1 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A person doing a routine job isn't notable, no matter how many sources we have. Joe Blow Office Worker isn't notable is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What’s the point of WP:GNG then if individual editors get to decide based on their own personal opinions what a “Joe Blow Office Worker” is and who isn’t? + if it is a “routine job”, why do we have pages on any civil servants at all? Literally every civil servant would meet your category of “routine job” if this case isn’t notable. That’s literally the point of the GNG because it looks at sourcing and whether there is enough significant independent coverage, per wikipedia guidelines, not just the personal opinions of editors who for whatever reason consider certain jobs “routine” in their view. THeShavidow1 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't meet NPOL if that helps. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
or ANYBIO, just because you have been covered in media doesn't make you notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Literally per WP:Basic that’s how we define notability - it literally 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.” - this article has received plenty of significant coverage so not really sure why you’re arguing against the additional criteria which I never said he fit.

Again, not sure why you think why we have pages for any civil servants at all by your logic. Obviously they dont fir NPOL and a lot dont fit ANYBIO - they exist because of GNG and the basic criteria - fits for this one. THeShavidow1 (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is this person notable for? The article reads as a person doing their job, not much different than any other person in a similar position, that's the ANYBIO part. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO states:

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field no

He's not listed in the national biography, nor won a significant award, which are the other two categories. I'm not sure organizing meetings as part of his job is a "widely recognized contribution". The sources you've provided just talk about a person doing their job; I'm not sure why they would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Literally just before the ANYBIO bit above, it states “ A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.”. That’s what Im arguing, not ANYBIO. THeShavidow1 (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, almost any civil servant biography will read as a person “doing their job”; look at the article for the cabinet secretary of india (im not saying this article is notable because of that per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just pointing out what civil servant articles are often like). That is not unusual; it is just how it often writes. The real question is whether the coverage of that work is substantial enough under WP:GNG, and my arguments above show that in my opinion he meets it.

If the objection is really to the fact that GNG can make some civil servant articles notable, that is a separate issue. This AfD is supposed to be about whether this particular subject meets the current guideline, not whether someone dislikes the result of applying it. THeShavidow1 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's all I have to say about this. We'll let the process play out. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This person is well known in North East India. Please try to keep if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamBordoloi (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets GNG

AssamABwithUK (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

— AssamABwithUK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 03:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm really sorry, but I'm with Oaktree on this. He looks like a worthy man, doing a worthy job, but just doing what civil servants do everywhere. Some jobs automatically generate newspaper sourcing in the moment of their being done; civil servants enact policies that are reported in newspapers. We need more than a job. I'll pick one example that I think illustrates the problem, ref 35 "Charaideo DC urges banks to open more branches in rural areas". Note that the title doesn't say "Barua", it says "Charaideo DC", implying that the position is more important to the reporter than the occupant, and that the article is reporting on the situation, the happening, the action of the DC, rather than personally about Barua. I appreciate the distinction is fine, but I think we need substantial secondary reporting about a person themselves, rather than primary reporting about the actions taken by their office, before we can justify a full Wikipedia article. Maybe we need a sister-project "wiki-who's-who" for biographies like this? Elemimele (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think this sets the bar for notability a bit too high? Under WP:SIGCOV, it states that the topic “does not need to be the main topic of the source material” so not really convinced about your headline argument, but even regarding that these sources also mention him directly by name in the headline 1 2 3 4 5 6.

Regarding your actual argument about the office vs occupant, I dont think the article is a person is doing their job and there are sources so it’s notable. It’s about Paul Barua (like other civil servants) repeatedly taking decisions, managing crises, intervening and responding to issues across various different contexts etc which I think satisfies GNG. I think the actual distinction is it’s coverage of him as a person in his official capacity, rather than just his job, which I accept.

My main problem with this argument is that if we required profile-style sources for every officeholder (who doesnt hold an automatically notable office), most officeholders would fail GNG, despite IND SIGCOV of their actions. Id also point out there’s significant coverage in other media sources (not in english) 1 2 3 such as these which I have not included in the article.

Im really sorry to keep writing these really long arguments but if I were to summarise: for public officials, coverage of their actions often comes with their decisions and actions in office - in my opinion that doesn’t make it non-biographical or irrelevant to GNG. THeShavidow1 (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We simply can't have an article for each and every civil servant in office; that's not the focus of Wikipedia. There needs to be some distinction made as to who gets an article, we need information showing why this person is distinct from others in a similar position. "Man doing job" isn't really the standard we use for Wikipedia, and most of these article simply report on the position. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is significant coverage; most civil servants dont have that. That’s how we distinguish, it’s what our guidelines say. I think I’ve shown that this article meets that, if you disagree then that’s fine - but you seem to be arguing against the basic principle of notability rather than this article not meeting guidelines. THeShavidow1 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to stick to guideline policy-based arguments but I will comment this as I feel like we’re going around in circles. I’m not stupid, I obviously understand not every civil servant could have a wikipedia article. But there are millions of civil servants in India, and I think you’ll find a very very small fraction have the level of significant coverage that this subject does. That’s how we establish notability - not by job title or whatever - significant coverage in sources. THeShavidow1 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just wanted to comment this for other editors who want to contribute to the discussion.

In my view, an officeholder is not disqualified from being notable purely because their SIGCOV arises from their work in their office. Public officials can be notable from what they do in their office; for public officials and civil servants who arent automatically notable for their position, independent coverage arises through their actions taken in office and their responses - and I dont think coverage of independently sourced actions is irrelevant to GNG.

I believe his work in office is relevant as it generated significant repeated coverage of Paul Barua as a decision maker. Im not arguing that public service alone means somebody is notable, but instead that sourcing about Barua’s actions in office cumulatively establishes notability under GNG. As I mentioned earlier, I think an AFD is about looking at whether the current article meets the guidelines, not whether us editors dislike the result of it being applied, (in this case making civil servants notable). THeShavidow1 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't think he passes on that count either. Looking at both the article and the sourcing, he seems to have chaired a lot of meetings in which decisions were taken. As the chair, it is often his signature on the announcement of the committee's decision, but things like this [40] are routine announcements, doing barely more than (literally) reproducing a primary document, which itself says it is a decision "taken in the meeting". This is good administration, but absolutely not the stuff of encyclopedias. A civil servant is likely to be notable if there are big controversies surrounding their actions, or if they make major nation-changing policies (which is actually very rare, that being the role of elected politicians) - or if they are notable for other reasons beyond their civil service. Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my view if you look at the sourcing (not just one individual source) you will see the cumulative influence of the substantial coverage - I dont dispute that some sources are weaker than others, like the one you’ve provided, I just included it to try and make the article as detailed as possible as I do whenever I create pages - but maybe that’s a fault of me as an editor rather than this article lacking notability.

Rather than focusing on individual weak sources (which I definitely agree there are; happy to help remove them if editors wish), like I stated above, I think there’s more than enough substantial coverage of his COVID governance in Dima Hasao (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), election activities and irregularities (1 2 3 4) in the 2021 election, initiatives in Charaideo (1 2 3) etc. Other significant coverage not in the article as well includes 1 2 3. I get your point about the chair stuff - but I definitely would not argue that implementing COVID measures is “routine” given that they were district specific and also different everywhere - it seemed be Barua and his administration’s actions which I consider notable.

I dont think civil service notability is limited to just “big controversies surrounding their actions, or if they make major nation-changing policies” - I really dont want to violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but not all the civil service pages we have fit that - a lot are notable from the SIGCOV of their actions in office which are not necessarily nationally important e.g. Barua’s brother Jishnu Barua, Armstrong Pame etc. (Not saying Paul Barua is notable per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because those pages are, just trying to illustrate why I disagree with the premise of that argument.

Im not saying that there are no weak sources with unimportant details and the article is far from perfect, but I still dont see how he doesnt pass GNG with the amount of SIGCOV of the stated actions above. THeShavidow1 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’ve contributed enough to this discussion, so I’ll just say one final thing in response to this delete argument. The notability of this article doesnt rely on “meeting notices” or routine chairing reports. My argument is that the sourcing goes way beyond that and provides substantial coverage of his COVID governance, election-related administration and initiatives in Charaideo. Even if the weaker sources are discounted, I don’t see how the cumulative coverage doesnt satisfy GNG. THeShavidow1 (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts to Judaism from paganism

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

I did not find independent secondary reliable sources which created a similar list, so it fails WP:NLIST. This is unsurprising, since modern religious studies do not use the term 'paganism', as more descriptive and accurate terms are often avaliable. There may be sources that I am unaware of, but even then this list is too short to meet WP:NOPAGE, so it should be merged with List of converts to Judaism in that scenario. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Religion, Judaism, and Paganism. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of these bizarre religious lists are clear WP:NLIST fails. Some on the Hindu areas there were enough sources for I guess, but not this one. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC) — Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of PapaTakaro (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of converts to Judaism, I can see the NLIST argument, but I think the list in this case is more of a informational/navigation aid for readers per MOS:LISTPURP-NAV, that purpose is also well served at the proposed merge target and addresses some of the stand alone list notability concerns brought up by the nom. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of converts to Christianity from Islam Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 13:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts to Buddhism from Christianity

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

Fails WP:NLIST because no independent, secondary, reliable source has created a similar listing. I did not find material that would suggest a page such as Conversion to Buddhism from Christianity would be notable either. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Religion, Buddhism, and Christianity. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The list is a valid and useful encyclopedic topic. It includes notable individuals with existing articles, meeting WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN. Religious conversion between major traditions is well documented in reliable sources, so the topic is clearly verifiable per WP:V.

If there are issues with specific entries, they can be improved rather than deleting the entire list per WP:ATD. Star Rider X ❯❯❯ 💌 11:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it’s notable and niche enough to be a legitimate list that is unvague. It meets the listing criteria. DapperJakartan (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have previously had a habit of bludgeoning, so I will now be responding to the allegation that the article meets the listing critiera after it has reached some significant support. Note that this article could be merged to List of converts to Buddhism, but my count suggests that everyone listed here is already listed there. A redirection may be in order. However, why is it that this specific list is allowed to exist per WP:LISTPURPOSE, when

Of course, I do not mean to engage in the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, being mostly descriptive rather than prescriptive, follow community consensus. This consensus was based on WP:OVERCAT, which violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE. Note that people listed would must be notable for converting to Buddhism and from Christianity to satisfy WP:LISTPURP if they do not meet the external coverage requirement of WP:NLIST. This is clearly not the case here, and if you look at the various people who are listed here's biographies, you will not see much mention of their former (and sometimes even current) religion (about half the entries). Some of these people are notable for being major Buddhist figures, but their previous religion is mentioned only in passing (the other half). My deletion nomination is not to express a disdain or hostility towards Buddhism, but these lists generally should not exist barring significant coverage (WP:NLIST). Indeed, I have previously nominated many (as seen above) and have contemporaneously nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of converts to Judaism from paganism. These issues are intrinsic to this page, and cannot be fixed per WP:ATD Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 23:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I don’t see any valid policy-based reason for deletion. The list has a clear scope and meets WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:LISTPURPOSE, with entries supported by reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS.

The idea that people must be notable specifically for converting misreads WP:NLIST. Their general notability is enough, and the list is based on a shared, sourced characteristic.

This is not an indiscriminate directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTDATABASE. It’s a defined and sourced list. Any issues should be fixed by improving sourcing, according to WP:ATD and also WP:PRESERVE. Josh Katz 12 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not find any valid reason to delete or merge this article. It meets the requirements of WP:GNG with sufficient reliable sources, and there is no clear basis under WP:DEL or WP:MERGE to justify removal or merging. Josh Katz 12 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a misunderstanding of WP:NLIST. A list does not need a source that already collects it. It only needs notable and verifiable entries, which this list has (see WP:LISTN and WP:V).

The individuals already have articles and sourced information, so the list is verifiable and encyclopedic. Many Wikipedia lists are built from reliable sources, even if no single source collects them, per WP:LISTPURPOSE. Any issues can be improved per WP:ATD. ®️ICK JOSEPH (🗯️) 14:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the mentioned precedents. Zalaraz (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree here with the nom that this fails WP:NLIST as a list and that until coverage of these as a list changes, then there is no ATD but to "D" the article. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC) — Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of PapaTakaro (talk · contribs). [reply]
Sorry for the last minute intervention. I agree that this doesn't meet NLIST, as I haven't seen a source discussing converts specifically from Christianity to Buddhism as a group. However, I just noticed that we have List of converts to Buddhism#From Christianity, which is blank and points to this page. May I instead suggest a merge to List of converts to Buddhism#From Christianity? @EasternShah, @Zalaraz, @Iljhgtn. Toadspike [Talk] 16:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with @Toadspike: , currently the #From_Chrisitanity section in list of converts to Buddhism is empty and just links to the AFDd article. nahleghini (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nahleghini I don’t think a merge is necessary here. The content is valid, it’s better to improve it rather than merge it unnecessarily. See WP:Summary style Josh Katz 12 (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
that doesn't matter if it doesn't meet the notability criteria for lists, GNG alone is not enough for lists and WP:NLIST states this. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kelob2678 (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, similar to this nom, I can see the NLIST argument, but I think the list in this case is more of a informational/navigation aid for readers per MOS:LISTPURP-NAV, that purpose is also well served at the proposed merge target and addresses some of the stand alone list notability concerns brought up by the nom. This could also be solved by making a category out of it. The reasons for the merge would be WP:OVERLAP and WP:MERGENOT. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leyes (singer)

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

Proposed deletion: lack of independent, reliable sources (WP:GNG)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Delete After reviewing the article and all cited sources in detail, I believe the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, particularly WP:GNG. At first glance, the article appears to be supported by multiple references. However, a closer examination shows a consistent pattern: the sources are not independent, not truly secondary, and do not provide significant coverage of the subject.

Most of the sources fall into the following problematic categories: Interviews and self-narrative profiles (e.g., La Nación, Infobae): these are based largely on statements made by the subject himself, with little to no independent analysis. Promotional or PR-style content (e.g., music release articles from CMTV, Diario Social, Cronos): these are routine announcements of singles, collaborations, or appearances, written in a promotional tone and lacking editorial depth. Syndicated or agency-based content (e.g., Daily Mirror via Jam Press): these pieces are often derived from press materials or subject-provided information, not independent reporting. Sponsored or branded content (e.g., Forbes “Content”, Billboard “Contenidos”, and similar contributor sections): although hosted on reputable domains, these are explicitly not editorial content and therefore not independent. Corporate or self-published profiles: biographical descriptions that resemble branding material rather than independent coverage. Event mentions and trivial coverage: brief references to participation in events that do not constitute significant, in-depth coverage.

Additionally, some sources repeat identical or near-identical wording across platforms, suggesting that the content originates from the subject, his company, or associated entities, and is then redistributed across multiple outlets. This creates an appearance of coverage but does not meet Wikipedia’s requirement for independent sourcing.

There is also relevant context from related editing activity: one of the contributors associated with similar articles, RichImmigrants, acknowledged having a relationship with the subject and related entities in the Spanish Wikipedia [41]. That user was blocked due to conflict-of-interest concerns, and later recognized the issue and agreed not to continue editing those topics. While the user is no longer blocked, this history reinforces the pattern that much of the content surrounding this subject may be influenced by non-independent contributors.

Crucially, there is an absence of in-depth, third-party analysis. Also, critical or evaluative coverage and sustained attention from independent, reliable sources. In other words, the sourcing reflects promotion and amplification, not independent notability. Per WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources is required. That standard is not met here. Given the above, the article does not currently meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements and should be deleted. Taty2007 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

:Hi there. I would like to offer some context that I believe is relevant to this discussion:

Regarding the conflict of interest claim, the nominator references my editing activity and states that I "acknowledged having a relationship with the subject." However, reviewing the actual record on Spanish Wikipedia, what I explicitly stated was: "I am not receiving and do not expect to receive compensation for my edits to Wikipedia." The block was subsequently lifted by Taty2007 herself after I agreed not to edit articles related to this topic. No COI was formally established, the block was resolved and the matter closed. It is worth noting that the same editor now nominating this article for deletion is the one who lifted my block after I made that declaration. Using a resolved and lifted block as evidence of COI in a deletion discussion is not consistent with how that evidence should be applied. Please do not confuse with this other statement in my Spanish discussion page (replying to PatriHorillo there): "When I typed "as an editor with a conflict of interest," it wasn’t a specific statement but rather a hint at the fact that any editor working on topics that interest them may have a biased perspective without realizing it-without necessarily declaring any specific conflict of interest."

Regarding the article itself: From what I can see, this article has existed on English Wikipedia since 2023 (I have not created it - as an extra information) with references that predate any of the edits now under scrutiny. The question of whether the article meets [[WP:GNG]] should be evaluated based on the article's sourcing history, not on the editing history of a since-unblocked user whose contributions were already reverted by other editors. Those reversions were appropriate and I accepted them. But the existence of problematic recent edits does not retroactively invalidate an article that existed and was stable for years before I made any contribution to it.

Regarding the sources: The nominator characterizes nearly all coverage as either promotional, self-narrative, or syndicated. However, I believe this analysis is one-sided. The article also contains coverage from journalists with named bylines reporting independently on the subject's entrepreneurial trajectory, including pieces in Perfil.com, Infobae, La Nación, Clarín and MDZ Online, all major Argentine outlets with millions of monthly readers according to publicly available traffic data, as well as TN (Todo Noticias) and multiple appearances in Forbes Argentina and Forbes USA that are not contributor or branded content sections as mentioned before. These represent organic, independent editorial coverage of a public figure's documented trajectory over several years across multiple countries.

The nomination selectively emphasizes problematic source categories while omitting the independent coverage that does exist. [[WP:GNG]] does not require that all sources be independent, but that significant coverage in reliable independent sources exists. That threshold is met here by the Argentine media coverage alone, which documents the subject's story from 2019 onward with genuine editorial depth

From my perspective, the correct response to problematic recent edits is to revert them, which already happened. RichImmigrants (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’d like to clarify the situation. You were unblocked after agreeing not to continue editing articles related to this subject and its associated entities.[42] That condition is clearly reflected in your unblock request and the resolution of your case.

Looking at your contributions, they were almost entirely focused on a very specific cluster of related topics: Kevin Leyes, Leyes Media, VVS & Co., LeyesX, Paloma Leyes, Eliana Ianni, among others. This pattern, together with the promotional tone and the type of sources used, is what raised concerns about a potential conflict of interests. As part of that process, your edits on those topics were reviewed and, where appropriate, removed by other editors.[43]

This concern was not limited to Spanish Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, you also received a warning regarding possible paid editing or conflict of interests. While you clarified that you were not receiving compensation, another editor still pointed out that your edits appeared to promote a single individual and relied on PR-style or non-independent sources.[44] So the issue here is not whether the editing was paid, but the consistent pattern: focus on one subject, closely related entities, and use of sources that do not meet independence standards. This is also consistent with your own message at the time, where you acknowledged that your perspective could be partial.[45]

To be clear, this is only being provided as context. The current discussion is not based on your past editing history, but on whether the article meets WP:GNG through independent, reliable, secondary sources.Taty2007 (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks for the clarification, Taty. I wanted to address the sourcing concerns directly, since I believe some of the characterizations in the nomination are not fully accurate.

After reviewing the sources cited in the article carefully, and exploring sources in Google, I want to correct some specific points:

Regarding Billboard: The nomination references "Billboard Contenidos" as sponsored content. However, both Billboard links in the article fall under standard editorial sections, not sponsored placements:

https://billboard.ar/entrevistas/leyes-el-artista-y-emprendedor-de-22-anos-fundador-de-los-reyes/ - published under the ''Entrevistas'' (Interviews) section by editorial staff
https://billboard.ar/industria/leyes-media-firmo-acuerdo-con-paloma-leyes/ - published under the ''Industria'' (Industry news) section

Regarding Forbes: Not all Forbes references are contributor or branded content:

https://www.forbesargentina.com/innovacion/asi-como-kevin-leyes-joven-argentino-merlo-fundo-empresas-crear-negocios-impacto-estados-unidos-n75098 - Forbes Argentina editorial, ''Innovación'' (Innovation) section, not sponsored or paid.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shamahyder/2020/09/03/a-playbook-for-marketing-to-latino-millennials/ - Forbes USA, bylined by journalist/contributor Shama Hyder, not a branded or sponsored article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jodiecook/2026/02/17/10-ai-companies-empowering-people-instead-of-replacing-them/ - Forbes USA, bylined by journalist Jodie Cook, February 2026

Regarding Argentine coverage: Every single one of the following is a bylined article written by a named journalist, not press releases, or syndicated copies:

https://www.infobae.com/tendencias/2019/04/12/quien-es-el-programador-argentino-de-18-anos-que-representara-al-pais-en-silicon-valley/ - Infobae, 2019, named journalist
https://www.clarin.com/zonales/moron/eligieron-30-mil-jovenes-ir-meca-tecnologia_0_ZdXUy-11B.html - Clarín, 2019, named journalist
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/kevin-leyes-el-autodidacta-que-llego-a-silicon-valley-nid2261630 - La Nación, 2019, named journalist
https://www.perfil.com/noticias/actualidad/kevin-leyes-joven-argentino-busca-ser-el-proximo-steve-jobs-gonzalez-catan.phtml - Perfil, 2019, named journalist
https://www.infobae.com/economia/2020/01/11/la-historia-de-kevin-leyes-el-joyero-de-trap-argentino-que-tiene-19-anos-nacio-en-un-barrio-humilde-y-estudio-en-silicon-valley/ - Infobae, 2020, journalist Sebastián Catalano
https://www.clarin.com/zonales/chico-merlo-disena-joyas-traperos-momento_0_jIIr_wje.html - Clarín, 2020, journalist María Victoria Pirraglia
https://www.mdzol.com/sociedad/2020/4/30/ayudar-la-app-que-permite-conectar-donantes-voluntarios-con-personas-vulnerables-ongs-75977.html - MDZ Online, 2020, named journalist
https://tn.com.ar/tecno/internet/2020/05/07/hablamos-con-kevin-leyes-el-emprendedor-de-19-anos-que-creo-una-plataforma-para-ayudar-durante-la-pandemia/ - TN (Todo Noticias), 2020, named journalist
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/pandemia-tiene-19-varios-negocios-es-pontevedra-nid2360238 - La Nación, second independent feature, 2020, named journalist
https://tn.com.ar/sociedad/2025/10/04/paso-hambre-durmio-en-el-piso-abrazado-a-su-perro-en-su-casa-de-merlo-y-hoy-lidera-negocios-en-miami/ - TN, 2025, named journalist

These outlets, Infobae, Clarín, La Nación, Perfil, MDZ Online, TN, are among the most-read news sources in Argentina, with combined monthly readerships in the tens of millions. The presence of a named journalist in each article is a direct indicator of independent editorial production.

Regarding international coverage:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/uni-dropout-20-now-runs-23435786 - The Mirror (UK), journalist Amy Heather
https://uk.entrepreneur.com/marketing/leyesx-how-ceo-kevin-leyes-is-merging-ai-cybersecurity/495947 - Entrepreneur UK, seems to be an editorial/staff piece (it reads "edited by Entrepreneur UK"), not sponsored.

I am sharing this source research not to advocate for any particular outcome, but simply to make these references visible to editors who are better positioned than I am to evaluate them properly.

As has been noted, I made errors in sourcing and tone that resulted in my edits being reverted, which was appropriate.

However, I do believe the underlying sources exist and are worth evaluating on their own merits, independently of who brought them to this discussion. If experienced editors reviewing this deletion nomination find that any of these references meet Wikipedia's standards for independence and reliability, they are of course free to use them as they see fit in improving the article - or not, based on their own judgment.

Thanks for your time RichImmigrants (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After going through all the sources in detail, including those listed above, I still do not see evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. I want to clarify that the issue is not whether the outlets are well-known (Infobae, Clarín, La Nación, etc.), or whether the articles have bylines. The key question is the nature of the coverage, not just where it appears.

When looking closely at the Argentine sources (2019–2020 in particular), they follow a very consistent pattern: They are short human-interest or entrepreneurial profiles, focused on a young person’s story (learning to code, being selected for programs, launching small ventures). Much of the content is based on the subject’s own statements, with little to no independent verification or critical perspective. Several pieces repeat the same milestones (TrepCamp, Youth Ambassador, early ventures), which suggests recycled narrative rather than independent, in-depth reporting. These types of articles are common for emerging entrepreneurs, but they are generally considered routine coverage, not the kind of significant, analytical, secondary coverage required by Wikipedia.

The same issue appears in later sources: The Billboard piece about Leyes Media signing Paloma Leyes is essentially a routine business/PR announcement, centered on statements from the company and artist. It does not provide independent analysis or broader context. The MDZ and La Nación articles about the “Ayudar” app are event-based coverage tied to COVID, again largely descriptive and based on the subject’s own explanation of the project. The Daily Mirror article is syndicated content originating from Jam Press, which is widely known for distributing press-style stories; it is not independent reporting. The Entrepreneur UK article reads as a company/founder profile, with detailed descriptions of services, strategy, and future plans, but no external sourcing or critical evaluation. The Forbes Councils reference is explicitly fee-based membership content, which is not independent editorial coverage.

Even where articles are bylined, that alone does not make them independent in the sense required by WP:GNG. Many of these pieces are still interview-driven or lightly edited profiles, not in-depth journalism.

Taken together, the sources show: Repetition of the subject’s own narrative across outlets, lack of critical or third-party analysis, focus on announcements, personal story, or promotional milestones.

What is missing is exactly what WP:GNG requires is sustained, in-depth coverage from independent sources that analyze the subject’s impact or significance.

Finally, regarding the editing context, there is a clear pattern of topic-focused editing around this subject and closely related entities. The user themselves acknowledged concerns and agreed not to continue editing in these areas, and their edits on these topics were removed in Spanish Wikipedia. This does not by itself determine notability, but it reinforces the need to evaluate the sources carefully and independently of how they were introduced.

For these reasons, I do not believe the available sourcing meets Wikipedia’s notability standards, and deletion is appropriate.Taty2007 (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes the subject’s businesses as operating in Miami, Florida. However, Florida Sunbiz (the Division of Corporations), which is the official registry of the Florida Department of State where all companies formed in Florida or authorized to operate there as foreign entities are recorded, does not show any corresponding registration under the names “Leyes Media, LLC” or “LeyesX, LLC”.[46] While entities under those names appear to be registered in Delaware,[47] Florida generally requires out-of-state companies (including Delaware LLCs) to register as foreign entities if they are conducting business within the state. No such registrations are evident here, and the Delaware filings themselves provide only minimal information and do not independently clarify how these businesses are structured or operate locally. Given the scale described in the article (e.g., large client base, significant operations, and international activity), one would expect clearer and more consistent public records reflecting that presence, which are not evident.

Additionally, the article states that the subject founded “VVS (also known as VVS & Co)” as a jewelry brand. However, publicly available Florida corporate records show an active entity named “VVS & Co, LLC” (filed July 14, 2025) under different ownership, with no clear connection to the subject.[48][49] No additional entities under that name appear in the same jurisdiction. This discrepancy between the claimed business ownership and the available corporate records further raises concerns about the verifiability of key claims in the article.

More broadly, much of the cited media coverage appears to rely on self-narrated accounts of the subject’s career and business activities, with limited independent or critical analysis. The recurring promotional tone and repetition of similar claims across sources, combined with the inconsistencies noted above, suggest that the available coverage does not provide the level of independent, in-depth verification required to establish notability.

Taken together, these issues indicate that key aspects of the subject’s business claims are not independently substantiated, and that the sourcing does not meet the standards expected for a standalone article. Taty2007 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Argentina, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of sourcing problems here again: Forbes Mexico is a licensed brand of Forbes, but not under their editorial control. Many of the Forbes regional brands are absolute paid placement trash that do not mark advertorials. Given that there are many solicitations for 'guest posts', and on-site ads for branded content and 'seamless' native advertorials, I don't see why this would be a reputable option to use. Entrepreneur India is another regional brand spin-off. In this case, it's a likely self-submitted bio for his participation in a pay-to-play awards conference run by the site. The lines in the article fail to mention that it's the Indian brand, and link back to the main site. Daily Mirror is a tabloid. The balance of the Spanish material is covered above, and spot-checking it shows non-independent interviews, glowing advertorials, and PR puffery. I'm deeply concerned about the other articles in draft that straight-up used known black-hat SEO sources to bolster this person's 'businesses'. I concur with Mr. Taty's assessments.Sam Kuru (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I have found some very useful articles and five of them at least prove notability. I also discovered that he is a writer of articles for Inc. and Times of Israel. See the "As a writer" section below "Articles about Leyes",

Articles about Leyes
* ED Times, 1 Sep 2020 - Leyes Media CEO Kevin Leyes: 20-Year-Old Self-Made Entrepreneur Who is Cracking The Digital Market
USA Today', July 17, 2025 - Miami Mogul Under 30, Kevin Leyes Unveils Multi-Million Dollar Expansion for Leyes Media and LeyesX Subsidiaries - Sixteen Ramos
SF Weekly, Sep 17, 2025 - LeyesX: How Kevin Leyes Is Building Babys, a Cyber-Backed Agency for the Creator Economy
The Latin Times, Sep 19 2025 - How Latino Founder Kevin Leyes Is Building LeyesX, a Trifecta of PR, Cybersecurity, and Creator Management - Eric Hamilton
Tech Times, Sep 22 2025 - How Kevin Leyes' AI-Driven Cybersecurity Firm LeyesX Protects Billionaires from Social Engineering Attacks By Carl Williams
Sarasota Magazine, September 29, 2025 - 'Kevin Leyes: Why Privacy Has Become the New Luxury for Florida’s Ultra-Wealthy, Says LeyesX CEO
Los Angeles Magazine, Oct 7, 2025 - How Kevin Leyes is Rethinking Global Communications Through Leyes Media - William Jones
bizjournals.com, Oct 13 2025 - Inside LeyesX: Kevin Leyes’ AI cybersecurity company protecting the ultra-wealthy with digital invisibility
International Business Times, 09/18/25 - How Kevin Leyes' Cybersecurity Firm LeyesX Protects Billionaires From Losing Millions Online - Daniel Lee
Mashable Benelux, 18 december 2025 - Inside VVS & Co: How Kevin Leyes Is Reinventing the Jewelry Industry Through Music, Media, and Technology
New York Post, Jan. 15, 2026 - Fraud cost America $12.5 billion last year — LeyesX CEO Kevin Leyes built the ‘Identity Risk Governance’ framework to stop it By Ethan Stone
Flaunt Magazine - CEO-Entrepreneur-Artist Kevin Leyes Unleashes Las Babys and a New Era of Latin Glam - Written by Jorge Lucena
As a writer
The Times Of Israel, Blogs, Aug 23, 2025 - Cybersecurity: How I Stopped an Instagram Exploit Making OG Usernames Duplicable - Kevin Leyes
Inc., Dec 18, 2025 - The Next Corporate Risk No One Is Preparing For By Kevin Leyes
Inc., Jan 13, 2026 - What CEOs Should Learn From the SudamericaData Leak BY Kevin Leyes
Karl Twist (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the problem with this article it's not written write and the right sources are not used. It needs to have a fair bit of work on it and then it should be fine. Sadly I'm not up for it. But with it's faults, a deletion is not warranted in this case.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources presented do not establish notability under WP:GNG, which requires multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage. While numerous articles are listed, they fail both independence and depth requirements under WP:SIGCOV.

At first glance, the volume of sources may appear persuasive. However, a closer examination shows that they form a consistent pattern of promotional, contributor, or otherwise non-independent content, rather than genuine independent coverage. Source-by-source evaluation:

ED Times – Labeled “Brand Voice”, which explicitly denotes sponsored content. Not independent and unusable for notability.
USA Today (Contributor article) – Written by a contributor, not staff journalism, and relies on subject-driven narrative and unverified claims. Lacks independent analysis.
SF Weekly – Explicitly labeled “Marketplace Contributor Content” with disclaimer that editorial staff were not involved. Sponsored content, not independent.
Latin Times – Labeled “Business Contributor Content”. Entirely based on subject statements and narrative, with no third-party verification.
Tech Times – Profile-style article relying on repeated, unverified claims (clients, governments, pricing) with no external corroboration. Functions as PR-style coverage.
Sarasota Magazine – Explicitly labeled “Presented by Ascend Agency”. This is paid promotional content, disqualified as a reliable source.
Los Angeles Magazine – States editorial staff were not involved and categorized as Contributor Content. Non-editorial and promotional.
Business Journals – Although appearing more formal, the article relies on subject claims and unverifiable case studies, without independent confirmation or critical analysis.
International Business Times – Structured as a service/product narrative, repeating claims without independent verification or analytical depth.
Mashable Benelux – Explicitly labeled “Advertising”. This is an advertorial, completely unusable.
New York Post – Includes explicit disclaimer that editorial staff were not involved. This is non-editorial contributor content, not independent reporting.
Flaunt Magazine – Lifestyle-style profile using branding language, personal storytelling, and subject quotes, with no independent analysis or verification.

A substantial portion of the sources are explicitly non-editorial. Several are labeled as “Brand Voice,” “Marketplace Contributor Content,” or “Business Contributor Content,” while others clearly state that editorial staff were not involved in their creation. Additional sources are marked as “Presented by” an agency or “Advertising.” These designations are decisive: they indicate sponsored or PR-driven material, not independent journalism. Under Wikipedia standards, such content cannot be used to establish notability.

Even among sources that are not explicitly labeled as sponsored, the same structural issues persist. The articles consistently rely on the subject’s own statements, present unverified claims (e.g., work with billionaires, governments, major corporations), and lack third-party analysis or critical evaluation. Many follow a profile or product-style narrative, describing services, pricing, and business models in a way characteristic of marketing content rather than independent reporting. There is no meaningful investigative depth, comparison, or external validation—key elements required for significant coverage.

Crucially, the same claims and narrative appear repeatedly across different outlets. This demonstrates that the sources are not independent of one another in substance, but rather reflect a single PR narrative distributed across multiple platforms. Wikipedia requires independent coverage, not repetition of the same claims in different publications.

The argument that the subject writes for Inc. or the Times of Israel also does not establish notability. These are self-authored contributions, including blog-style platforms and contributor sections, which are not independent of the subject. Under Wikipedia policy, being a contributor or author does not demonstrate notability, as it does not constitute significant coverage about the subject by independent sources.

Despite the number of sources cited, there is no substantial independent coverage, no analytical or critical journalism and heavy reliance on promotional and contributor content. Therefore, the subject does not meet notability requirements under WP:GNG, and deletion is warranted. Taty2007 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the corporate registration argument: The nominator earlier stated that this discussion should focus on whether the article meets WP:GNG through independent, reliable sources. I agree with that framing. However, the subsequent introduction of Florida Sunbiz searches, Delaware LLC filings, and VVS & Co. ownership records does not relate to sourcing or notability - it is an investigation into the subject's business filings, which is outside the scope of an AfD discussion. Wikipedia's notability guidelines assess whether a subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, not whether a company's state registrations are filed in a particular jurisdiction.

For additional context: from my own research, the businesses described in the article appear to operate primarily through digital consulting. In the United States, it is extremely common for digital-first entrepreneurs to incorporate in Delaware for tax efficiency and privacy purposes while conducting operations remotely across the country. The absence of a Florida foreign entity registration does not indicate that a company does not exist or operate - it reflects a routine corporate structuring choice that is standard across the tech and services industry. Similarly, a separately registered Florida LLC sharing a similar name to VVS & Co. is not evidence of a discrepancy in the article; distinct entities can share similar names across different jurisdictions and corporate structures.

I raise this not to argue for or against any outcome, but because introducing corporate filing research into a notability discussion risks shifting the evaluation away from the actual question: do reliable, independent sources provide significant coverage of this subject?

On sourcing: I agree with Karl Twist's assessment that the underlying sources supporting this subject's notability do exist. In my earlier comments, I listed specific articles from Infobae, Clarín, La Nación, Perfil, MDZ Online, and TN (Todo Noticias), each written by a named Argentine journalist covering the subject independently. These are not press releases or branded content sections - they are bylined editorial pieces from outlets with millions of monthly readers, covering the subject's trajectory from 2019 onward across multiple angles and years. Through my sources research, I also identified Forbes Argentina editorial/staff content and Billboard editorial sections (Entrevistas and Industria) that are not contributor or sponsored placements like it was wrongly stated before.

I believe the pattern in this discussion has been to evaluate each source in the most restrictive possible light rather than objectively. When sources were characterized as "promotional," I provided bylined journalist names and editorial sections. When that was addressed, the characterization shifted to "human-interest profiles" or "routine coverage." WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The Argentine media coverage alone, spanning multiple years, multiple outlets, and multiple named journalists, meets that threshold.

As Karl Twist noted, the issue may not be that the sources are insufficient, but that the article itself could be better written and better sourced. That is a reason for improvement, not deletion.

I continue to leave the final decision to the community, but wanted to ensure these points are part of the record. RichImmigrants (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally, I have recently found the following sources that I believe are relevant to this evaluation:

The subject appears on the U.S. Department of State Alumni website as a featured Youth Ambassador. This is an official U.S. government source, entirely independent of the subject and not promotional in nature.

I have also found that the subject has participated as a speaker at multiple events organized by '''La Nación''', one of Argentina's most established newspapers. These include the [Management 2030 conference and the Trabajo y Futuro del Empleo summit, both of which were broadcast on La Nación+ (national television). The subject's participation was also covered in multiple independent La Nación articles:

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/kevin-leyes-el-autodidacta-que-llego-a-silicon-valley-nid2261630/ "Kevin Leyes, el autodidacta que llegó a Silicon Valley" - individual profile by named journalist
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/la-pelea-por-el-talentoel-mundo-del-empleo-nid2261406/ "La pelea por el talento" - broader thematic piece featuring the subject
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/trabajo-como-ganar-batalla-del-futuro-nid2252678/ "Trabajo: cómo ganar la batalla del futuro"
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/el-futuro-jovenes-que-objetivos-persiguen-nuevas-nid2254865/ "El futuro: jóvenes que persiguen nuevos objetivos"
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/management-2030-repensar-largo-plazo-tiempos-pandemia-nid2389759/ "Management 2030: repensar el largo plazo en tiempos de pandemia"

This is significant because being invited as a speaker to institutional events organized by a major national newspaper, broadcast on national television, and covered in multiple independent articles goes beyond routine or promotional coverage. It reflects recognition by an established editorial institution that independently selected the subject as a relevant voice on its own platform. RichImmigrants (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Karl Twist:, as illustrated above, every single one of those is a PR/SEO advertorial or a SEO blog/guest post - many of which are on the list of fake sources. Could you please re-evaluate, and/or note which are the "five" you believe to be reliable and independent sources? Sam Kuru (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @RichImmigrants:, the argument presented attempts to shift the discussion by (1) dismissing concerns about verifiability and (2) introducing Argentine media coverage and event participation as evidence of notability. However, even when accepting the focus on WP:GNG, the sources cited still fail to demonstrate significant, independent coverage as required under WP:SIGCOV. On corporate registration discussion it is correct that notability is not determined by corporate filings. However, the relevance of this point was not to establish notability, but to assess the credibility of claims repeated across sources. Where multiple articles repeat claims of large-scale operations, international clients and high-level institutional involvement. Yet those claims lack independent verification, this directly impacts source reliability under WP:RS. That said, even setting this aside entirely, the sourcing still fails on notability grounds.

On Argentine media coverage (core issue), the central claim is that coverage in outlets such as La Nación, Clarín, Infobae, etc., establishes notability. However, not all bylined journalism constitutes significant coverage. Each cited La Nación source demonstrates why. Source-by-source evaluation:

La Nación: “Kevin Leyes: el autodidacta que llegó a Silicon Valley” - Extremely short, structured as a basic interview/profile and relies primarily on self-reported statements. No independent analysis or critical evaluation. This is routine human-interest coverage, not significant coverage.
La Nación: “La pelea por el talento, el mundo del empleo” - Thematic article about employment trends. Subject appears as one of many participants. Only a brief mention in a broader discussion. This is incidental mention, not coverage of the subject.

La Nación: “Trabajo. Cómo ganar la batalla del futuro” - Is an event announcement. Subject listed among speakers. This is not coverage at all, merely a listing.

La Nación: “Un científico, una cantante…” - Group profile of multiple young individuals Subject receives a short paragraph only. No depth, no independent evaluation. This is routine group coverage, not significant coverage.

La Nación: “Management 2030…” - Event recap. Subject mentioned as one of many panelists. No discussion about him individually. This is directory-style mention, not meaningful coverage.

There is a clear pattern across all sources. Taken together, these sources demonstrate a consistent pattern: event participation, brief mentions, short profiles and group articles. None provide sustained analysis, independent evaluation, and in-depth discussion of significance. Why this fails WP:GNG, because Wikipedia requires multiple independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Not mentions across articles, participation in panels and short human-interest features. A collection of minimal references does not aggregate into significant coverage.

On event participation and “institutional recognition”, the argument that speaking at La Nación events, appearing on panels, being broadcast establishes notability, is not supported by policy. Participation in conferences is common, not a measure of encyclopedic significance. If accepted, this would incorrectly make many routine speakers notable. On U.S. State Department “Youth Ambassador”, even if accurate, this is a credential or program participation, it is not independent coverage about the subject.

Notability requires coverage, not affiliations or titles. On the “restrictive evaluation” claim, the evaluation is not restrictive—it is policy-based. Distinguishing between significant coverage vs. routine, incidental, or promotional content is exactly what WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV require.

Across all sources presented coverage is brief, incidental, or event-based. There is no sustained, independent analysis. There is no depth demonstrating significance. Therefore, the subject does not meet the notability standard under WP:GNG, and the issue is not article quality but lack of qualifying sources. Deletion remains warranted. Taty2007 (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Taty2007 I appreciate the detailed response, but I believe it illustrates exactly the concern I raised previously about selective evaluation.

The nominator's source-by-source analysis now focuses exclusively on the La Nación event-related articles and supplementary context I shared. Those links were provided as additional evidence of institutional recognition, not as the core argument for notability. I was transparent about their nature. However, the response does not address the primary independent sources I presented earlier in this discussion, which remain the foundation of the notability argument.

The nominator characterized these earlier as "short human-interest profiles" and "routine coverage," but did not engage with the specifics: these are articles written by independent journalists at Argentina's largest media outlets, covering different aspects of the subject's trajectory across different years (2019, 2020, 2025), in different editorial contexts (technology, economy, society, innovation). It's not one recycled story, but sustained, independent editorial attention over a multi-year period from multiple outlets.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

::Regarding the La Nación event sources I shared: yes, some of those are event listings and group mentions. I shared them as supplementary context to show that a major national newspaper independently selected this subject as a speaker at its own institutional events, which were broadcast on national television. I did not present them as standalone GNG sources. The fact that the nominator's entire latest evaluation is built around those supplementary links, while the core independent sources listed above remain unaddressed, is itself telling.

Furthermore, it is worth considering the broader editorial context of those event-related sources. La Nación did not simply list the subject as a speaker in a directory. The newspaper published multiple articles in connection with its own institutional events - covering the subject's participation, his profile, and his perspective across different pieces and different editorial angles. A major national newspaper does not dedicate multiple articles mentioning an individual in the context of its own curated events without editorial judgment that the person is relevant to its audience. The selection of speakers for these events, the decision to broadcast them on national television through La Nación+, and the subsequent publication of multiple related articles all reflect independent editorial decisions made by one of Argentina's most established media institutions. This is not incidental or accidental coverage, but a pattern of sustained institutional attention that only occurs when an outlet considers a subject editorially significant. It is also worth noting an evaluative inconsistency: if the subject had only been listed as a speaker with no surrounding press coverage, that would reasonably be considered insufficient. Yet when press coverage does exist around those events, it is characterized as "mere mentions." For the purposes of an objective evaluation, both the event participation and the editorial coverage produced around it should be considered together as part of the broader sourcing landscape, rather than each being dismissed in isolation.

On the U.S. Department of State source: I agree it is not "coverage" in the traditional WP:GNG sense. However, it serves two purposes in this discussion. First, the nominator previously questioned the verifiability of the subject's claims - an official U.S. government page confirming the subject's participation in a State Department program directly addresses that concern. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the State Department page itself links to La Nación articles about the subject. The fact that a U.S. government institution is cross-referencing Argentine media coverage of this individual reinforces both the independence and the reliability of that coverage. If these La Nación articles were promotional or non-independent in nature, it would be highly unusual for an official government source to reference them as supporting material on its own platform.

Also, the nominator dismisses this as merely "a credential or program participation." This characterization is not accurate, since the shared URL is not a directory listing or a general roster of all Youth Ambassadors. It is a dedicated highlight feature about this specific individual. If this were merely a credential, one would expect a general directory listing all program participants - not a standalone page profiling one person. The fact that the U.S. Department of State chose to single out this individual for a dedicated feature on its platform is itself a form of independent recognition.

On the broader pattern: the nominator initially stated this discussion should focus on whether the article meets WP:GNG through independent, reliable sources. I agree. But across this discussion, the evaluation has expanded to include Florida Sunbiz corporate records, Delaware LLC filings, VVS & Co. ownership searches, and now a source-by-source dismissal of supplementary context while the core independent sources remain unaddressed. Each time independent coverage is presented, the standard shifts: first sources are "promotional," then they are "human-interest," then they are "routine," then they are "brief mentions." WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It does not require that coverage be investigative, critical in tone, or analytical in nature.

I continue to agree with Karl Twist that the sources exist to support notability, and that the article's issues are ones of quality and structure, not of whether the subject meets the threshold for inclusion. RichImmigrants (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the closing administrator, I would like to briefly highlight the relevant policy language as it applies to the sourcing presented in this discussion:

Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail [...] Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The bylined articles from Infobae, Clarín, La Nación, Perfil.com, TN (Todo Noticias), and MDZ Online cited earlier in this discussion address the subject directly and in detail, with named journalists covering different aspects of the subject's trajectory across multiple years (2019, 2020, 2025).

Per WP:NEXIST: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." And further: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Several sources presented in this discussion are not currently cited in the article but do exist and are verifiable.

Per WP:GNG: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." The Argentine sources cited are published in Spanish by Argentina's largest media outlets and are fully valid for notability evaluation.

Per WP:GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." The sources presented span seven or more independent outlets, multiple named journalists, and a timeframe of over six years.

Per WP:SPIP: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself [...] have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it - without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." The Argentine journalists cited are independent professionals with extensive portfolios covering a wide range of subjects, not individuals connected to the topic.

I also note that WP:ARTN states: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article [...] if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the topic's notability." This supports the position that the article's current quality issues are a matter for editorial improvement, not deletion.

I leave the evaluation to the closing administrator. RichImmigrants (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@RichImmigrants:, I appreciate the detailed reply, but I think it still rests on a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia actually requires for notability. First, on the point that the “core sources” weren’t addressed — they were. The issue isn’t the outlet (La Nación, Infobae, Clarín, etc.), it’s the type of coverage. Across those sources, the pattern is the same: short profiles, narrative pieces based largely on the subject’s own statements, and event-related mentions. That’s exactly what was already pointed out earlier. Simply being published in a major outlet doesn’t automatically make the coverage “significant” in the sense required by policy.

On the idea of “sustained attention over multiple years”: that’s not how WP:GNG works. Notability isn’t about how many times someone is mentioned, or over how many years — it’s about whether there are multiple sources that actually go into depth about the subject. Repeated short features or mentions don’t become significant coverage just by accumulating.

Regarding WP:SIGCOV — yes, coverage doesn’t have to be the main topic, but it still has to be substantial. A paragraph in a group article, a brief quote in a broader piece, or a short profile built on self-description doesn’t meet that bar. That’s the core issue here.

On the La Nación event material: I understand you presented it as supplementary, but it doesn’t really strengthen the case. Being invited to speak at events, even by a major newspaper, isn’t the same as receiving independent coverage. Event listings, recaps, and panel participation are routine editorial content. If that were enough, a very large number of conference speakers would qualify as notable, which clearly isn’t how WP:GNG is applied.

The same applies to the State Department page. It’s fine for verification, but it’s still a primary source confirming participation, not independent coverage analyzing the subject. And the fact that it links to La Nación doesn’t elevate those articles — it just references them.

On the point about “editorial judgment” — Wikipedia doesn’t defer to an outlet’s implicit judgment of relevance. What matters is what’s actually on the page: is there depth, analysis, and independent discussion of the subject? In these cases, there isn’t.

I also don’t think there’s been any “shifting standard.” The same issue has been consistent throughout: the sources are mostly routine, descriptive, or based on the subject’s own narrative, without the kind of depth or independent evaluation that WP:GNG requires. Calling them “human-interest” or “profile-style” isn’t moving the goalposts — it’s describing why they don’t meet SIGCOV.

Finally, on WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN — I agree in principle, but they don’t change the outcome here. Those policies help when qualifying sources exist but aren’t well used in the article. In this case, the problem is that the sources themselves don’t meet the threshold for significant coverage.

So even taking all the sources together — including the Argentine media and the supplementary context — the pattern remains brief or incidental coverage, event-based mentions and narrative profiles without independent analysis. That doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Deletion is still warranted. Taty2007 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have some additional input from uninvolved editors. I can warn the participants who are bludgeoning and ref bombing this discussion that they need to stop as they are disrupting the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not established. The singer has been briefly mentioned in multiple sources, but the policy WP:Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Brief mentions are thus not sufficient, and the topic is therefore not "notable" as defined in the policy. I note that the discussion is now nearly 4x as large as the article, which is a clear indication that the principle of Notability has not been fully understood here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will comment on the sources provided by a Keep !voter, but only for outlets we have articles about. USA Today is labeled as "Contributor content". The Latin Times is also labeled "Contributor content". Los Angeles Magazine at the end says, "Read more from Contributor Content". Bizjournals.com is labeled as "branded content". International Business Times is not reliable, WP:IBT. Mashable Benelux is an unbylined interview. New York Post is not reliable, WP:NYPOST. I think the picture is clear. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this subject fails WP:GNG. I’ve gone through the complete discussion, concluding that notability is not met. Mentions across multiple sources is TRIVIA and doesn’t satisfy SIGCOV. The basic notability standard for WP as the policy states comes from subject coverage across high quality reliable sourcing, which is not adequately found here.StarShineNeutral (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I still maintain that this is notable and at the least scrapes over the line. It's just that (IMO) the article is too expansive with refs that may not be good enough and needs to be stripped down. Molly Peck's article: "Global Growth: Kevin Leyes Expands LeyesX Portfolio and Scales Leyes Media" for Variety Australia seems fine.
If by chance this gets on the strong consideration for deletion, is there a chance that it could be redirected somewhere, this preserving the history etc.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the article by "Variety Australia" that notes "Variety Australia newsroom and editorial staff were not involved in the creation of this content" and was written by the Molly Peck, a SEO/PR hack for First North Marketing who only writes content marketing/contributor pieces that promote her clients? Dude. Obviously there's a ton of promotional content in play; it would be best to exercise caution when evaluating sources when you know there's paid efforts underway. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Mohamed Aboud

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

Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." All sources available appear to be primary government sources. Little more than a résumé. AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Comoros. AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I the following English and French sources prove a basic notability: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. Of course, there will be more sources in Arabic and Comorian (given), and likely also the languages of the host countries like Japanese and Chinese. I think these are enough for notability to be presumed Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These are extremely trivial mentions or unreliable sources. The first source is about the election of the president of the Comorian Football Federation. Another source from 2013 is titled "Vietnam seals third major rice deal with Africa". Another source is a blog about perfume. These are absolutely nowhere near meeting WP:BASIC. BASIC states that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to search in the other languages but it might take us some time since I can't read those other languages Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 18:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. ~2026-21450-46 (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Diplomats are not inherently notable. I was able to access three out of five sources above, two have no significant coverage and another was a promotional interview. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lack of reliable indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People proposed deletions

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

Academics and educators

Zhang Wuhua

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

I am not quite sure about the subject’s notability. He may have engaged in public activities, but being the founder of an education service and having a role in a minor political party would not by themselves make him notable per WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. Plus, while I AGF, I am also doubtful about the reliability of the cited news agencies. For example, Shanghai Jing'an appears to be a regional government portal, which I do not think can establish his notability as a secondary source. In that sense, the subject may also fail WP:GNG. (There was also an account whose only apparent purpose was to engage with articles related to him and remove the tags, while the creator has very few contributions and only reappeared to create the article, which makes me suspect a COI.) Htanaungg (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Education, and China. Htanaungg (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Of the six sources, 2 mentioned the subject once (1, 3), 2 were about the subject's company, not him (4, 5), 2 seem to pass WP:SIGCOV but I cannot make any assessment about WP:RS due to the language barrier. A search for additional sources did not yield results. Vegantics (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Leitao

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

Does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria at WP:NPROF JMWt (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. JMWt (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She may become notable in the next ten, or even five, years, but she's not there yet (h = 22). Athel cb (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Chemistry, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a newly appointed associate professor with an h-factor of 22 and 1.7K cites in a high citation field she is quite some distance from a pass of WP:NPROF, it is WP:TOOSOON. Her awards are junior, and her citations/year are not increasing so I see no mitigating factors/reasons to keep the page. Revisit in 5+ years.Ldm1954 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that her citation record is promising but not yet convincing for WP:PROF#C1 and the awards too minor for #C2. There seems to be nothing else that would make a case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree she does not satisfy WP:NPROF, but since the nomination I've improved the article with more sources, and (in addition to papers by her and a couple of institutional profile pages) we now have the following: three Radio New Zealand interviews, a profile and a news item in the magazine Idealog, a New Zealand Herald interview, a 1News (TV) story, a L'Oréal-UNESCO follow-up interview, some coverage in a newspaper (Stuff) story, a Royal Society of New Zealand news item, and a bio on the IUPAC website. These are all independent reliable sources, and none are trivial mentions. This seems like significant enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Despite these additions I am still leaning delete. The Royal Society of New Zealand article is basically a press release that is offered to every recipient of a Marsden Fund grant, biographies on IUPAC and University of Auckland are not necessarily independent, nor are interviews (by definition both of these classes of sources are primary). -- Recon rabbit 13:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every recipient of a prestigious Marsden Grant does get a short writeup from the Royal Society; I'm not sure why that makes this not a reliable, valid source. The information on the IUPAC website doesn't appear anywhere else so seems to have been compiled by them for the 100th anniversary. And of course I don't count a staff profile on the university website. We shouldn't disregard interviews, because under WP:PRIMARY they're still produced by a reputable news organisation and count as sources for factual statements, but even if we do that's still seven or eight sources. How many sources do we need to establish notability? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref. 18 says "L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science. 10 January 2018. Retrieved 16 April 2026." Today is the 16th April, and when I go to the link I get "Article not found". What is going on? Athel cb (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed. Not sure what happened with that URL. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources is not the problem. The problem is that her achievement as an inorganic chemist doesn't yet reach the level needed. Athel cb (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:GNG, it's not her "achievement as an organic chemist", it's whether there is enough coverage in reliable independent sources. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
you raise an interesting point. My understanding is that notability standards like WP:NPROF are useful shorthand because the GNG can be hard to show - and yet here you are saying that an academic appears to have garnered sufficient coverage in RS for their academic achievement to meet the standards for inclusion. They are notable even though the notability in and of itself is for doing something not normally considered notable. My head hurts. JMWt (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources show that GNG has been met. Schwede 66 19:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. She is the 2016 New Zealand recipient of the L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Fellowship, a competitive national award.NZ Herald. Besides, these showcase her works IUPAC 100 profile, Idealog profile, GoogleScholar profile etc. RolandSimon (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Idealog is extensively quoting Leitao, while Google Scholar data does not indicate that she meets the criteria of NPROF. -- Recon rabbit 20:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Muhammad

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonotable Malaysian historian. The creator of the article appears to have close connection with the subject and also appears to be an angry vandal. --Altenmann >talk 22:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass Prof or GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:PROF. Unable to find any additional coverage. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Subject does meets WP:NACADEMIC. Subject lacks sufficient coverage from reliable, independent sources. Google Scholar Citations and h-index level is low. RolandSimon (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tamo Mibang

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

Not much here to merit an article. Sources are not neutral, and most are just obituaries or regular mentions after death. No significant coverage Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, India, and Arunachal Pradesh. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vice-chancellor of the Rajiv Gandhi University seems good enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC. The university seems to be a major one, besides being the oldest in a state. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The relevant WP:PROF criterion that could plausibly support keep is C6, the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution. A vice chancellor only nominally qualifies under that criterion if it is the highest academic post, but at Rajiv Gandhi University that is apparently the Chancellor. This seems to be a close call, I admit, but lack of notable coverage outside this bare fact seems to cut against notability under WP:PROF. The notability rules there are largely because it is often difficult to assess notability of academics, because of specialization of research and teaching, etc. Since the subject's only claim to notability is vice-chancellor, however, I think the balance tips in favor of deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At most Indian universities the vice chancellor is the highest-level administrative post and the chancellor is a ceremonial position. Do you have evidence that RGU is exceptional in this regard? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists a chancellor, but if that is ceremonial I guess I could be persuaded that the article might be kept. Seems like a silly basis for an article though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I would not consider RGU a major academic institution under WP:PROF. I n a way... "only university in the state" reflects geographic monopoly, not academic prestige. Plus sources are almost entirely regional Arunachal outlets plus death notices. No national academic press, no coverage of his scholarship outside the northeast. This cuts against independent notability even under other PROF criteria. RGU just has a small regional footprint, and serves a small, sparsely populated state. Compare to VCs of Delhi University, BHU, or Hyderabad... institutions that are unambiguously "major." So I dont think wiki guidelines of WP:PROF applies here Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I agree, it's a weird IAR sort of case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Gianattassio-Malle

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

Fails notability. Duck Duck Go search, Google search, Google News search, Google Books search, and newspapers.com search fail to find anything more than passing mentions. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related AfD discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that this appears to have been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since April 2011–and this is an article that was created in March 2011. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Radio, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage, hasn't produced any notable movies. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Mikhaylov (economist)

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

Per WP:NPROF: No obvious notability except, possibly, multiple retractions: see Михайлов, Алексей Юрьевич (1987) [ru]. A nomination for deletion in Russian Wiki Википедия:К удалению/29 января 2025#Михайлов,_Алексей_Юрьевич_(1987) [ru] is dangling since Jan 2025. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~verging on Speedy Keep,~~ then remove the masses of bloat and peacock. Based upon his GS profile he has 11.5K cites and an h-factor of 62, so passes WP:NPROF. If the nom withdraws the AfD (as I expect a SNOW) ping me and I can clean it -- I am reluctant to do this while it is at AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that the main claim to notability is through WP:PROF#C1 and heavy citations, but there are also serious concerns with the authorship integrity of his publications that have led to at least three retractions [55]. Additionally, his GS profile shows some publications with strange topics considering his main interests to be the economics of climate change and energy supply: emotional development in preschoolers? Polymer film coatings? With this as background I would want to see more than primary/non-independent sourcing both for his prominence as a researcher and for the retractions before allowing this as a WP:BLP. In short, I think biographies of researchers for whom we have believable evidence of malfeasance should be held to a higher standard, especially when that alleged malfeasance undermines the claim to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
David, while the topic range is odd, if you check the address it is the same. While I note the retractions, these are because the corresponding author stated that they were not affiliated with the paper, or the journal could not verify them. While I agree that is dubious, it is not major academic dishonesty in terms of fabrication of data, misrepresentation etc. I think we have to be careful about WP:NPOV in our judging of the authorship issue. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some researchers really do have disparate collections of interests. Some researchers have odd citation topics because they buy authorships on papers that they did not contribute to and are not in their actual expertise. I am not doubting that the GS profile really does list papers whose authors include the subject of our article. Rather, this is part of the evidence of a dubious pattern of authorship, for which the retractionwatch listing of retractions specifically made for the reason of authorship integrity problems is much stronger evidence. And if we have reason to believe that some of those authorships may have been illegitimate then we have less reason to rely purely on those authorships as a rationale for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the three retractions listed in the database are all in Scientific Reports. There are also two in Energy Exploration & Exploitation, one in Frontiers in Environmental Science, one in Environmental Research Communications, and one in Evolutionary Intelligence all for reasons of authorship integrity. The Evolutionary Intelligence retraction notice specifically discusses purchased authorships and subversion of the peer review process. Another paper of his in Investment Management and Financial Innovations was retracted for plagiarism. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, but I remain enough of a Brit that I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I have zero tolerance for deliberate fabrication or duplication of existing work, which we know occurs and rarely gets caught; I do not view this as being as major as either of those. My personal opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not going to commit to an opinion on whether Mikhaylov is personally responsible for academic malfeasance or merely too trusting in his coauthors. However, I think this makes it dubious to argue for notability purely through citation counts, and it also leaves us with a BLP dilemma that deletion would avoid: do we dishonestly pretend there is no problem with his portfolio even though there clearly is one, or do we use primary evidence for that problem that may well not meet our BLP standards? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See also the article [56] and line 222 ("Global Indicators of Sustainable Development: Evaluation of the Influence of the Human Development Index on Consumption and Quality of Energy" [57]) of its supplementary material [58]. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read 3 of the materials science papers which are withing my realm of incompetence. While I would not write them, they appear to be decent, I have seen much worse. I can see a rationale for his inclusion, as the economics of a particular technology really matters, and that is where he seems to have some expertise. (As an example, there are papers on using carbon-nanotubes to reinforce asphalt for roads which, in terms of $$$$, is absurd.) I will remove the "Speedy Keep" from my comment, but I still am not fully convinced. (I could not reach the SM above, or it was in Russian when I looked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only potential path to notability would be through WP:PROF#C1, on the basis of citations, and we have reason to believe that the citation counts may not be meaningful. This is not a statement that Mikhaylov is personally culpable for academic misconduct, or anything like that. It's just a recognition that any topic needs some indication of notability to be considered notable, and here we have no indicator that we can rely on. We commonly discount citation numbers for middle authors on massively co-authored papers, or for work done as a graduate student: the citation number might be big, but we have no way to know if the individual author's contribution was truly significant. This is a more extreme instance of the same problem: there are too many question marks floating around the citation counts for us to base a judgment upon them. The safe course of action, particularly where WP:BLP is concerned, is not to have an article. When in doubt, write nothing. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebius Juma Mukhwana

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

Fails WP:GNG, sourced to a database of his own publications and to google scholar hits. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Kenya. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Walker

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

Not notable - coverage only mentions her in passing or in unreliable podcasts. I couldn't identify a sufficient redirect target, but would be open to one if one exists. In addition, there are BLP concerns here given that the bulk of the article concerns accusations about her collaboration with Jeffrey Epstein. Katzrockso (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, all available coverage[59][60] is related to Epstein. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply because condition #2 is not met, as Melanie Walker is not a "low-profile individual". Walker held high-level jobs at two important institutions: the Gates Foundation and the World Bank (--> "eminence"), and published an oped about her own project in the influential newspaper The Guardian (--> "appearances and performances". Hispalois (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree that WP:BLP1E does not apply. I did a quick WP:BEFORE and a significant number of sources indicate that her connection is in the Epstein files. Sources include Politico, Fox Business, New York Magazine, Rolling Stone -- see this search. I do not understand the noms claims that the only mention is in "unreliable podcasts". For reference some of the reports connect her to both Bill Gates and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I think there is enough coverage for WP:42, and the page is restrained enough that I do not see BLP issues.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., she does not (as yet) pass WP:NPROF, but that does not matter. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 and Hispalois: What about WP:BIO1E, which can apply to someone like her? George Ho (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:BLP1E three conditions should not be met. She has a reasonable profile independent of Epstein, condition 2, her role is well documented and significant, condition 3. Hence she is not a BLP1E from 2 of the 3 conditions. WP:BIO1E is essentially the same but includes deceased people. It has the phrase "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". To me BIO1E is also not appropriate. This is a tricky one, but I do not see any basis for a policy-based delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Fox Business"? Perhaps might wanna read a thread about treating Fox Business as similar to Fox News (WP:FOXNEWS). In this case, stuff about her and her association with Epstein may be more political, so perhaps leave Fox Business out. That leaves us Politico, New York Magazine, and Rolling Stone. George Ho (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Lean delete or Weak neutral~~ – If BLP1E doesn't apply, then perhaps WP:BIO1E should if she's not a low-profile person. ~~Furthermore, she probably fails WP:SUSTAINED if there aren't reliable sources fixing WP:BLP issues, not limited to BLP1E itself, and helping the article comply with WP:NOTNEWS~~ ~~and avoid WP:GAMING~~, i.e. some attempt to blur the line(s) between an encyclopedia and a (dying?) newspaper, blog, or whatever publication-related. George Ho (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC); edited, 03:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., there are stacks of reliable sources as both Hispalois and I have pointed out, particularly very recent ones based upon the Epstein files. What WP:BLP issues do you think there are? What WP:GAMING are you alluding to, that is a non-trivial statement, and by who? Ldm1954 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...All right... I'll backtrack the GAMING accusation then. Indeed, it refers to user conduct, but I've yet to see one, so I won't go there. Guess I shouldn't have said GAMING. I just don't know how else to describe or which other policy to verify the blurriness besides WP:PAG, despite. Furthermore, my vote that I'm striking out isn't that strong. Perhaps I shouldn't have voted in the first place, should I? Besides, anything/anyone Epstein-associated or Epstein-related would be too ugly to debate further for me. George Ho (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just jumped in and thought I can make strong arguments. Perhaps my arguments were at this point too weak for strong deletion, right? Gotta research further before making a strong stance.... George Ho (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before I re-cite fully the BLP policy, is she subject to WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE? (Asking in light of newer votes after me.) George Ho (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho, a good question. For the moment leaving aside anything to do with Epstein, I would say that she is not a Public Figure in the legal sense of the word, e.g. the Cornell Law School definition. I would say that she did fall under the description of Public Intellectual, see also this Academe Article, or perhaps a Limited Purpose Public Figure in her past role at the World Bank. When I include the Epstein issue she does fit under Involuntary Public Figure both on WP and in the legal sense, e.g. this. That is somewhere between the two! Ldm1954 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reluctantly – Honestly, this topic is still too ugly to make me wanna edit much, but looks like I have no choice after reading what Hispola cited. Indeed, WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN should apply. So should WP:NTEMP. In other words, the article quality needs improvement, IMO, but at least there are reliable sources out there verifying her potential non-temporary notability. Does she comply with WP:GNG? Uncertain, honestly. Nonetheless, she probably meets WP:SUSTAINED because... well, the borderline of WP:NOTNEWS (which has been discussed recently) has been blurred to this point. George Ho (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, role in Epstein case is not significant (e.g. not a main perp and her role is not large), there is not other coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much is made of the Epstein connection. This shows her citation record as required for WP:PROF#C1. I don't know whether it is good enough for a clinical professor. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Mangieri Cauterucce

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

no indicators of notability nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 11:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Venezuela. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 11:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be notable as the President of Universidad Nueva Esparta, but I don't think the university is major enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dan V. Palcu Rolier

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

As an autobiography, this deserves extra scrutiny in order to establish notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Romania, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think there's potential for notability here, but the article is far too full of promotional and unreferenced/original research. The subject would be best served going through WP:REQUEST per WP:AUTOPROBLEM. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
comment Seeing lots of WP:AISIGNS here, for the record. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 15:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wondered a little about draftification to force removal of the vast autobiographical bloat, but based upon his citations he is many years from a pass of WP:NPROF, it is WP:TOOSOON -- an h-factor of 17 and 1K cites is way too low. He has made a good start, and his citations/year are showing a healthy annual increase, but it will easily be 5 years before he qualifies.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

David Cohen (lawyer)

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

David Cohen (lawyer) – Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Article has carried {{autobiography}}, {{peacock}}, and {{not notable}} tags since January 2021 and March 2026 respectively, with no improvement.

No source in the article provides significant independent coverage of Cohen as a biographical subject:

Self-published sources: Multiple citations are to CanadaVisa.com, the subject's own company website. These fail WP:INDEPENDENT.
Directory listings: Bar of Quebec, Law Society of Ontario, and AQAADI entries are routine professional directories, not significant coverage.
Expert quotes in media: The New York Times, CNN, Telegraph, CTV News, and The Walrus citations are articles about Canadian immigration policy in which Cohen is quoted as one of several expert sources. None profile Cohen as a subject. Per WP:GNG, being quoted does not constitute significant coverage.
Parliamentary testimony: Primary source records of committee appearances. Not independent coverage.
CIC News tribute: CIC News is operated by the same corporate entity as CanadaVisa (Cohen's firm). Fails WP:INDEPENDENT.
Droit-inc obituary: One brief independent obituary in a French-language legal news site. This is the only source that approaches significant independent coverage, but a single source does not satisfy WP:GNG.
Globe and Mail and Toronto Star articles discuss the CanadaVisa platform, not Cohen as a biographical subject.

The article reads as promotional content (tagged {{autobiography}} and {{peacock}} since 2021). Categories are inflated beyond what sources support (e.g., "Canadian civil rights activists", "Immigration law scholars", "Canadian political commentators" with no sourcing for any of these characterizations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks19923 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Concur with nominator. Article was created by a paid CanadaVisa employee with a conflict of interest and the sourcing analysis above demonstrates it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Expert quotes in general immigration news coverage do not constitute significant independent coverage of the subject as a biographical subject. In2can1 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is extremely overdependent on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that are not support for notability (directory entries and content self-published by directly affiliated non-media organizations), and the few reliable sources are just quoting him as a provider of soundbite rather than profiling him as a subject of coverage and analysis. That's not how notability is established, at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the votes that came in just before here here. The issue is that none of the cited sources provide independent biographical coverage of Cohen himself. The media citations are stories where he appears as one person quoted. Not WP:GNG-satisfying coverage and the CanadaVisa / CIC are corporate-affiliated and fail. Four years of maintenance tags with no sourcing improvement suggests there just isn't much to do re: improving or strengthening sources, and there's not any new news coming. 30thStreet (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is quoted often [61] but coverage is not in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. GarciaH1978 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dare Ehigie

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

Vice president of a non-notable organization. Sources do not show notability and neither does a search for his name. 🄻 🄰 16:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 16:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Sunday Chukwuemeka

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

Not a notable person. Sourced entirely to non-independent sources. Didn't find anything better through searching. The school he is chancellor is currently nominated for deletion and appears non-notable as well. 🄻 🄰 16:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, Religion, and Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 16:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Dennis Osadebay University Africamatters (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Xing

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

Article Deletion Nomination Summary • Article Name: Gao Xing (Chinese amateur astronomer) • Initial Observation: I noticed the article had a notability warning tag since 2020. • Research Performed: I carried out the WP:BEFORE steps by searching for the subject on Google and Baidu. I found that while he is mentioned in news about astronomical discoveries, these are routine announcements rather than in-depth biographical reports. • Reason for Deletion: The article fails the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). There are no independent, reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of his life or career. • Status: I have officially started the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process to let the Wikipedia community decide on its inclusion. Lyujinshuo (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2026 (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. Zhang, Jingjing 张晶晶 (2017-10-20). "逐星人高兴：第一个获天文学领域奥斯卡的中国人" [The Stargazer Rejoices: The First Chinese Person to Win the "Oscar of Astronomy"]. ScienceNet (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2026-04-11. Retrieved 2026-04-11.
  The article notes: "高兴是一名不折不扣的逐星人，圈内人将高兴称为“劳模”，辛勤的劳动收获了累累硕果。迄今为止，高兴发现了彗星C/2008 C1（陈-高彗星）、彗星P/2009 L2（杨-高彗星）以及彗星C/2015 F5（斯万-星明彗星），还有约40颗超新星，一颗本星系新星，近10颗位于M31和M33的新星，4颗掠日彗星以及近百颗小行星。新疆的夜空干净清澈，能见度极高，这给了高兴上佳的观测条件。结束学校一天的课程之后，他便急急往家赶，晚8点准时打开望远镜准备观测。通过远程操纵星明天文台的望远镜，获得数据，然后分享给天文爱好者QQ群里的朋友们进行分析、追踪。"
  From Google Translate: "Gao Xing is a bona fide "star-chaser." Within the community, he is affectionately dubbed the "Model Worker"—a testament to the diligent labor that has yielded a bountiful harvest of discoveries. To date, Gao Xing has discovered Comet C/2008 C1 (Comet Chen-Gao), Comet P/2009 L2 (Comet Yang-Gao), and Comet C/2015 F5 (Comet SWAN-Xingming), as well as approximately 40 supernovae, one nova within our own galaxy, nearly a dozen novae located in M31 and M33, four sun-grazing comets, and nearly a hundred asteroids. The night skies over Xinjiang are pristine and crystal-clear, offering exceptional visibility—conditions that have provided Gao Xing with superb opportunities for observation. After finishing his teaching duties for the day, he rushes home, and at 8:00 PM sharp, he powers up his telescope to begin observing. By remotely controlling the telescopes at the Xingming Observatory, he acquires data, which he then shares with friends in various astronomy enthusiast QQ groups for analysis and tracking."
2. Chen, Liang (2010-10-15). "To infinity and beyond". China Daily. Factiva CHNDHK0020101015e6af0000l.
  The article notes: "Gao Xing is a physics teacher by day and a comet hunter by night. The amateur astronomer is one of the country's few comet hunters and one of the best. For the past three years, the teacher at Urumqi No 1 Senior Middle School in Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region has discovered two comets, five novas and a potential supernova. Comet C/2008 C1 (Chen-Gao), discovered by Gao Xing and Chen Tao, another comet hunter from Jiangsu, was the only new comet recorded by amateur astronomers, in 2008. P/2009 L2 (Yang-Gao), which he found with Yang Rui from Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, on June 15, 2009, was one of four comets discovered by amateur astronomers that year. Because of the two discoveries, he became the only mainland Chinese person to win the Edgar Wilson Award twice. The annual prize of $20,000 (134,000 yuan) split among the award winners, is given to amateur astronomers who use amateur equipment and have discovered one or more new comets. The 36-year-old didn't make his discoveries the old-fashioned way - peering through a telescope at night, hunting for faint smudges that no one had seen before. Instead, he has his own observatory, built in 2006, which is the first of its kind in the mainland. Located at Nanshan Base of National Astronomical Observatories, about 70 km south of Urumqi, his automated, computer controlled telescopes and cameras have been scanning the sky in a relentless search for near-Earth asteroids, novas, supernovas and comets. ... His love of stargazing was nurtured by the beautiful Urumqi night skies of his childhood. He was head of the astronomy club at college and after graduating he befriended some of the region's best amateur stargazers, including Zhou Xingming (1965-2004)."
3. "China Scene: West". 新疆日报 [Xinjiang Daily]. 2009-06-18. Archived from the original on 2012-10-15. Retrieved 2026-04-11 – via People's Daily.
  The article notes: "A high school teacher in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, became the first person to locate an undiscovered star in the galaxy. Gao Xing, senior teacher at the Urumqi No 1 high school, built his own observatory on a mountain outside the city in 2007. He found a new star in Sagittarius in the Galaxy's central part on Feb 26 at night with his partner Sun Guoyou. Gao reported his new discovery to the International Astronomical Union on May 29 and got the identification. Gao's newly discovered star is entitled V5582 SGR II by IAU."
4. Hong, Yu; Liang, Jun, eds. (2021-05-25). "Amateur observatory makes its way to the big league". People's Daily. ProQuest 2531499280. Archived from the original on 2025-04-12. Retrieved 2026-04-11.
  The article notes: "But according to Gao Xing, a co-founder of the Xingming Observatory, one of the key purposes of the program is to encourage more people to take part in it. ... Gao Xing, who is also a physics teacher at a local middle school in Urumqi, is responsible for maintaining and upgrading the equipment at the observatory."
5. Suo, Zizhi 索子鸷 (2017-08-08). "乌鲁木齐市一中物理老师获业余天文成就奖第一个获奖的中国人" [Physics Teacher at Urumqi No. 1 High School Wins Amateur Achievement Award in Astronomy: The First Chinese Recipient]. 亚心网 [Yaxin] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2026-04-11. Retrieved 2026-04-11 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "虽然是一名物理老师,自1990年起,高兴便与天文结下了不解之缘,在20余年的时间里,高兴始终执着地做同一件事——观测天象,在他所带的天文社团里,很多学生都深受熏陶也加入到了天文爱好者的队伍。2007年,高兴老师在新疆天文台及同好们的帮助下,在新疆天文台乌鲁木齐南山观测站建立了自己的天文观测台,并用它发现了彗星C/2008C1(陈-高彗星),彗星P/2009L2(杨-高彗星)以及彗星C/2015F5(斯万-星明彗星)。他还发现约40颗超新星,一颗本星系新星,近10颗位于M31和M33的新星,4颗掠日彗星以及近百颗小行星。"
  From Google Translate: "Although he is a physics teacher by profession, Gao Xing has shared an inseparable bond with astronomy since 1990. Over the course of more than two decades, he has remained steadfastly dedicated to a single pursuit: observing celestial phenomena. Through the astronomy club he leads, many students have been deeply inspired and have subsequently joined the ranks of amateur astronomers. In 2007, with the assistance of the Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory and fellow enthusiasts, Mr. Gao established his own private observatory at the Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory's Urumqi Nanshan Station. Utilizing this facility, he went on to discover Comet C/2008C1 (Comet Chen-Gao), Comet P/2009L2 (Comet Yang-Gao), and Comet C/2015F5 (Comet Swan-Xingming). He also discovered approximately 40 supernovae, one nova within our own galaxy, nearly 10 novae located in M31 and M33, four sungrazing comets, and nearly a hundred asteroids."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gao Xiang (simplified Chinese: 高兴; traditional Chinese: 高興) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources and the nomination statement looks AI-generated. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 16:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Alhorr

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

Most sources in this article cover the organization (GORD) rather than the person himself, which does not establish personal notability per WP:BIO. فيصل (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Qatar. فيصل (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at the sources, there is coverage about Gulf Organisation for Research and Development (GORD), but not much about this individual. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that's correct. Most sources do feature the individual as a key player (being the sole founder of the organizations linked). Perhaps the discussion should be about how to make use of the latest sources and interviews featuring him, as opposed to contesting the old ones. Syedafarwazahra (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Contesting the nomination for deletion
The nominator suggests the coverage focuses primarily on the Gulf Organization for Research & Development. However, the sources confirm they meet the requirements for individual notability for the following reasons:
1. Global Thought Leadership: A review of available digital records and search results reveals a consistent pattern of his quotes, technical insights, and leadership being cited by independent entities worldwide. Many of his exclusive interviews (including CNBC and Carbon Pulse) show up on google search even though they aren't mentioned in this Wikipedia page.
2. Direct Attribution: The cited articles explicitly credit the Chairman's leading role in the projects and scientific contributions mentioned. As editors and academic writers, we maintain that these references are valid secondary sources that verify his individual impact.
3. Source Validity: These references serve to verify his significant contributions to [mention field, e.g., sustainability/climate science] and his role as a key figure in regional infrastructure developments.
FarahMatraji (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has AI been used to write this comment? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the answer is yes. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources do feature the individual as a key player (being the sole founder of the organizations linked). Perhaps the discussion should be about how to make use of the latest sources and interviews featuring him, as opposed to contesting the old ones. Syedafarwazahra (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dtqx1dEAAAAJ&hl=en Syedafarwazahra (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysinghrao Pawar

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

nothing substantial to merit an article. There are barely any sources about him, and only a few mention Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did this from the red link of 'Recent Deaths' page. Usually only people who pass WP:Notability are added to this list: Death in 2026. I trust this passes GNG, as there are more than two detailed articles only about him in reliable, secondary newspapers, multiple Marathi news outlets like Loksatta, Maharashtra Times, Lokmat, TV9 Marathi, MahamTB have carried detailed news and features. And many references acknowledge him as an established historian on Maratha and Kolhapur, not just passing death obits. There is also a detailed publisher biography, mentioning over 25 books and umpteem research papers. Have also added a couple of more sources.. I feel this definitely passes both GNG and WP:notability. Davidindia (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hey David, thanks for the heads up, I am withdrawing my nomination. Did not see the marathi sources, and thought most of it is routine! Best, Adrian~~
Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, renowned historian, author, director at Shahu Research Centre in Shivaji University. Sufficient reference are added, if not satisfied, just add {{citation needed}}. -Santosh 02:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will let people get to a consensus, so striking off my withdrawal comment. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Just getting some coverage upon death does not make person notable. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 10:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NBIO. Sources do not provide significant coverage necessary for an article. Rzvas (talk)
Delete - Apart from some recent coverage about his death, there is nothing. Lorstaking (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like all my three friends above have missed the point that this red link is taken from the "Deaths in 2026" which lists only those who pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. That apart, it passes WP:GNG 's all four imp point: SigCov and all sources are Reliable, Secondary and Independent of the subject, the four GNG points. Also, it passes WP:NACADEMIC... which says: failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline if "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"... in this case many mainstream notable, secondary, independent sources acknowledged his authority on the history of Marathas and Kolhapur. This source, is written about 8 years before his death, and it is a feature article. So the coverage is not just death news. Four stand alone special articles, only about the subject, in depth, with more than 800 word articles, are definitely WP:SigCov... I remain! Davidindia (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper sources (especially a local coverage from Lokmat) are not indicative of scholarly authority nor is it enough for establishing GNG.

You have not demonstrated his academic influence , mere assertions are not enough. Zalaraz (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly local newspaper sources ar covering his recent death, they do not count towards GNG. There is no indication that he was significant or he had a remarkable influence in academia. Zalaraz (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to humbly submit that they were six detailed articles only about him, all before the death dating from 2017 to 2023 in various reliable acclaimed Media outlets like The Week, Free Press Journal, Loksatta, Sakal and Lokmat, which difinitely passes GNG. A close look at the articles clearly indicates, his significant contribution to the academia as per WP:NACADEMIC as suggested by an editor above who is an admin in Maratha Wiki. I rest my case!Davidindia (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. It seems like there are enough foreign sources to support an article, but based on the current state of the text, it fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. If no one is going to improve the copy, then it should be deleted. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Significant coverage outside local coverage is entirely missing. Agletarang (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Flyingphoenixchips, Request you to go through the current changes, since your nomination. I have improved the article and have added 12 more reliable, reputed and independent secondary sources, which carried indepth articles (NOT a one para mentions) on the subject. The sustained coverage includes from 2017 to 2026. At least half a dozen detailed articles are about his scholarship and before his death... (so not oneevent -death). The publications include, NOT just local coverage, (@Agletarang though GNG guidelines does not deny notability for any article just because they are not in english), they come from Outlook India, Mint, The Week, BBC Marathi and Times of India. Even Loksatta, TV9 Marathi, Free Press Jouornal and Maharashtra Times are reliable media outlets. His books and over 45 research papers are NO "Fools Gold" either (to use your new article) as discussed in more than 3 reputed sources. So I request you to go through and check once again if you may reconsider your nomination. I did this article in good faith... Thanks! Davidindia (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @DavidindiaReference #1 is not independent, I will suggest finding a better source. A handful of the 2026 sources are obituaries, which can be formulaic, though obituaries in major outlets do count toward WP:GNG. But I will say there is enough here to keep the article and establish notability. Great Work! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will work on it!! Davidindia (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opened in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator per WP:REOPEN, as a speedy keep or withdrawal is inappropriate when there are extant delete votes per WP:SKCRIT 1.3. Please leave this for someone uninvolved to judge. Left guide (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been significantly improved by @Davidindia and there are definitely multiple sources to establish notability. Its a Keep from me Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per expansion by @Davidindia Nighfidelity (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I am the creator of the article, a red link taken from the Deaths in 2026 list. Not sure, if I need to explain everything again once it is relisted, but I will do it lest the article is deleted.

Have substantially improved the article adding 12 more reliable, secondary sources from mainstream media. Only one source, the first one, from the Bio's publisher is used to support the content, that is his DoB. There are five reliable references which talk about the subject, before the death news. All other sources, are detailed feature articles are obits about the subject. Some of the comments supporting deletion were made without proper backing of the guidelines/policies. It has WP:SIGCOV and easily passes GNG. Also after improvements, the nominator has withdrawn his nomination. Thanks Davidindia (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Keep as per the reasons given above. I also feel the nomination and many of the delete comments, are not based on policy. Request the closing Admin to see the current page with significant improvements after nomination. thanks Davidindia (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Jacqueline Stavros (via WP:PROD on 13 April 2026)
K. Mushtaq Elahi (via WP:PROD on 9 April 2026)
Dejan Popović (via WP:BLP-PROD on 9 April 2026)

Actors and filmmakers

Elaine Carroll

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

Lacks enough coverage in independent sources. Most of the good coverage I found is about her web series Very Mary-Kate or her involvement in the web series. Apart from that there are interviews and brief mentions of her involvement in other projects. My WP:ATD suggestion is to redirect her page to Very Mary-Kate. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, Internet, and United States of America. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Garvita Sadhwani

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR; lacks significant independent coverage and relies on routine media mentions. Niaki101 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Niaki101 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think she does pass WP:NACTOR with her roles in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai and Mahadev & Sons but I am not sure about WP:GNG tho ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is narrower than GNG, if they meet NACTOR, they meet GNG. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, I really don't know if there are any drawbacks of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG in the article. I am sorry I made an article when I should have made her draft, actually I was trying to create a draft only but somehow after I submitted the Draft:Jabb Zodiacs Met I got some notification and when I typed Garvita Sadhwani I directly came to the article page. I did not know I was creating an article. I am sorry. ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has since been blocked indefinitely for UPE. No opinion on the article, beyond the creator's apparent request to draftify. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article got reviewed and Garvita seems to meet WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG so no need to draftify I guess? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai and Mahadev & Sons. Initially, I was doubtful about both of these. But after I went through multiple articles and reviews about both these series, I'm confirmed that her roles are significant in both of them. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Luísa Cruz

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

Appears to be an WP:LLMT with copied references from pt.wiki including nonsense code like "Retrieved 29 May 2021" on a page created in 2026. At best the editor of the new page has not taken enough care to check the references at worst it's the product of a unchecked llm created page. JMWt (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related AfD discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, and Suspected AI-generated articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the AI signs are obvious enough with the fake sources, another LLM slop article to delete.

ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for nonsensical references: Retrieved 6 January 2014. I checked the calendar and that was over 12 years ago. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify I'm not 100% certain this is an LLMT, but regardless there are blatant dead links which means no verification of the sources was done. If someone wants to do the verification we can draft, otherwise delete. Jumpytoo Talk 01:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like it was translated from the PT article, even the sources used in the citations...Would seem to pass notability, but likely needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Ophir

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

Does not meet GNG Uncle Bash007 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shaike Ophir, her dad. Probably notable but pointless one-line stub. gidonb (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Mallick

AfDs for this article:

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

She does not appear to have a major role in any notable film. The references provided do not adequately establish notability. Fails WP:NACTRESS. Girdi45 (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Girdi45 (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagaddhatri (TV series), the only notable production to which she contributed. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagaddhatri (TV series) as an ATD-R, her only notable work. WP:TOOSOON to have a page now. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Aarya

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

The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR as there is a lack of significant independent, reliable coverage. The article relies on routine mentions and does not demonstrate notability as an actress. Mexico's Claudia (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC) striking nomination statement by a confirmed blockeed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, and India. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails in GNG owing to the lack of SIGCOV. Fails in WP:NACTOR too. Significant roles in the first and third film but the films are not notable. They don't have any reviews and fail in WP:NFILM themselves. So, someone can bring them to the AFD too. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ACTOR and WP:SIGCOV and as explained by nominator .SamBordoloi (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject does not meet WP:BIO. She has only supporting roles in regional films with no significant independent RS coverage about her specifically.Goodboyjj (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Boy

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear if this meets WP:BIO/GNG KH-1 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Visual arts, Comics and animation, LGBTQ+ studies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as a visual artist, but this seems a very minor part of his activities. Wisely, he mostly seems to write, and I won't judge that side. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Marwah

AfDs for this article:

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

Poor sourcing (Youtube, Instagram) and generally no indication of notability. WP:BEFORE did return some results but they appear to be press releases and not independent but I'm not good at identifying the reliability of Indian sources. Has been deleted twice before on grounds of notability. Orange sticker (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Orange sticker (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything I see in Google News is either a press release, unbylined, or otherwise not suitable for GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true, I see links from bookmyshow, IMDB, and YouTube. The person is a well known one and fits criteria for biographies of living persons, it can be edited to improve. Dasseo (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bookmyshow, ImDB, YouTube videos are not sources. Further nothing improved on notability since last AfD. --SatnaamIN (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails SIGCOV and GNG. If we had to look at ImDB, anybody can become notable. SamBordoloi (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Perkins

AfDs for this article:

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

Do not see how this subject meets wp:nactor and wp:gng. Her only major role was in Power Rangers as one character (albeit it was in over one season). All of her other roles were short cameos or guest appearances. She also has no awards wins nor nominations nor a lot of coverage in reliable entertainment sources. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 April 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same situation from the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melody Perkins – notable for multiple roles in television series with reliable sourcing. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Roshuk

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

None of these sources show a GNG/SNG pass:

[62] is a two line piece, slightly longer on the modern website, [63] (though using a different first name), but glancing at the site's about me page reveals that it works much more as a distribution platform for Canadian artists than an independent source with a reliability for fact checking.[64]
[65] Wikipedia mail list archive.
[66] Local interest story, very quote heavy, so there's not much independent content to pull from, but not bad.
[67] passing mention, gives middle initial, quotes him, and gives his age + one thing he did for Wikipedia. Hardly SIGCOV
[68] blog post from "Concurring Opinions, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company"[69] Some stuff might be okay from a SME point of view on legal topics, but it's from the same author as the Emory journal and the vast majority of the blog post is just a quote from Roshuk
NYFA profile appears to be an OK source (though dead), though from the tone of the bio I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not independent. Let's assume it is, though.

Other sources I found include a passing mention from the 80s listing him as one of 82 award winners[70], a passing mention of an award I think he won as a teenager[71] (along with several hundred other students). But I can't really find anything else, and two sources (one fluffy human interest, one NYFA profile) isn't, imo, enough to prove notability. I'm open to a redirect to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)#History as an WP:ATD. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, and New York. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry, Signpost writers, but I didn't entertain the source suggested on the talkpage: WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-08-28/Board_candidates#Alex756. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails Wikipedia:General Notability Guideline. The cited sources provide only brief mentions and do not offer significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Therefore the subject’s notability is not established. CK (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
— Ck Fatima (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 13:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing enough articles to establish notability. IMDB, Goodreads and Bio type websites do not work towards notability. Goodboyjj (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Chanchlani (Actor)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material:

[...] That said, it's quite likely the subject still doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, so I suggest people bring the article up for WP:AFD [...] SouthernNights (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I would go further still and title blacklist if this is closed as delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here ready to say, "Speedy delete" based on the previous deletions, but there now seems to be enough articles that discuss Ashish Chanchlani as the main subject of the articles. The articles seems to be independent (I'm not well-versed on Indian media, but the articles seem balanced and mostly neutral). If we keep this article, I suggest we remove the "Actor" from the article name. Angryapathy (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, India, and Maharashtra. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the admin who considered the article for speedy delete. I determined the article didn't qualify for speedy delete under WP:G4 b/c article was not substantially identical to the previously deleted versions. However, after declining the speedy, I dug into all the new citations in the article and I now believe that the article's subject meets notability guidelines. The new citations are from reliable sources and also provide substantial coverage of the subject. As a sidenote, I struck the comment from me added above b/c it no longer matches what I believe about this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. Non-notable roles in non-notable web series.SamBordoloi (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not aware of his work as an actor in Bollywood or Indian films. This page shows his 1 role in YouTube short film/web series. Based on which, anybody can become notable. SamBordoloi (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that YouTubers usually by default aren't notable. However, I suggest you consider checking out the web series Ekaki, which has 5 parts, one of which is over an hour long and the quality upon first glance seems movie like and releasing via YouTube must be a personal decision (if Indian cinema specifically Bollywood is hard to enter due to nepotism/groupism). Might be WP:TOOEARLY, who knows @SamBordoloi:. Wdym by non-notable role? Starring - Ashish Chanchlani, Written and Directed by Ashish Chanchlani, Producer - Ashish Chanchlani, Story & Screenplay - Ashish Chanchlani DareshMohan (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Ekaki, he fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:ACTOR clearly. Article is about the person not the webseries. Person is non-notable actor @DareshMohan that's why. SamBordoloi (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are multiple sources, but nothing that meets WP:BASIC: sources are interviews, trivial mentions, press releases, or sponsored (i.e. paid) content. For instance, The Indian Express is generally reliable for news per WP:INDIANEXP, but this piece is clearly not reliable or independent, apart from the fact that it is a short text that doesn't provide significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the four AfD discussions linked above, there is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. At User:Bonadea/Long_term_disruption#Ashish_Chanchlani there is a (probably not complete) list of titles that have been used to get around previous deletion discussions and salting. --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Adminstartors/Editors involved in the salting haven't been notified. Retro music11 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per long term disruption as seen in the list User:Bonadea/Long_term_disruption#Ashish_Chanchlani by bonadea. Most sources cited fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and their use to determine WP:GNG must be done with caution. Retro music11 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, And so the buck stops (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, and People. Retro music11 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There is no indication that the sources in the article establish notability that is needed for an article as stated in the general notability guideline. This title and other variations should be salted so as to prevent yet another recreation. Aneirinn (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cutcliffe

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

Lacks substantial coverage in independent sources. Found two reviews yhat include snippets on Cutcliffe's acting but not sure it is enough. (Cutcliffe’s Henry is defined by a lighter, more intimate and slightly comedic St Crispin’s Day speech.) and (Cutcliffe turns out to have the best voice in the cast: a beefy baritone, which can seem like it's a co-conspirator in sending up Lloyd-Webber-style schlock.) —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not overly well-sourced at present, and what is there (and what I could find online) hasn't been adequately mined for all its worth.

But, despite this, he has had significant roles in multiple notable films / TV shows / stage performances / productions and has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (as Malcolm Fraser in the Dismissal, as Ivan in Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown as Wild Bill Hickok in Calamity Jane, as Henry V in the Player Kings, etc).

I'm not overly convinced that deletion would be beneficial in this instance, as I believe he has been written about enough and has had significant enough roles over a 12+ year acting career across various forms of media (theatre, film, TV) to demonstrate presumed notability. There are numerous articles too that he should be linked from and currently isn't (e.g. Underbelly: Razor, Rake, Wonderland, list of Home and Away characters, Reef Break, Lambs of God)—including articles don't yet exist (such as the Player Kings). There's definitely potential for a fairly comprehensive article on his career and filmography here, there's just been no effort put into developing the article at any stage along the way, particularly with regards to inline sources.

I've listed some additional sources below, which are (mostly) in order of depth.

Sources:

- On the Couch with Andrew Cutcliffe, Australian Arts Review, 18 July 2024
- 5 Questions with Andrew Cutcliffe, Suzy Goes See, 9 May 2014
- The Dismissal review – Gough Whitlam musical both delights and drags, the Guardian, 6 September 2023
- Justin Smith steps into Gough Whitlam's shoes in the Dismissal, the Daily Telegraph, 16 June 2019 (paywalled)
- Smoky effects don't cloud zany humour in musical of classic Almodovar film, the Sydney Morning Herald, 12 May 2025 (paywalled)
- At last, tea is getting the official recognition it deserves, the Sydney Morning Herald, 25 May 2020 (paywalled)
- One Eyed Man Productions: Calamity Jane, Limelight, 1 November 2025
- The Dismissal – a musical about a political farce, City Hub Sydney, 11 July 2023
- Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown shines brighter than its flawed script, City Hub Sydney, 17 May 2025
- The Quick Five with the cast of Calamity Jane, Theatre Thoughts, 13 October 2025
- Betrayal review: Pinter at the Old Fitz in Sydney, Arts Hub, 25 July 2025
- The wild wild west comes to the Sydney Opera House with Calamity Jane, the AU Review, 20 October 2025
- The Young Tycoons – Darlinghurst Theatre Company and the resurrection of mistakes (Theatre Review), Lisa Thatcher, 23 May 2014
- Snow White – Winter Family Musical, The Sunday Telegraph (via Jo Litson: Scene and Heard), 8 July 2014
- The Young Tycoons (The Sunday Telegraph (via Jo Litson: Scene and Heard), 25 May 2014
- Theatre Reviews: The Player Kings, John Shand, 5 April 2025
- Karim, Theatre Red, 29 July 2024
- Andrew Cutcliffe – SJ Management, Sophie Jermyn Management (various credits, could be used as a primary source or as a search term)
- Andrew Cutcliffe Movies List, Rotten Tomatoes (credits, as above)

If deemed necessary, I would be supportive of a redirect to the Dismissal (musical)—which is probably his most significant role (Malcolm Fraser)—as an alternative to deletion. But I am convinced from what I've seen and read in the last hour or two researching that he is deserving of a standalone article separate from a hypothetical redirect. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note—I've found a few more:

- Short Film Winners, CinefestOZ Film Festival, 6 September 2025 (was the joint recipient of an award as the director for the short film "Gonzo")
- Betrayal, Stage Whispers, 10 August 2025
- The Dismissal (Squabbalogic and Watershed) – Theatre Review, the Blurb, (June–September) 2023
- Southern comfort from the 2016 Melbourne Tea Festival Teashirts, 5 June 2016
- Review: Karim at the National Theatre of Parramatta, Theatre Travels, 31 July 2014
- Interview on Sydney Mornings, 702 ABC Sydney with Hamish McDonald, 28 July 2023 (audio expired but probably available via the Wayback Machine or other archives)

More than enough sources available to develop a comprehensive article imo. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Australia. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE listing of roles. I don't believe this passes NACTOR, seems like someone with a good career as a working actor, but that's ROTM. The sourcing done by Sean Stephens is commendable, but a guest spot on an episode (or a few) of a TV show is not a significant role; strongest claim to notability appears to be for originating a part in The Dismissal and I don't see SIGCOV or other particularly notable roles, unless there's something notable about these other productions that isn't demonstrated here.—BrechtBro (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - I am only seeing some mentions on Google search. It may be WP:TOOSOON. Not enough independent reliable coverage were found. Goodboyjj (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Wratten

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

Lacks substantial coverage in independent sources (mostly interviews and brief mentions as a producer). BBC profile has a list of his works but I don't think it's enough to make an encyclopaedic article. As an WP:ATD (to preserve the history of this page), can be redirected to The Musketeers as his most quoted role. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Pike

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

Notability not established. In several of the sources provided, his name is merely mentioned as directing a music video without significant coverage. One of them looks like it's a site where you submit your own videos for coverage. There is an interview with him from 2010 that looks like it's someone's blog.

A BEFORE search hints that his "Model House" film got *some* coverage, but it's generally horror film blogs and not anything too reliable. Even if considered reliable, the coverage is of the film and not him as a filmmaker. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Advertising, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ricci

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. This page was also previously deleted. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless there was an attempt at another title for an article on the current subject, the surviving log entries for the first attempt at an article at this title (in 2021) indicate that iteration was about a lawyer, and thus presumably a different subject than the martial artist/special effects and stunt coordinator/film producer that is the current subject. (No opinion on the current article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was creating a new article and did not realize I was opening a deleted article for someone else with the same name. Based on the notoriety of this 60-year martial arts practitioner and leader of an international organization, as supported by several secondary sources, I am confident this will be approved. I should also note that I have no conflict of interest with this person or page, and it is not self-promoting in any way. Thanks for your attention. Jg16540 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Martial arts, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kelob2678 (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Mohan K

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

Limited references. Not meeting WP:NBIO. - The9Man ^Talk 11:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Both WP:A7 & WP:G15 apply. No need for a full discussion, Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Shyam Mohan (born 19 November 1962) is an Indian Telugu journalist, cartoonist, documentary filmmaker, and author. He is best known for his acclaimed book Jana Gana Mana Telangana, a collection of field reports highlighting rural deprivation in Telangana.

He founded the Rural Media YouTube channel in 2015, a digital platform dedicated to amplifying the voices of India’s most marginalized communities. Through powerful ground-level storytelling across more than 120 remote villages, his work has exposed critical gaps in rural development and contributed to real-world change and policy responses. Kasyap (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

added more references Kasyap (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks independent coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelob2678, please note that I have added independent references from leading Telugu media sits and newspapers : Kasyap (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please link them here. Kelob2678 (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelob2678 For your Reference

1) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Awards note

2) Eenadu Top Telugu News Paper Articles

3) Outlook (Indian magazine) leading English Media house about Shyam Mohan K works for Arcadian Voice

Please let me know of you need any further information, Thanks ! Kasyap (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot open the first and the third links. The second doesn't contain any significant coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

David Austin (actor)

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

May not be enough here for WP:NACTOR or MUSICBIO. KH-1 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Spartacus (TV series) characters, the only notable production to which he contributed. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoconutOctopus talk 11:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Dowd

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

No sources. The only source I could find was this blog post: https://mariekreft.co.uk/2011/09/17/up-in-the-air-travels-as-a-hollywood-producer/ Truthnope (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Sports, and Ice hockey. Truthnope (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

No sources at all, it should not have been approved in the first place . LumenArchivorum (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, external links to IMDb. This isnt WP:COI or someone getting paid, the article was created in like 2008. Must have just slipped through the cracks then and never really got looked at too closely. AML KING (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [72][73][74][75][76] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to his sister's article. Yes, we're aware that Dowd exists, but not only do none of WikiOriginal-9's links constitute WP:SIGCOV beyond namedrops and routine sports coverage, good grief, one's just a photograph. Ravenswing 20:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, all five have coverage of him. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiOriginal-9. The sources linked above mention his surname 7, 24, 16, 8, and 8 times respectively, clearly, WP:BASIC is met. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:WikiOriginal-9's sources. Additionally he was covered by this and this books. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was namedropped in those books. You're aware of what constitutes "significant coverage" per WP:SIGCOV, yes? Ravenswing 02:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that he got significant coverage in those books. I said "he was covered". SatnaamIN (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several articles are present that will establish notability, in particular these ones such asNYTimes, NY Times here show significant coverage on the subject. Goodboyjj (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG, rather what exists is mainly namedrops. Let'srun (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It fails WP:SIGCOV the person is repeatedly mentioned but it doesn't mean standalone notability. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WikiOriginal's sources are pretty obviously SIGCOV and I don't understand the argument against it. namedrops and routine sports coverage, good grief, one's just a photograph is a completely inaccurate description of the sources, particularly as all are detailed stories about him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's enough and with the 2 articles that User:Goodboyjj has provided, it makes it over the line. I can see why a deletion nomination was made though. It's hardly referenced and needs a ton of work.
Karl Twist (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Udhayan

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), no reliable, independent sources. All sources are unreliable per the Indian cinema taskforce. Only thing found in a WP:BEFORE was [77], which is unreliable. Redirect to Perarasu (film) his most notable film. Alternatively move Udhayan (film) to Udhayan. DareshMohan (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has directed 2 notable films – that's multiple and gets him pass WP:NDIRECTOR. I don't see any issue here. Am I missing on something? BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BhikhariInformer: There are no reliable, indepth sources about him. DareshMohan (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What am I missing? Fails WP:NDIRECTOR. Lacks significant coverage in independent and reliable sources to support a BLP. A BEFORE gave some confusion, so I added the film of the same name to the top of the article. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals #3 states, 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). The two films, dated 2006 and 2008 (apparently none since then), do not provide evidence that they are "significant or well-known work". The film Perarasu briefly mentions the subject in the lead and "Critical reception" sections. The film Aayudham Seivom also gives a brief mention in the lead and "Critical reception" section. There is one source (review), titled Ayudham Seivom makes no impact that states, "Directed by Udhayan of Perarasu fame". What fame? Awards, box office results, or other reliable sources? The only reference in the article concerns an actress being replaced. This indicates that IMDb (unreliable) is used as a source, or the article is full of original research. The notability is questioned, so there needs to be sources provided and not dubious unsourced words of support. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE, directed two notable movies and wrote a screenplay for additional three. Regarding "significance", the review linked above says he is famous. Additional sources are probably available in the Tamil language, in which his films were directed roughly two decades ago. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mouloud Achour (French-Algerian journalist)

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

Seems to be a WP:LLMT of the page on fr.wiki and includes the reference formatting code from the fr.wiki article: "Retrieved 27 September 2020" when the page was created on en.wiki in Dec 2025 JMWt (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Algeria, and France. JMWt (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Editor here. @JMWt, you’ve got it wrong here too. I speak French at a moderate level, but even though I’m still learning, I assure you this: I did not use any LLMs whatsoever. Plus, I was going to fix those dates too, but you just had to do this instead. That’s why I’m here now. Why are you doing this? Please, tell me now. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So where did you get the references from? How are the details in the code identical to those on fr.wiki? JMWt (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The references all come from the same references on the French Wiki, which tell you the same thing. And as I said, I was going to change the access dates too to match this year. So what’s the problem here. Is getting the same references from another wiki a bad thing or something? Jibblesnark86 (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
they don't though. If you had taken the references from fr.wiki and added them to en.wiki they wouldn't have the same dates. You took the code from fr.wiki. JMWt (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How else was I supposed to make the article then? Would you rather have me start from scratch than have me rewrite the code on enwiki? Is that what you’re saying. And anyway, are you a new page reviewer yourself. I’ve asked you this many times, never got an answer. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This was also accepted from AfC by @Josedimaria, who is an AfC reviewer. I have already messaged them and if they can chip in too, hopefully they can sort it out too. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Further: reference #2 and reference #12 are both broken links. JMWt (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I get the links, but did you even see the questions I had above? Jibblesnark86 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You checked all the references but you added broken links..? JMWt (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They were working when I added them. I promise you that. I checked it along with the rest. That should clarify this.

But I asked you multiple questions above. Please answer them now. Are you a new page reviewer? Jibblesnark86 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the page has not been working since before Dec 2024 JMWt (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you got me there. I probably used the wrong one. But it’s not like that’s a crime.

And I’ll ask you once more: Did you see my questions above…? Jibblesnark86 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it's fine to copy the citation template code when translating an article (and I wouldn't call it LLMT solely on that), I have doubts even a cursory check of the references was done given that long broken links were copied over as well... Jumpytoo Talk 02:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is notable which is important, could be marked with a {{LLM-assisted translation}} template to be rewritten by an experienced translator. Jô^hola 07:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have stubified it and will tag for expansion by a human. JMWt (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's somewhat concerning that the article was substantially reduced during the AfD process. ~2026-21450-46 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kelob2678 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it stands.Comment 'Article is notable which is important', it might be acceptable for the fr.Wiki, but by en.Wiki criteria it isn't. Now stubbed there is no indication of significance or importance and fails GNG. Among the vast plethora of sources on the fr.Wiki there are barely any that are acceptable by en.Wiki standards, and in-depth coverage is required. I know it's frustrating not to be able to use articles here from the fr.Wiki, but I have to live with that too. The solution is to start over, read all the French sources at bilingual level (I have), find sources that meet our critera first, then write the article. There is one source that makes the subject notable, namely the Nomination dans l'ordre des Arts et des Lettres - in 2019 as listed in the Bulletin Officiel, but others are needed. Avoid using LLM, but use a machine translation if you must, but then doing a thorough proofread being aware of the faux amis and false cognates. Do be aware that any help at AfC is voluntary; their basic remit is to advise, but more than at NPP which is a binary process. AfC is not the Article Rescue Squadron. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look at this, ignoring the fr.Wiki original. There are several reliable sources out there in French, but one needs to know one's way around French media. @Jibblesnark86, I think with a bit of work, this article could be expanded and adequately sourced. Don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page if you would like me to checkout some reliable French sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buddhist Academy Award winners and nominees

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

This seems to be an unencyclopedic cross-categorization arbitrarily relating winners of an award to their religious beliefs. It also fails the notability guideline for stand-alone lists; I could not find any sources discussing these people as a group during a quick search. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, Film, and Buddhism. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Awards, and Religion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -It lists notable persons with Buddhism.Problems with some entries can be fixed by improving sourcing and removing weak inclusions.This page should be developed further, not deleted. Y Ranasnghe (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This list follows Wikipedia rules and existing examples. Similar pages like List of Jewish Academy Award winners and nominees and List of Muslim Academy Award winners and nominees already exist, so this is not unusual (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Per WP:LISTN, a list does not need sources about the group as a whole, only a clear and verifiable rule, which this list has (Oscar winners and nominees with sourced Buddhist links). All information can be checked with reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS, with care for living people under WP:BLP. The page is useful because it helps readers understand Buddhism’s role in film and culture. Any problems can be fixed by improving the article per WP:IMPROVE—there is no need to delete it. ®️ICK JOSEPH (🗯️) 21:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the Muslim article, you can see it cites several sources identifying the listed people as "first Muslim winner in this category" or whatnot, so there's a case to be made for its notability. I think the Jewish list has the same issues as this one. (Also, linking to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually works against the argument you're making.) Do you have a rebuttal to the cross-categorization argument I made? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not random cross-categorization. It follows a clear and verifiable rule, which is allowed under WP:LISTCRITERIA. Per WP:LISTN and WP:V, the list does not need sources about the group—only that each person is properly sourced.

Their Buddhist connection is already cited on their own pages, so this list uses verifiable information, not original research (see WP:OR). Religion is also a meaningful part of culture, so this grouping is valid under WP:NPOV. The list helps readers navigate and understand the link between Buddhism and film per WP:LISTPURPOSE.

Any issues can be fixed per WP:IMPROVE—no need to delete the page. ®️ICK JOSEPH (🗯️) 22:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My understanding of NLIST is there needs to be some sort of coverage of the concept of a list. It need not be complete or comprehensive. There appears to be no such coverage here. Instead, google offers me sources for List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees. Similarly, the Muslim and Jewish equivalents have enough sourcing to pass. This article itself has basically no sourcing, and is not likely to improve that at present. Furthermore, a lot of the inclusions are questionable. Brad Pitt has toyed with Buddhism, but does not appear to be one. Harrison Ford isnt described as a Buddhist at all, and I know he is at least part Jewish. If sources can be presented, and the list cleaned up, I will be happy to change my position. And by sources, I mean discussing Buddhists at the Academy Awards. ← Metallurgist (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison Ford has been removed due to lack of reliable sourcing. Sources indicate Brad Pitt has engaged with and been influenced by Buddhist teachings, particularly during certain periods of his life. WP:NLIST does not require a single source covering the whole list. It is sufficient that each entry is supported by reliable, independent sources (see WP:LISTN and WP:VERIFY). Many valid lists are built this way per WP:LISTPURPOSE.

Issues with some entries are matters of WP:CONTENT improvement and WP:NOTCLEANUP, not deletion. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, the article should be improved rather than deleted. ®️ICK JOSEPH (🗯️) 06:24, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it needs a source to say a list IS notable. Individual sources saying A or B is a Buddhist does not qualify. This is made all the more apparent by Pitt himself, who has been involved with Buddhists, but hasnt outright said it, nor do any sources appear to classify him. Thats like saying Im a Catholic because I go to their fundraising dinners periodically, or that Im a Sikh because I wore a turban once 15 years ago. Im sure Ive even said the Shahada more than once, and Im not Muslim either. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Metallurgist: "My understanding of NLIST is there needs to be some sort of coverage of the concept of a list."

No, WP:LISTN does not say that. This is a common misunderstanding. What it says is that a list is notable of it has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources, but it does not say that those things that have not been discussed as a group are not notable. Rather it says, There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists... Jahaza (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What you said is self-refuting. Not to mention that there are clear sources for Muslim and Jewish and even Asian Academy Award winners as a group, so the lack of sources for this is a sharp contrast. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST. I can't find anything like this in the "wild". Being a Buddhist has little to do with film making as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To meet criteria the nexus of X and Y needs to be discussed in reliable sources. That means we need sources that discuss budgets academy award winners. On that basis the delete votes are policy based and the keep votes are not engaging policy. I'm going to relist to give the keep side a chance to demonstrate that nexus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz, WP:NLIST does not say that. Reliable sources discussing the nexus is described in the guideline as "One accepted reason" for list notability, however, it allows for the possibility of other reasons for notability as well as for "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes" regardless of notability. Jahaza (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @®️ICK JOSEPH (🗯️) I respect your position and involvement, however, this is a WP:CROSSCAT, because broad media currently does not individually cover/emphasize if Academy Award Winners are Buddhist (as opposed to being members of the LGBTQ+ community for example). MitYehor (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only because this is not a defining characteristic, but the title is confusing in itself (reading as if Buddhists have their own trophy called an Academy Award they award independently from AMPAS). Nathannah • 📮 23:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The concern about the title being confusing is not a valid reason for deletion or merging.It’s not suggesting Buddhists have their own awards, it’s just combining two sourced characteristics. If the phrasing isn’t ideal, that’s easy to fix. Josh Katz 12 (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue for me is that categories handle this, but the article is also poorly named and the subject matter should immediately be clear in the title for the layperson to avoid any confusion. Nathannah • 📮 00:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I plan to improve the article “List of Buddhist Academy Award winners and nominees.” I will work on fixing issues related to formatting, sourcing, and accuracy in accordance with WP:MOS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. My goal is to ensure the content is properly referenced, neutral, and consistent with Wikipedia standards. Suggestions and collaboration are welcome. Star Rider X ❯❯❯ 💌 17:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Josephite 25 All entries must be supported by reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, each item needs a clear, sourced connection to both Buddhism and the Academy Awards. Per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, do not combine sources to imply connections not explicitly stated. Unsourced or irrelevant entries should be removed. Josh Katz 12 (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted this as the user has been warned several times before for LLM usage and that is definitely not written by Josephite 25, and sharing a similar name and editing history with Rick Joseph (including their keep being eerrily similar to the LLM output from Josphite and related edits in Buddism topics) is a concern for me, and both would do well to dissuade us from that conclusion. Nathannah • 📮 00:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Josephite 25: @Rick Joseph: Please answer this question; your editing patterns both show a history of editing on this article and letting the other account 'take over' on other edits. I really do not want to take this to SPI. Nathannah • 📮 19:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I get why it might look that way but there’s no connection between the accounts. We both just edit Buddhism-related articles this is why overlapping on the same pages is happened. It's just a coincidence based on same interest. ®️ICK JOSEPH (🗯️) 05:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]